Judges often decide what is "the law" on the fly and based on whatever they feel like at the time.
5th amendment is also the law, yet the courts ignore that in favor of some stupid state statute.
Perhaps you can cite a single case in our juridical history in which natural law was held to preempt constitutional or statute law.
I have been meaning to start a conversation with you about Prigg v Pennsylvania.
I think this is a case where a lot of things started going off the rails.
Judges often decide what is "the law" on the fly and based on whatever they feel like at the time.
You do that on a regular basis. You lke to claim that all court opinions are nonsense, and yet you enjoy citing them endlessly, especially on those rare occasions when they happen to have said something you agree with.
5th amendment is also the law, yet the courts ignore that in favor of some stupid state statute.
Here is an example of you citing utter nonsense.
The dimwit never went to court about his property. As he never asked the court for an eviction order, the court has never considered an eviction order regarding his property.
Dimwit was in court only in response to his tenant's request to the court for a restraining order due to Dimwit's physical violence. The court advised Dimwit to request an eviction notice from the court.
Neither the 5th Amendment, nor whatever unidentified state law you are muttering about, legally empowers Dimwit to punch on the tenant or any guest of the tenant. That earns Dimwit a restraining order against him to prevent recurrance.
No court has violated the property rights of Dimwit. The court has not even ruled on any property rights of Dimwit.
If and when Dimwit requests and the court issues an eviction notice, the tenant will be evicted by the authorities, forcibly if necessary. Once the punchee has been removed from the premises, the puncher make his triumphant return to the scene.
I have been meaning to start a conversation with you about Prigg v Pennsylvania.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep041539
Prigg v Pennsylvania, 41 US 539 (1842). The Opinion of the Court begins on page 608 and ends on page 626. Prigg was correctly decided. It upheld the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution and struck down a repugnant State law. Whatever objections one may have held to the Fugitive Slave Clause, it was the supreme law of the land. Why you would want to discuss a nearly 200-year old court decision, when you dismiss all court opinions that do not agree with what you hold to be thew way things ought to be.
Prigg struck down state law repugnant to the Constitution.
In Dimwit, neither the Constitution, State property law, nor conflict of law was at issue. Dimwit went punching on someone. A restraining order was sought from and granted by a court.
The restraining order apparently restrained Dimwit from coming within a certain distance of the Complainant. Dimwit's penchant for punching people is not a constitutional issue.
Dimwit's dilemma is not unlike had he punched his dear, sweet wife and she had obtained a restraining order. The restraining distance may have moved him off the couch and all the way off the property. That will not be a state law overruling the Constitution.