That would be very strange. Not even the US constitution has that because it would be legally redundant. Of course a law that is inconsistent with the constitution is invalid. There's no need to state that.
What the US constitution does is in itself unusual when it specifically calls out what types of laws Congress can't pass rather than setting out principles that would render these laws invalid because they'd conflict.
E.g. Norway's constitution used to have a clause that states a "right to work" rather than stating that parliament can not pass laws that have the effect of restricting peoples right to work. The effect is the same, and the former approach is to my knowledge far more common in constitutional law.
> In passing a law that knowingly violates the constitution, the politicians are acting to _enable_ crimes, or rather, actions considered crimes under existing legislation.
A major part of a parliaments function is to alter what is considered crimes under existing legislation. If they can not do this without fear of criminal prosecution if one of these laws are found to conflict with the constitution... Well, that constitution would be amended very quickly after it becomes obvious no laws gets passed anymore once politicians fear the whims of a constitutional court which can change with every new appointment.