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.

In my, albeit lay, interpretation of the law DOMA is not supporting, and in fact, does not even deal with any part of the Constitution. In fact, DOMA flies in the face of not only the spirit of the body of the Constitution itself but in the face of the First Amendment and the spirit behind Amendments XV, XIX, and XXIV. Given that I don’t think it can be said that DOMA is “in pursuance therof [the Constitution].”

Furthermore, because the United States government had a treaty with the Coquille nation and because DOMA can’t be said to be “in pursuance [of the Constitution]” Article VI clearly holds the Coquille treaty above DOMA.

I would be interested in seeing what some of these Constitutionalist judges have to say.