U.S. Constitution · Article VI
Prior Debts, National Supremacy, Oaths of Office
Alerts when a new grade, SI Solution or Think Tank idea cites Art. VI or any part of it.
Live in the VFA record
Cited in 1 VFA SI Solution and 7 grades this month.
12 public items cite this provision or its parts · 8 in October 2026 (last month: 0)
Citations per week, last 12 weeks
The text
-
Article VI, Clause 1 · Prior Debts Clause
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
-
Article VI, Clause 2 · Supremacy Clause
11 cites
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.
-
Article VI, Clause 3 · Oaths Clause; No Religious Test Clause
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
National Archives transcription (public domain; original spelling and capitalization). archives.gov
In the founders’ words
- “The words "pursuant to the constitution" will be no restriction to the authority of congress; for the foregoing section gives them unlimited legislation; their unbounded power of taxation does alone include all others, as whoever has the purse strings will have full dominion.” Centinel (attributed to Samuel Bryan), Centinel, No. 5 (1787-12-04)
- “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred;” Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78 (1788-05-28)
- “But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.” Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 33 (1788-01-03)
- “For all laws made, in pursuance of this constitution, are the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of the different states to the contrary notwithstanding.--By such a law, the government of a particular state might be overturned at one stroke, and thereby be deprived of every means of its support.” Brutus (attributed to Robert Yates), Brutus, No. 1 (1787-10-18)
- “It is to be observed that when the people shall adopt the proposed constitution it will be their last and supreme act; it will be adopted not by the people of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, etc. but by the people of the United States; and wherever this constitution, or any part of it, shall be incompatible with the ancient customs, rights, the laws or the constitutions heretofore established in the United States, it will entirely abolish them and do them away” The Federal Farmer, Letters from the Federal Farmer, No. 4 (1787-10-12)
- “It has been asked why it was thought necessary, that the State magistracy should be bound to support the federal Constitution, and unnecessary that a like oath should be imposed on the officers of the United States, in favor of the State constitutions.” James Madison, The Federalist No. 44 (1788-01-25)
- “Mr. PINKNEY moved to add to the art: -"but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the authority of the U. States" Mr. SHERMAN thought it unnecessary, the prevailing liberality being a sufficient security agst. such tests.” James Madison, Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention, August 30, 1787 (1787-08-30)
- “however, there were some members so unfashionable as to think that a belief of the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that in a Christian country it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.” Luther Martin, Luther Martin, The Genuine Information, published serially Dec. 1787-Feb. 1788 (on religious tests) (1787-12-28)
Public-domain primary sources, quoted word for word and checked against the linked text.
Leading Supreme Court cases
- Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
- Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816)
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
- Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)
- Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842) · superseded by the Thirteenth Amendment
- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941)
- Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)
- Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
- Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 584 U.S. 453 (2018)
Cited in the VFA record
“Where this provision is cited”
SI Solutions (4)
-
SI Proposal: Clarify Contractor Accountability Within Military Orders
2026-10-08
-
FIFRA does not preempt state-law failure-to-warn claims that seek damages for injuries caused by a pesticide, because such claims are not 'requirements for labeling or packaging' within the meaning of
2026-06-29
-
Inspector General Access and State Notification Act for Immigration Detention Facilities
2026-06-18
-
Yes; the challenged production closely relates to Chevron's federal refining duties, permitting removal.
2026-05-15
grades (7)
-
S. 254: ARTIST Act
2026-10-08 · Grade A (Constitutional)
-
Executive Order 14243: Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos
2026-10-08 · Grade D (Likely unconstitutional)
-
Executive Order 14260: Protecting American Energy From State Overreach
2026-10-08 · Grade A (Constitutional)
-
Executive Order 14287: Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens
2026-10-08 · Grade C (Significant issues)
-
Executive Order 14335: Enabling Competition in the Commercial Space Industry
2026-10-08 · Grade A (Constitutional)
-
Executive Order 14365: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
2026-10-08 · Grade B (Mostly sound)
-
Executive Order 14377: Addressing State and Local Failures To Rebuild Los Angeles After Wildfire Disasters
2026-10-08 · Grade D (Likely unconstitutional)
roll-call votes (1)
-
House roll call 193 (2026): On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass on S 254
2026-06-03 · Passed · official record
Roll-call votes are listed when the measure voted on has a current Constitution Index grade citing this provision. Counts include only published items.
Cite this page
Values for America Constitution Explorer, https://www.valuesforamerica.com/constitution (text: National Archives transcription, public domain), Article VI, https://www.valuesforamerica.com/constitution/article-6
Data: this provision as JSON.