The Rule of Law


Need change? Don’t violate Article V or Article VI because a procedural step is missing or damaged (see Valid Amendment, Restoring Invalidly Amended Text). Fixing the process makes it easier for everyone. Be a hero.


The main reason procedural steps are missing or damaged is that that every now and then our local, state and federal government officers officers expand, reduce, trade or alter their responsibilities, sometimes to the extent of invalid Constitutional amendment. The Constitution doesn't allow its delegated rights, powers, privileges or immunities to be redelegated or altered. Doing this warps the system,

leaving it inconsistent and incoherent.

Invalid amendment has taken too many forms over the years.

Text has been invalidly amended:


by ignoring it altogether;

by effectively limiting or reducing the force of law it asserts;

by allowing exceptions not made in the Constitution;

by interpreting effectiveness as temporary;

by granting any law, treaty, rule or regulation

that isn't also the supreme law of the land 

force equal to it;

by granting other provisions superior legal force to it;

by not incorporating it;

by failing to enforce it;

by rendering its enforcement impossible;

and so on.

Invalid amendment is often called selective incorporation, although it's larger than that.


Invalid amendment by selective incorporation was originally imposed by the Supreme Court when American law was in its early stages, and it’s been more or less followed ever since. It was a grievous error then, and it’s a disaster now. The error is in presuming that since some process clauses or restoration clauses restate a rule clause this somehow means no other rule clause is subject to Article VI. Nothing could be easier to refute. The Preamble underlies Article VI – which is plainly expressed anyway and doesn’t need reinforcement. And Articles V and VII stand guard over it.

This exceptionally strong and solid foundation means the Framers expected some to try to use its easier parts while claiming tougher parts somehow don’t apply. As members of the armed forces will explain, when they’re in a foreign land the authority allowing them to hold or question a person is still vested by the Constitution and Amendment VIII prohibits torture - many of the Framers were veterans and knew this clause would be sorely tested. They have to stand firm for our expressed values. Government officers vested by this Constitution, including state officers, must support it when performing offices authorized by it. It's not subject to any claim of discretion, privilege, immunity, deference, or sovereignty.

Good behavior by judges or Justices excludes invalid amendment. They know better.



Article VI:

"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 of every State shall be bound thereby, any

Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [...]

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; [...]"



Article VI expressly prohibits selective incorporation. The supreme law of every state

consists of every word of the Constitution, federal law and treaties.



Article VII:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States,

shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution 

between the States so ratifying the same."



We did more than Article VII requires: the states ratified the entire Constitution unanimously (see Steps to a Constitution).

And every prospective state must ratify it to enter.

Article V states that all ratified amendments will become “valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution”. They are not additions to a 1787 text but one and the same text. Article VI includes future text.

It presumes there will be future text because Article V presumes there will be future text.


The Constitution is hard to change to protect against corruption. When alteration has damaged needed procedural steps, we have to do the work of correcting them. We have an honorable tradition of civil disobedience, but that doesn’t include violating Article VI or Article V legal process because a needed procedure is missing or corrupted instead of bringing it back, then using it.