nicholls then engaged with griffith cj in an exchange about the relationship between the australian and united states constitutions. griffith cj challenged nicholls to identify any differences between the two which would make the principles from american cases such as "mcculloch v maryland", inapplicable, nicholls pointing out section 107, which preserves or "saves" the powers of the state parliaments (except for powers given exclusively to the federal parliament). griffith cj suggested that there was no material difference between this provision and the tenth amendment, but nicholls argued that section 107 was far clearer, and further suggested that "the contention that the implied powers of the commonwealth can over-ride state laws seems hardly consistent with it."