How does constitutional validity affect the compact?

The relationship between constitutional validity and the effectiveness of the compact is nuanced. The assertion that the compact remains effective despite potential conflicts with state constitutions highlights a principle of federalism where interstate agreements can operate under existing federal laws, even if certain state constitutional provisions are at odds with them.

In this context, compact agreements often focus on harmonizing laws across state lines and creating uniformity. When the compact is deemed valid by the relevant authorities, its enforceability is typically maintained, even if individual states have constitutions that may introduce conflicting provisions. This suggests a prioritization of the overarching legal framework that governs the compact's operation, thereby ensuring its continued effectiveness as a legal tool for states to collaborate on shared concerns.

Additionally, while conflicts with state constitutions can lead to legal challenges, the compact itself can often still provide the basis for legal cooperation, and those conflicts are typically resolved through judicial interpretations or amendments rather than outright invalidation of the compact. Therefore, recognizing the compact's effectiveness in the face of state constitutional issues reflects the complexity and adaptability of legal frameworks in accommodating interstate agreements.