Talk:Article Six of the United States Constitution

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Supremacy

message: 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)
thread_title: Bricker Amendment

message: "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)
thread_title: Reid v. Covert

message: 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)
thread_title: Prohibition of Religious Tests vs. Federal Oaths

message: 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)
thread_title:  JFK's implicit test 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified