Constitution

Article VI: Debts, the Supremacy Clause and the Oath

Article VI honors pre-Constitution debts, makes the Constitution and federal law the supreme law of the land, and bars religious tests for federal office.

4Conservative Editors · Published November 8, 2026

The text

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.

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.

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.

In plain English

Clause 1: prior debts. Debts incurred under the Articles of Confederation remain valid against the United States. This reassured creditors, including foreign lenders and Revolutionary War bondholders, that the new government would pay what the old one owed.

Clause 2: the Supremacy Clause. The Constitution, federal laws "made in Pursuance thereof," and treaties are "the supreme Law of the Land." State judges are bound by them, "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The qualifier matters: only laws made "in Pursuance" of the Constitution are supreme. A federal law outside Congress's enumerated powers is not.

Clause 3: oaths and the religious-test ban. Members of Congress, state legislators, and all executive and judicial officers of both governments must swear or affirm to support the Constitution. "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." No federal office may be conditioned on a profession of faith.

What the Founders said

Hamilton defended the Supremacy Clause in Federalist No. 33 and No. 27. A government that acts on individuals through its laws must be able to enforce them against contrary state law. Without supremacy, he argued, a federal law would amount to little more than a recommendation that each state could ignore. He also said that the supremacy extended only to laws made in pursuance of the Constitution; acts beyond its powers would be "merely acts of usurpation" and "deserve to be treated as such."

The No Religious Test Clause provoked debate in several ratifying conventions. Some delegates worried it would let unbelievers or non-Christians hold office; others, including Baptists and Presbyterians, supported it as a guard against a religious establishment. In North Carolina, which initially declined to ratify, Governor Johnston and James Iredell argued that the ban was a protection for the dissenting religious, who might otherwise be shut out by a favored church.

How the courts have read it

  • Marbury v. Madison (1803): the Constitution is "the supreme law of the land," and a law repugnant to it is void.
  • McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): state law cannot tax or otherwise burden a valid federal instrumentality.
  • Cooper v. Aaron (1958): the Court read the Supremacy Clause and oath as binding state officials to its constitutional rulings, a claim critics have long questioned.
  • Reid v. Covert (1957): a treaty cannot override the Constitution's protections.
  • Printz v. United States (1997): the Supremacy Clause does not let Congress commandeer state officers to enforce federal law.
  • Arizona v. United States (2012): parts of an Arizona immigration law were preempted by federal law.
  • Torcaso v. Watkins (1961): a state cannot require a declaration of belief in God for public office, under the First Amendment.
  • Medellin v. Texas (2008): an international court judgment is not directly enforceable as domestic law without implementing legislation.

Why it matters now

The Supremacy Clause is often taken as a trump card for Washington. A careful reading limits it. Federal law is supreme when it is made "in Pursuance" of the Constitution, which is to say within the enumerated powers. Where Congress has no power to act, state law stands. Supremacy governs conflicts between valid federal and state laws, not the scope of federal power itself.

That reading guides modern disputes over sanctuary policies, marijuana laws, immigration enforcement and the anti-commandeering rule. States may decline to use their own officers for federal purposes, but where a valid federal law directly conflicts with state law, the federal law prevails. Both principles come from Article VI.

The ban on religious tests is a pillar of the American settlement on faith. It allowed believers of every kind, and non-believers, to hold federal office, and it has gone together with the First Amendment's protection of free exercise. Conservatives who value religious liberty find in it a guarantee that cuts for their own communities as well.

Latest on this topic