Comment: No. It does not. That's a common misconception.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Federal law supercedes State law (see in situ)

No. It does not. That's a common misconception.

If you actually read it, the most important part of the Supremacy Clause that you really should've emboldened is:

which shall be made in Pursuance thereof

A law that is not made in pursuance to the Constitution, is NOT a law at all.

THAT, is what that really states.

That's not that "Federal law supercedes State law", it's about the Constitution superceding any other law of the land (Common Law). And, as the 9th and 10th clarifies, anything not explicitly delegated in the Constitution shall remain reserved to the People and the States.

Fed. Govt is NOT the Constitution. Granted, they're tyrannical and are clearly not acting Constitutionally right now, but technically, Federal Govt has no powers that the People or their Reps in States did not delegate to it, period.

Supremacy Clause has always been about all laws NOT made in accordance to the Constitution, shall be considered null and void.

In fact that's where the popular phrase "An UnConstitutional 'law' is no law at all!" originated from.

The Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution FOR the United States of America SUPREME, not Fed law, nor State Law, only those laws that conform to the Constitution shall have the force of the law. That, in essence is what the following means:

...any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

"any Thing CONTRARY notwithstanding."

Anything contrary to the Constitution and laws made NOT "in pursuance thereof," do not count, does not stand. That's pretty literal as it can get.

This whole Feds superceding the State canard is a byproduct of almost a century of Progressive public indoctrination centers.

On a fundamental philosophical basis, ask yourself this: if our republic is constructed based on the notion of "consent of the governed" (okay not really practiced in reality, but for the sake of discussion, you get the gist), how does an entity created by a group of people become superior to the original masters that created it??

This is 9th and 10th Amendment 101.

Are you familiar with what the Latin root word for "Federal" is?

It's "Foedus."

It means a compact, a contract, or a consensual voluntary agreement.

The Founders certainly understood what the term "federal" meant. We do not have a "national" govt, per-se, legally specifically speaking.

The People elected State Reps, then those State Reps created the Constitution which created a Federal compact. That compact, or contract is in fact what the Constitution is. And to enforce that contract, the Federal Govt was "created by Constitution," which was created by the State reps (reps at Constitutional Convention who 'violated' their original intent to 'fix' the Articles of Confederation which IMO is much more freer as they had no unitary executive, nor powers to tax, but that's for another thread altogether), whom the People elected.

So you have to ask yourself, how does a legal entity created by the People and their reps in State govt, become "superior" to the original masters who created it and delegated (not relinquished) specifically enumerated powers to it?

It's not "superior," period.

Here's Tom Woods on what the Founders actually said about the Supremacy Clause:

What Did the Supremacy Clause Mean?

Here’s what the people were told it meant at the state ratifying conventions, which is what matters. (I’ll be a sport and not even mention the proto-nullification arguments made at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, which settle the argument, though you can get the story in my Nullification or in Kevin Gutzman’s James Madison and the Making of America.)

Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s convention: “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added).

In Federalist #33, Hamilton added: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution….”

Thomas McKean, at the Pennsylvania convention: “The meaning [of the Supremacy Clause] which appears to be plain and well expressed is simply this, that Congress have the power of making laws upon any subject over which the proposed plan gives them a jurisdiction, and that those laws, thus made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be binding upon the states” (emphasis added).

James Iredell, at the First North Carolina convention: “When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.”

For more on this, see Brion McClanahan’s Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul