To be specific, I’ll ask what is supposed to happen if the federal government of the USA passes two laws such that it is logically impossible to enforce both.
That’s the specific version, but comments about other legal systems would be welcome as well.
The general rule is to reconcile them so far as possible; to the degree that it’s not possible, the more recent law takes precedence over the older one.
Usually nothing happens till it winds up in court and a judge decides which one is correct. The newer one usually trumps the old one, unless declared unconstitituional.
Federal laws only apply to federal institutions, unless they are brought in to the state, through various means such as the “Commerce” clause or the 14th Admendment’s “Due Process” clause
That’s a bit misleading. What you’re talking about is how parts of the constitution, originally applying only to the feds, get “incorporated” to apply to the states.
There are plenty of federal laws that apply to the states. Some are specifically designed to do so.
Isn’t this one of the functions of the US Supreme Court?
Somebody (convicted under the one law) appeals on the basis that the law is contradicted by this other law. The case is appealed at each level until the Supremes weigh in.
Alternatively, some Congress-critter could introduce legislation to clarify the contradictory laws, after of course first checking with the [del]constituents[/del] lobbyists.
But not through compelling power. The feds can bribe, but not force, he states, outside of a COnstitutional Mandate to do so. That, at least, is one aspect of the Consitution which has not been handwaved away.