drake argued that, because of the similarities between the australian and united states constitutions in this respect, it was useful to look at decisions of american courts in united states constitutional law when interpreting the australian constitution. drake referenced the 1819 decision of "mcculloch v maryland", in which the supreme court of the united states held that the us states may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the united states government, and argued that a similar interpretation should apply to the australian constitution. justice o'connor noted that the australian constitution already contains express provisions in dealing with the relationship between the state and federal governments, and asked whether it was not so that as a result "any state law which does not conflict with the express provisions of commonwealth law must be held good?" to this, drake responded that the inconsistency provision in section 109, should be regarded as applying not only to federal statutes but to the constitution itself, including to implied powers under it. drake then dealt with a number of decisions of american and canadian courts in which "mcculloch v. maryland", had been distinguished or held not to apply, and argued that they all involved questions distinct from the one in this case.