By Dave Lyons
Acts concerning public lands in the west and elsewhere, are unlawful; and here is why:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF; and..."
The word "shall" is mandatory, and in a formal document as is the Constitution, offers no wiggle-room; it means 'imperative.'
That means the Second Amendment is imperative as read: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Shall not be infringed points to Congress, and the next paragraph includes all national branches and its departments. It also includes the states legislatures and all its branches and departments.
Then we consider the Acts of Congress on public lands that reserve more than Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, or Article IV, Section 3 extending territorial state authority to the US Congress into the new states, are likewise unlawful. If not unlawful then Article VI is invalid. If Article VI is invalid so is the entire US Constitution and that would make the federal government invalid.
Then we drop down to the 3rd paragraph which reads:
"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..."
The Constitution, (those laws made in pursuance of it), are the fundamental Law of the land, and applies to these oath givers. Those supporting laws not in pursuance are unlawful. So, what should happen to the government people, and their laws, acting in unlawful ways?
So, understanding and applying Article VI is the basis for an investigation of passages like the Second Amendment or any other legislative bill including those Acts ignoring the 1787 Northwest Ordinance, or any other Act put into law. Bills creating the Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service and Parks land claims are not pursuant of the Constitution because of the above Acts.