In such cases the people of the state have it in their hands to remove the opposition of their judiciary, by amending their state constitution so as to permit the desired legislation. This was done in New York with reference to legislative control of labor performed in connection with state and municipal works, and in Colorado, with regard to hours of labor in specified occupations and other branches of industry which the legislature might deem injurious to health. So the new constitution of Michigan provides (art. V, § 29) that the legislature shall have power to enact laws relative to the hours and conditions under which women and children may be employed. If such constitutional amendment is adequately framed and the new legislation conforms to its provisions--in Colorado the supreme court held that an eight-hour law for women enacted after the amendment fell short of satisfying the requirements of the amended constitution[72]--there is nothing but the federal constitution that can be superior to the new law. If the federal Supreme Court has held that such a law does not violate the federal constitution, the construction must be binding upon the state court. True, if the state court should presume to place upon the federal constitution a construction more unfavorable to legislative power than the federal Supreme Court, there would be no possibility, under the federal statutes, of reviewing or reversing that decision, but it is almost inconceivable that a state supreme court should take such a position and override the most authentic and authoritative interpretation of the highest law of the land, provided by that law. As a matter of fact, such a course has never been taken, and need not be apprehended.