Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
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,
anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
(Original emphasis kept)
According to this section of the U.S. constitution, the rights of individual states dictate how the U.S. constitution is to be written: with
the rights of the states coming first.
It’s the second clause of Article VI, and it’s colloquially referred to as the Supremacy Clause.
And, contrary to what many would rather believe, and what you are asserting here, it does not
say laws of the states supersede federal law.
Quite the opposite.
The problem is, is that it is written in such a way as to easily confuse the average reader. Thankfully Pearce is not your average reader.I'm
not taking this out of context either. On the contrary, I'm putting it INTO context.
I will presume that you honestly believe it to be the
correct interpretation, and this is not some attempt to distort something that has been settled, for centuries, in constitutional jurisprudence.
It seems clear to me, particularly from the emphasis you used, that you are interpreting the last statement of the clause — “anything in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding
” — to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means.
Notwithstanding is a term frequently used in legal contexts and it means “in spite of.” So the Supremacy Clause, under more common language, could
be read as—
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States (...) shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound
thereby, in spite of anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary.
The last statement of the Supremacy Clause then, actually, and explicitly, says the United States Constitution and federal law supersede state law,
not the contrary.
These particular questions have been settled since at least the Marshall Supreme Court in the early 1800s, and reaffirmed multiple times since then,
but I understand how some people, for political gain, or for ideological reasons, would rather pretend the Constitution, in some instances, doesn’t
say what it clearly does.