[As for the supremacy clause your statement is a non-sequitur]
You asked, in complete ignorance of the facts, the question:
[Can one law defeat another?]
Now you claim the Supremacy clause, which deals exactly with the issue of one law defeating another, is a non-sequitur[sic]?  You sir, are either an idiot (tossing around the term non sequitur without understanding) or a liar (claiming it is a non sequitur in bad faith).
It seems to me that you asked this question in the ludicrous belief that one law cannot defeat another law and now trying to marginalize the fact that laws can defeat other laws without being, as you claimed, "an absurdity."  If this is how you handle disagreement, and more importantly being shown how ignorant you are, then this is a waste of time.  You'll use any self-serving justification, regardless of how ridiculous, to ignore anything that doesn't support your prejudicial position, ie. you've closed your mind.