The Supremacy Clause

                                                                    by   Bruce Kettler


Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution has been publicly declared by law professors to mean that all U.S. Federal Government laws are supreme, that they supposedly have absolute authority over the States. This, of course, is nonsense.

All any rational person needs to understand this is a copy of the U.S. Constitution, a dictionary, and The Federalist Papers.  You don't need advice, you don't need a law degree, nor do you need a new supreme court decision.  You do, however, need to understand that "constitution" means what something consists of.  Therefore, the essential nature of the U.S. is its Constitution.  When people try to change the nature of the U.S. away from it's Constitution, they are "killing their country."  Our nation was "conceived in liberty."  Liberty is a natural, healthy, state for mankind, and tyranny is not.  Most recent violations of the U.S. Constitution have been leading Americans down a rocky, and difficult, road towards complete tyrannical rule.

Pay particular attention to the words, "in pursuance thereof" from Article 6.  "Pursuance" means that which proceeds after, or follows.  "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme law of the land."  If the so-called "law" does not follow the U.S. Constitution, it is not supreme.

                                           The Federalist Papers - Federalist No. 33

But it is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land... If a number of political societies [states] enter into a larger political society, [United States] the laws which the latter, [United States] may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its Constitution [emphasis mine] must necessarily be supreme over those societies [states]...  But it will not [emphasis mine] follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society [The United States] which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, [states] will become the supreme law of the land.  These will be merely acts of usurpation [wrongful or illegal encroachment] and will deserve to be treated as such.
The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  What is "reserved to the States respectively"?  To give one example, Montana has recently, and officially, reserved the right of their State to rule regarding firearms manufactured in their State.  No such power was ever "delegated" to the United States, so it is "reserved to [their State]."  Still, federal "laws" have been enacted in an attempt to rule over ownership of firearms. Such "laws" are considered "null and void," and disregarded by many people.  An example of a law that is "delegated to the United States" is for treason against the United States, and then the U.S. Congress has power to declare the punishment for it.

What if your state wishes to pass a law against abortion?  The polls show many disapprove of abortion these days.  It's considered to be murder.  If people of a certain state make it clear that they want a law that prohibits abortion, a state may bring about, and enforce, that law within the state.  The U.S. Supreme Court has "ruled" otherwise, but what business is it of theirs?  The issue of abortion was not "delegated to the United States by the Constitution," neither to the the executive branch, nor the legislative, and certainly not the judicial.  In my opinion, if the founders were presented with the option to delegate that particular power to the federal government, they would have refused.

The U.S. Supreme Court powers are described in Article III, section 1 and 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

That is the judicial power of the United States.  That is not a judicial power over any individual state.  That's why they have power in matters such as "controversies between two or more states."

If a supposed interpreter of the U.S. Constitution violates their own obligation to obey that Constitution, of what worth is their ruling?  If the President of the United States violates his/her own oath to the constitution, of what worth are his/her commands that violate it?  Suppose a police chief commands his/her officers to rob a bank?  Of what worth are those commands?  Will the police chief then start re-interpreting laws against robbery?

There is no necessity for a supreme court decision to ascertain the validity of state nullification of U.S. law. Though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the sovereignty of states, the odds are no longer as favorable that they will do so in the future.  It's best not to appeal to that court at this time.  What are you going to do, ask the fox to rule about whether he has jurisdiction over the henhouse?  Of course he will say he has jurisdiction!  He wants to eat the hens!  When it comes to state sovereignty, or official nullification of federal laws, that should be ruled upon within the respective state, or other jurisdiction, with no appeal to any U.S. district courts.  The U.S. Government should be notified, in writing, of declarations of sovereignty, and refusal to obey unconstitutional "laws."  Notify, but do not appeal.  Do not beg for, or argue about, to the federal government, what is clearly, and rightfully yours.  Just quote the constitution, provide a dictionary interpretation for certain words, and quote pertinent federalist paper writing.  Except in the case of a proposed state unconstitional "law," it is entirely up to the local jurisdiction to decide upon law "reserved to the States..." within that jurisdiction.

I wonder why state legislatures even take so many months to argue the matter of state sovereignty amongst themselves.  It's clearly their right, so why don't they just get together, and all sign a paper declaring the obvious?  Anyone not agreeing to it, including the governor, should be subject to immediate recall through petition of the people, and a special election.  If they do not understand, and agree with, their state and U.S. Constitutions, they should not be in office.

Many county and city governments have broken away from unlawful attempted usurpation of The U.S. Government over their jurisdictions.  They, as well as states, have that power.  The Bill of Rights Defense Committee ( has been instrumental in gaining State, County, and City independence from the unconstitutional so-called "Patriot Act," to give one example.  The County Sheriff has always been the chief law enforcement officer of their county, above any federal agents, or unconstitutional so-called "law," when he or she is acting constitutionally and lawfully.  So-called federal "laws" that contradict that power are null and void.