Yep.
"If the founders intended to allow federal powers to trump state powers in any and all ways, the 10th Amendment would make no sense."
Well, there are federal powers ... and all the rest are state powers. So says the 10th.
The powers don't conflict. In this case, the federal law written under the power to regulate commerce conflicts with the state law written under the police power of the state.
"I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
-Clarence Thomas