The powers are distributed in a federal system. But often, the jurisdiction of the federal government and that of the state/province/etc. can intersect for a particular subject matter (e.g. federal bankruptcy proceedings and contracts under state law; local labour and zoning regulations of federal corporations).
In several federal systems (see examples below), a validly enacted constitutional federal law prevails over contradictory laws of a constituting state/province/canton, even if they are also validly and constitutionally enacted.
For example, Article Six of the United States Constitution:
[...] the Laws of the United States [...] shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Federal law takes precedence over any conflicting provision of cantonal law.
Australian constitution provides the same:
- When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
In Canada, there is a doctrine of federal paramountcy based on section 91 of the 1867 constitution:
[...] it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated [...]
where the bold part is interpreted as to give the Parliament paramount power over enumerated subjects.
Question: Are there federations or similar political system where the local law is given preference/primacy/supremacy/paramountcy?
Historical examples are not excluded. Local primacy in a particular subject matter is included.
Confederations and bodies like EU are also acceptable to me. But the primacy should not be in the form of vetos at legislative stage or having an option to leave.