Talk:Article Six of the United States Constitution

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

United States Constitution High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Constitution, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Constitution of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States ConstitutionWikipedia:WikiProject United States ConstitutionTemplate:WikiProject United States ConstitutionUnited States Constitution articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Events."

U.S. Congress High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) Thing(s).

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Introduction

The introduction should be rewritten. Its very unclear of what exactly Article Six is about. Arthur92710 (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supremacy

We know that the Constitution supersedes treaties, and treaties supersede state law. But in reference to situations in which a treaty conflicts with federal legislation, can someone please cite the Supreme Court case that established which takes precedence? If I'm not mistaken, the one that was enacted later takes precedence. 205.217.105.2 17:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above is a fabrication. Treaties do not supersede state law. A state can nulify a treaty if it is unconstitutional and congress will not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.21.141 (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the description of Reid v. Covert. The ruling does not say that the constituion is supreme over treaties. It says no one can use a treaty as an end run around the constitution to accrue powers not conferred or governed by the constitution. Those are very very different things. As an example: W could get a treaty written that names him the sole arbiter of laws of trade with Afghanistan and Iraq. Those two nations could sign and ratify it. The Senate could vote unanimously to ratify it, and it would still not be law, as the congress has the right to legislate in this area, not the executive. W would receive powers from the treaty that he cannot claim under the constitution.

Bricker Amendment

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reid v. Covert

"Reid v. Covert (1957) ruled that no branch of the United States Government can have powers conferred upon it by treaty that have not been conferred by the United States Constitution" is incorrect. The holding in Reid v. Covert is that international agreements entered into by executive order, not by Senate ratification, cannot supercede the Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.59.0 (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition of Religious Tests vs. Federal Oaths

An edit by Is Mise on 7 April contends that the final clause of many U.S. federal oaths ("so help me God," etc.) is religious in nature and is therefore severely restricted or invalidated as an unconstitutional religious test under Article VI§3. While I agree that these oaths are dubious, I feel that this edit trends into original research. Citations and background are required for such a claim to hold up. I have read variously that "so help me god" is merely a verbal styling added to the end of many oaths that is neither obligatory nor part of the oath itself (see the articles on U.S. Presidential and Vice Presidential oaths and U.S. Federal, Civil Service oaths, etc.) I have not reverted Is Mise's edits; I hope that someone qualified (with a J.D.?) to evaluate their claims will either substantiate them or delete them.Auranor (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JFK's implicit test

The last part of "Oaths" talks about an "implicit, but no less effective, religious test" in connection with JFK, without ever describing it, and I found no explanation in the linked speech, the John F. Kennedy or the Oath of office of the President of the United States articles. Can someone in the know please expand and add references? 46.115.152.160 (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Article Six of the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211012558/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]