This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
IMO that's one vague ass run on sentence.
What I understand of that is this:
The constitution and the laws that are made in accordance with said constitution (and treaties) should be the supreme law of the land.
This is where it seems vague or even contradictory.
Judges should rule according to the constitution, federal law or state law, assuming they do not contradict.
Now I think it's a safe assumption that they are implying that fed law is supreme by the first half. That second half though I feel could possibly leave ambiguity in that it doesn't direct a judge as to which law would be higher in the case of contradiction. And to okay devil's advocate on that part, it doesn't mention enforcing or following federal laws. It quite clearly says:
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
If you take the thereby to include the previous half, that would include federal law. But if you don't, and where I'll play devil's advocate here it directs judges to follow the Constitution and state laws assuming no contradiction.
Which will bring me back to the first part following the same train of thought. They talk about The United States. Are they talking about a singular federal entity, or are they talking about a group of states in which laws are made accordingly?
I picked it apart a bit too much even for my liking. I as the clause is, you get a general sense of what it's trying to accomplish, but trying to nail down specifics with a sentence like that I think would be difficult to prove one way or another short of digging the guys up and asking.
I'm no expert, but the impression I got from the clause was that as long as the law is in-line with the constitution then states are bound by federal law.
However, if there is a federal law that does not meet with the constitution, the federal law can take a walk.
Well please educate me how the supremacy clause is supposed to work as i am genuinely curious. Not trying to be funny because id like this to be true.
For reference
IMO that's one vague ass run on sentence.
What I understand of that is this:
This is where it seems vague or even contradictory.
Now I think it's a safe assumption that they are implying that fed law is supreme by the first half. That second half though I feel could possibly leave ambiguity in that it doesn't direct a judge as to which law would be higher in the case of contradiction. And to okay devil's advocate on that part, it doesn't mention enforcing or following federal laws. It quite clearly says:
If you take the thereby to include the previous half, that would include federal law. But if you don't, and where I'll play devil's advocate here it directs judges to follow the Constitution and state laws assuming no contradiction.
Which will bring me back to the first part following the same train of thought. They talk about The United States. Are they talking about a singular federal entity, or are they talking about a group of states in which laws are made accordingly?
I picked it apart a bit too much even for my liking. I as the clause is, you get a general sense of what it's trying to accomplish, but trying to nail down specifics with a sentence like that I think would be difficult to prove one way or another short of digging the guys up and asking.
I'm no expert, but the impression I got from the clause was that as long as the law is in-line with the constitution then states are bound by federal law.
However, if there is a federal law that does not meet with the constitution, the federal law can take a walk.
This.