Here is an example of two primary sources of law that conflict, a state statute and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

\n

South Dakota has long been a state advocating the right to life. In fact, its legislature defines any abortion as the taking of a human life. Here are some relevant statutes:http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Statute=34-23A&Type=Statute

\n

Also, it has been expected that what South Dakota is doing is setting up an eventual challenge to the Roe v. Wade decision, seeking to chip away at a woman\'s right or overturning that case altogether. A federal court has already blocked the law: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/AbortionOrder.pdf

\n

Depending on how this election turns out and who decides to leave the U.S. Supreme Court over the next several years, some interesting questions on this issue may surface.

\n

Another example is the conflict between the Arizona immigration statute and the Fourth Amendment.

\n

Conflicting Primary Sources