[Tailgunner Joe]

But it is said, that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land. But what inference can be drawn from this or what would they amount to, if they were not to be supreme? It is evident they would amount to nothing. A LAW by the very meaning of the term includes supremacy. It is a rule which those to whom it is prescribed are bound to observe.

But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a Foederal Government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the Convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood though it had not been expressed. - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 33

[tpaine]

And your source as to the intent of Article IV?
141 Tailgunner Joe

______________________________________


Words have meaning.

The framers wrote in Article VI that our Constitution is the "Law of the Land", -- the "Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding".

This is a fact, not my interpretation. 146 tpaine

______________________________________


Tailgunner Joe rebuts:

"--- But it is said, that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land.
But what inference can be drawn from this or what would they amount to, if they were not to be supreme? It is evident they would amount to nothing. A LAW by the very meaning of the term includes supremacy. It is a rule which those to whom it is prescribed are bound to observe.

But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies will become the supreme law of the land.

These will be merely acts of usurpation and will deserve to be treated as such.
Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a Foederal Government.

It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution;
which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the Convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood though it had not been expressed."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 33


______________________________________


What have you proved by quoting Hamilton, joe?

If anyone here can wade through his tortured syntax, they might agree with me that he supports my position more than he supports yours.