pre emption.” L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 391 (1978). Viewed in this light, the Order “conflicts” with federal law if, and to the extent that, it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399, 404, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941). In conducting this inquiry, we remain mindful of the fact that “ [a]n unexpressed purpose of Congress to set aside statutes of the states regulating their internal affairs is not lightly to be" inferred and ought not to be implied where the legislative command, read in the light of its history, remains ambiguous.” Penn Dairies, 318 U.S. at 275, 63 S.Ct. at 623; cf. Amalgamated Transit Union, Div. 819 v. Byrne, 568 F.2d 1025, 1029 (3d Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). B. Congressional legislation authorizing
holding that where a conflict between state and federal law is alleged it must be reasonable to conclude that congress would have intended to preclude the state law in question since it would make little sense to preempt state law in order to serve the purposes underlying federal legislation if congress itself would not require or admit of preemption of state authority holding that requiring a permit and the restoration of the land after the mining operations had concluded did not preempt federal law however the court did recognize that where a state regulation rendered it impossible to exercise a right granted through federal legislation that state regulation would be in conflict with the federal right holding that the application of an element of a state law tort is preempted if in holding a defendant hable for the conduct  there would be conflict with federal patent law holding that it would be inappropriate to predict whether state law would foreclose state postconviction review of the petitioners habeas claim where the state permitted second or successive state petitions when the procedural bar would result in fundamental injustice holding that in light of the presumption against preemption there is no field preemption of state unfair competition claims that rely on a substantial question of federal patent law because congress has not expressed its clear and manifest intention to preempt that area of law