How is it?

   That the vast majority of the people in this country, both in and out of government, still don't understand the brilliance shown by those that framed our form of government? Perhaps it is because those in 'power' have made sure that it was not taught correctly. Or perhaps it is because many either don't care, or have willfully blinded themselves to the actual facts. Nevertheless, it is quite evident that the wisdom shown by those that framed our Constitution - the "Supreme Law of the Land", is not readily accepted, noticed, practised or regarded.

   In light of the above, it therefore seems necessary to throw some light on the subject. First of all, who is our government? Well, according to the "Supreme Law" it is "We The People". The next logical question would then seem to be; who are "We The People"? This is a question that is answered by one of the framers of our Constitution, Mr. Alexander Hamilton, here:

   “Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, [Constitution] it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.”–Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788.

   That's right, We The People bound ourselves - both; "collectively" and "individually", whether in or out of government, in every State of the Union, to obedience to the "Supreme Law of the Land". This fact is clearly made again by Mr. Hamilton here:

   "But if the execution of the [Constitutionally enacted] laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor evasions would answer the end. They would be obliged to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights."--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 16, Tuesday, December 4, 1787.

   What is the point that the framers were intending to be made? Simple, it was the intention that We The People were to GOVERN OURSELVES.

   That we would not insist upon 'laws', 'rules', or 'regulations' for others that we would not want imposed upon ourselves. And, that there were certain "self-evident" maxims which everyone - both "collectively" and "individually", regardless of "condition" or "degree", were bound to obey and respect. Such as; that everyone has a right to peaceably express themselves, and to believe what they want to believe. That everyone has a right to defend themselves. That our private dwellings, papers, and effects couldn't be intruded upon without just cause, etc. That all 'laws', 'rules' and 'regulations' that are made anywhere within the United States, must conform to the exceptions outlined in the "Supreme Law".

   Which fact, is yet again, made abundantly clear by Mr. Hamilton here:

   “Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the POWER of the PEOPLE is SUPERIOR TO BOTH; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, DECLARED IN THE CONSTITUTION, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the FUNDAMENTAL LAWS, rather than by those which are NOT fundamental.”--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78, Saturday, June 14, 1788.

   And then the fact is slammed home most conclusively in the "'Supreme Law" itself as well:

Article 6.

   2. This constitution, and the [Constitutionally enacted] 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.

   3. 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..."

   Now if those that "represent" We The People are bound, then We The People are equally bound as well. For we are the ones being "represented", and those that "represent" us are merely acting as our hired servants. This is a fact that cannot be controverted.

   But many of our fellow citizens that "represent" us within our governments seem to have forgotten these fundamental maxims. As Mr. Madison (the "father" of our Constitution), who was quite cognizant of fallen human nature, knew they would:

   “The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. TRUTH, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.”–James Madison, The Federalist No. 46, Tuesday, January 29, 1788.

   Now if those that represent us have the "power" to hold We The People accountable for violation of law. Then We The People have just as much power to hold those that serve us accountable as well. For it is our government after all. And who has ever heard of an employer that doen't have the authority or power to punish or fire an employee that isn't doing the job that they were hired to do? Or an employee that is acting in direct confliction with the duties that they were expressly hired to perform?

   In addition, those of We The People; either "collectively" or "individually". That would urge our hired servants to pass 'laws', 'rules', or 'regulations' that are in direct violation of that "Supreme Law". Would justly seem to be considered as engaging in a conspiracy to entice our hired servants to violate the oaths which they have taken. Which of course makes them appear as nothing more than "domestic enemies". Worthy of not only being despised, but to be punished as well for the attempt. For the only Constitutionally legal method of changing the "Supreme Law" is by Amendment. And that is done through the legislatures or conventions of the States.