Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution: Overview and Application

-

 

Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution: Overview

Article VI, Clause 2, commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the Constitution as the highest law of the land. It ensures that federal laws and treaties made pursuant to the Constitution take precedence over conflicting state laws and decisions. This clause is foundational for upholding the rule of law in the United States.

Text of the Supremacy Clause

“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.”

Key Principles

  1. Supremacy of the Constitution:
    The Constitution overrides all conflicting state laws, regulations, and actions by state officials.

  2. Binding Authority on State Officials:
    State judges, legislators, and executive officials are obligated to enforce federal law and uphold constitutional rights.

  3. Invalidation of Unconstitutional Actions:
    Any state law, policy, or directive that conflicts with the Constitution or federal law is void and unenforceable.

Application to Sheriff Norton’s Duties

Sheriff Norton, as a state official, is directly bound by the Supremacy Clause to uphold the Constitution. His primary obligation is not to state laws, court orders, or administrative directives, but to the Constitution of the United States. This principle has several implications for his role in the case of Mr. Zachary Travis Moore.

1. Upholding Constitutional Rights

  • Sheriff’s Duty:

    • As a sworn officer, Sheriff Norton is obligated to ensure that no individual’s constitutional rights are violated under his watch. This includes protecting Mr. Moore’s rights to property, due process, and liberty under the 5th and 14th Amendments.

  • Application to Mr. Moore’s Case:

    • If the foreclosure and eviction process violates Mr. Moore’s constitutional rights (e.g., through an invalid mortgage or lack of due process), the Sheriff is duty-bound to refuse enforcement, even if ordered by a state court.

2. Refusing to Enforce Unconstitutional Court Orders

  • Supremacy Over State Courts:

    • The Supremacy Clause makes clear that any state court order that conflicts with constitutional protections is void and unenforceable.
    • Precedent: In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court affirmed that state officials, including law enforcement, cannot ignore constitutional rights, even when carrying out state court directives.

  • Application to Sheriff Norton:

    • If the foreclosure order is based on unconstitutional grounds—such as a lack of valid consideration for the mortgage or violations of due process—the Sheriff must decline to enforce it.

3. Accountability Under Federal Law

  • Personal Liability for Violations:
    • Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state officials, including sheriffs, can be held personally liable for depriving individuals of their constitutional rights under color of state law.
    • Relevance to Sheriff Norton:
      • If Sheriff Norton enforces an eviction that violates Mr. Moore’s constitutional rights, he risks civil liability for his actions.

Case Law Supporting Sheriff Norton’s Obligations

1. Marbury v. Madison (1803)

  • Principle: "An act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void."
  • Relevance: Any state court order or statute that conflicts with the Constitution is unenforceable. Sheriff Norton must assess whether his actions comply with constitutional mandates, regardless of court directives.

2. Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

  • Principle: State officials, including governors and law enforcement, are bound by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.
  • Relevance: Sheriff Norton has no discretion to enforce orders that violate Mr. Moore’s constitutional rights, as doing so would contravene the Supremacy Clause.

3. Ex Parte Young (1908)

  • Principle: State officials may be sued in their official capacity for enforcing unconstitutional laws or orders.
  • Relevance: If Sheriff Norton enforces an unconstitutional foreclosure order, he could be held liable for violating Mr. Moore’s rights.

Potential Violations of the Supremacy Clause in Mr. Moore’s Case

  1. Unconstitutional Foreclosure:

    • If the mortgage lacks valid consideration (e.g., fiat currency), enforcing the foreclosure would violate constitutional protections under the 5th and 14th Amendments.

  2. Violation of Property Rights:

    • The forced eviction of Mr. Moore without valid legal grounds infringes upon his constitutionally protected right to property.

  3. State Court Overreach:

    • A state court’s order to evict Mr. Moore cannot override his constitutional protections. Enforcing such an order would make Sheriff Norton complicit in violating the Supremacy Clause.

Sheriff Norton’s Path Forward

  1. Review the Constitutionality of the Foreclosure:

    • Determine whether Mr. Moore’s mortgage and foreclosure comply with constitutional protections, including the validity of the underlying contract.

  2. Refuse to Enforce Unconstitutional Orders:

    • Decline to execute any eviction or foreclosure actions that violate Mr. Moore’s rights, even if ordered by the court.

  3. Uphold the Constitution Above All Else:

    • As emphasized in Article VI, Clause 2, Sheriff Norton’s ultimate duty is to the Constitution, not to state-level directives or court orders that conflict with it.

Conclusion

The Supremacy Clause makes it clear that Sheriff Norton is obligated to uphold the Constitution above all else. In Mr. Moore’s case, this means refusing to enforce any eviction or foreclosure that violates constitutional protections, regardless of court orders or state law. Failure to do so risks violating Mr. Moore’s rights and exposing Sheriff Norton to personal liability under federal law. His oath to the Constitution demands integrity, courage, and unwavering commitment to constitutional principles.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. (2025) Affirmative Opinion in the Voice of Justice Alito

-
Image
  Supreme Court of the United States Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. Opinion of the Court by the voice of Justice Alito Delivered January 14, 2025 Today, this Court renders a decision of profound constitutional and societal importance. At issue is whether the foreclosure proceedings initiated by Alliant Credit Union against Mr. Zachary Moore—based on a mortgage loan derived from fiat currency—violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This case also raises broader questions about the legality of a monetary system that facilitates perpetual debt cycles through fiat currency and usury. After careful consideration, we hold that the foreclosure proceedings, as applied to Mr. Moore, constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of his rights to property and due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Further, we find that the systemic exploitation inherent in the fiat currency system and its application to the facts of...
Read more

Citing RICO Violations to stop unlawful debt collections

-
Who is Zach Moore? and what to know about my movement If you’re reading this, take it as a call to prepare—for yourself, your family, and the world around you. At the heart of my movement is a simple but powerful truth:  any contract secured with a lie, or a claim not backed by anything real (like the U.S. dollar and debt), cannot be enforced.  Moreover, those who attempt to collect on these fraudulent contracts are committing crimes and are liable to RICO charges for perpetuating a system built on deception. I’m Zachary Moore, and I’m leading a movement to destroy the U.S. dollar, bankrupt billionaires, and end the tyranny of usury. I grew up in a trailer in Alabama, surrounded by the poverty and oppression that debt creates. I worked my way out, earning $550,000 a year as a top sales consultant, but in 2023, I realized I was part of the problem—a system built on lies, fiat currency, and the exploitation of human labor. So, I walked away. I quit my lucrative job, defaulted on...
Read more

Response to Alliant Credit Union

-
  Re: Loan Number XXXX To whom it may concern, My name is Zachary Moore, owner of the property at [address redacted]. I received a letter in the mail from Alliant Credit Union dated December 15, 2023 citing information regarding a mortgage contract between myself and Alliant. I am challenging the validity of this contract.  As you know, in order for a contract to be valid, both parties must put up valid property for consideration. Without consideration, no contract can be lawfully valid.  This property must be rightfully owned by each party.  In the case of Alliant, the money loaned would need to be an asset on Alliant’s balance sheet prior to closing. As the loanee, I put up my own property for valid consideration. I put up a promissory note representing my ownership of my work and labor, a down payment of nearly $100,000, and title to the property at [address redacted] What property did Alliant put up? Please provide evidence that Alliant provided me, the loaner wi...
Read more