Re: What is "supreme Law"?


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Two Cities on September 22, 1998 at 23:42:13:

In Reply to: What is "supreme Law"? posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 22, 1998 at 13:37:33:

Senate Manual:
766.2 \2\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 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.

Somewhere else:
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.

Literal print via some gov. location:
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.

My take on things:
This Constitution [the Constitution for the United States of America],
and the Laws [some specific laws of a defined class] of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance [a particular rule] thereof [which made
the Laws]; and all Treaties [an enumerated class] made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority [a special authority] of the United States, shall
be the supreme [over-riding, not capitalized] Law [specific] of the Land
[the dominion]; and the Judges [some certain judges] in every State [?]
shall be bound thereby, any Thing [what may this thing be] in the Constitution
or Laws of any state [nation] to the Contrary [particular contrarian]
notwithstanding.

It is easy enough to realize, that the popular profusion of this
document, carries with it certain distortions. If someone would post a
good site for retrieval of image quality manuscript [even though a skilled
artist with 'photo-shop' could doctor it] I'd appreciate.

So in this document there is no "Supreme Law". There appears to be a
"supreme Law of the Land"

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT OF WASHINGTON.

(Approved March 2, 1853.) [10 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 90 p 172.]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this act,
all that portion of Oregon Territory lying and being south of the forty-ninth
degree of north latitude, and north of the middle of the main channel of the
Columbia River, from its mouth to where the forty-sixth degree of north latitude
crosses said river, near Fort Wallawalla, thence with said forty-sixth degree of
latitude to the summit of the Rocky Mountains, be organized into and constitute
a temporary government by the name of the Territory of Washington: Provided,
That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to affect the authority of
the government of the United States to make any regulation respecting the Indians
of said Territory, their lands, property, or other rights, by treaty, law, or
otherwise, which it would have been competent to the government to make if this
act had never been passed: Provided further, That the title to the land, not
exceeding six hundred and forty acres, now occupied as missionary stations among
the Indian tribes in said Territory, or that may have been so occupied as
missionary stations prior to the passage of the act establishing the Territorial
government of Oregon, together with the improvements thereon, be, and is hereby,
confirmed and established to the several religious societies to which said
missionary stations respectively belong.

===================================
This Act may have been necessary in order to recognize the formation of Oregon
as a separate state. Oregon spent a number of years gaining admittance.
Observe the 'style of the Act. [who is the 'lawmaker']
===================================

If this body was acting under the 1787 Constitution, their form preserves
the identity. Is this the form today? Or is this a 'dead letter'?

The admission of Ohio is a curious incident. Evidently the first pass through
got botched, and they did it over again 150 years later. Were they able to resurrect
the old legislative body?



Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]