Question: What is this law that originally comprised seven articles that entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers in the United States, whose clause was reaffirmed by the decision from Lambert v. Yellowley?
Context: The doctrine of the separation of powers in Australia divides the institutions of government into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial.  The legislature makes the laws; the executive put the laws into operation; and the judiciary interprets the laws.  The doctrine of the separation of powers is often assumed to be one of the cornerstones of fair government.  A strict separation of powers is not always evident in Australia; instead the Australian version of separation of powers combines the basic democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of ""responsible government"" and the United States version of the separation of powers.  The issue of separation of powers in Australia has been a contentious one and continues to raise questions about where power lies in the Australian political system. Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008) , is a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court reaffirmed the validity of the patent exhaustion doctrine, and in doing so made uncertain the continuing precedential value of a line of decisions in the Federal Circuit that had sought to limit Supreme Court exhaustion doctrine decisions to their facts and to require a so-called “rule of reason” analysis of all post-sale restrictions other than tie-ins and price fixes.  In the course of restating the patent exhaustion doctrine, the Court held that the exhaustion doctrine is triggered by, among other things, an authorized sale of a component when the only reasonable and intended use of the component is to practice the patent and the component substantially embodies the patented invention by embodying its essential features.  The Court also overturned, in passing, the part of decision below that held that the exhaustion doctrine was limited to product claims and did not apply to method claims. Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964), was a 1964 decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that a contract calling for payment of patent royalties after the expiration of the licensed patent was misuse of the patent right and unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause, state contract law notwithstanding.  The decision was widely subjected to academic criticism but the Supreme Court has rejected that criticism and reaffirmed the "Brulotte" decision in "Kimble v. Marvel", 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2401 (2015). Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 (1908) , was a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court which declared that bans on "yellow-dog" contracts (that forbade workers from joining labor unions) were unconstitutional.  The decision reaffirmed the doctrine of freedom of contract which was first recognized by the Court in "Allgeyer v. Louisiana" (1897).  For this reason, "Adair" is often seen as defining what has come to be known as the "Lochner" era, a period in American legal history in which the Supreme Court tended to invalidate legislation aimed at regulating business. Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926) , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that reaffirmed the National Prohibition Act's limitation on the dispensation of alcoholic medicines.  The five-to-four decision, written by Justice Louis D. Brandeis, affirmed the dismissal of a suit in which New York City physician Samuel Lambert sought to prevent Edward Yellowley, the acting federal prohibition director, from enforcing the Prohibition Act so as to preclude him from prescribing alcoholic medicines.  The decision affirmed the police powers of the individual states, as well as the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause of the United States Constitution, which was cited in upholding the Prohibition Act's limitations as a necessary and proper implementation of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. An ouster clause or privative clause is, in countries with common law legal systems, a clause or provision included in a piece of legislation by a legislative body to exclude judicial review of acts and decisions of the executive by stripping the courts of their supervisory judicial function.  According to the doctrine of the separation of powers, one of the important functions of the judiciary is to keep the executive in check by ensuring that its acts comply with the law, including, where applicable, the constitution.  Ouster clauses prevent courts from carrying out this function, but may be justified on the ground that they preserve the powers of the executive and promote the finality of its acts and decisions. The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is a clause within Article VI, Section 3.  By its plain terms, no federal office holder or employee can be required to adhere to or accept any particular religion or doctrine as a prerequisite to holding a federal office or a federal government job.  It immediately follows a clause requiring all federal and state officers to take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.  This clause contains the only explicit reference to religion in the original seven articles of the U.S. Constitution. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America.  The Constitution, originally comprising seven articles, delineates the national frame of government.  Its first three articles entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts.  Articles Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship to the federal government.  Article Seven establishes the procedure subsequently used by the thirteen States to ratify it. Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 436 (1940), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that limited the doctrine of the Court's 1938 decision in "General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co." Beginning with the 1926 decision in "United States v. General Electric Co.", the Supreme Court made a sharp distinction between (i) post-sale restraints that a patentee imposed on purchasers of a patented product and (ii) restrictions (limitations) that a patentee imposed on a licensee to manufacture a patented product: the former being illegal and unenforceable under the exhaustion doctrine while the latter were generally permissible under a lenient "rule of reason."  Thus, under the "General Talking Pictures" doctrine, a patent holder may permissibly license others to "manufacture" and then sell patented products in only a specified field (market), such as only a particular type of product made under the patent or only a particular category of customer for the patented product.  The "Ethyl" decision held, however, that a patent licensing and distribution program based on both the sale of a patented product and licenses to manufacture a related product was subject to ordinary testing under the antitrust laws, and accordingly was illegal when its effect was to "regiment" an entire industry. The persona designata doctrine is a doctrine in law, particularly in Canadian and Australian constitutional law which states that, although it is generally impermissible for a federal judge to exercise non-judicial power, it is permissible for a judge to do so if the power has been conferred on the judge personally, as opposed to powers having been conferred on the court.  The doctrine in the more general sense has been recognised throughout the common law countries (including the United States).  Persona designata, according to Black's Law Dictionary, means "A person considered as an individual rather than as a member of a class", thus it may be a person specifically named or identified in a lawsuit, as opposed to the one belonging to an identified category or group.  While it has its origin in Montesquieu's doctrine of the separation of powers, it can be traced back as far as Aristotle's Politics.
Answer: United States Constitution