Answered

Welcome to Westonci.ca, the place where your questions are answered by a community of knowledgeable contributors. Join our Q&A platform and get accurate answers to all your questions from professionals across multiple disciplines. Get quick and reliable solutions to your questions from a community of experienced experts on our platform.

Supporters of the Union looked to Article VI of the Constitution for support for their argument. Read the excerpt from Article VI and then choose and defend a point of view regarding whether the Constitution corroborates (supports) a view that the Union is permanent.

“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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Sagot :

ItzTds

The Supremacy Clause of Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.

kaca46290

Answer:

The Supporters of the Union had a point in this argument, '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...' this excerpt states that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. This would contradict the Democrats' opinion that a state shall decide for itself's view on slavery, because any federal treaties or laws take priority over any state laws. If the government further decides to abolish slavery, all sectional interests would be ignored as the federal laws take priority over state laws. If popular sovereignty was made permanent, and the government decided for itself the view on slavery, popular sovereignty wouldn't exist.  

Explanation:

Because popular sovereignty was very popular in the South, but the Constitution clearly states that federal laws take priority over state laws, so If a state law decides for itself that the state will accept slavery, but the government passes a law abolishing slavery, popular sovereignty no longer exists because the federal law abolishing slavery takes priority over any state wishing to accept slavery. This should show us that popular sovereignty or any sectional interest is proven to be invalid because the federal government will always have priority over the state government

Thank you for choosing our platform. We're dedicated to providing the best answers for all your questions. Visit us again. We appreciate your time. Please come back anytime for the latest information and answers to your questions. Westonci.ca is your go-to source for reliable answers. Return soon for more expert insights.