That portion of Article VI merely says that the Constitution, all US laws made in pursuance of it, and treaties made by the United States, are the “supreme law of the land”, and that the judges of every state are bound by it.
“Any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding” simply means that anything in the Constitution or any state law that might give the impression that these (Constitution/US laws/treaties) are NOT the supreme law does not make it so.
Grammatically speaking, Article VI could have also been rendered thus, and the meaning would be unchanged:
“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, **in spite of** any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary.”
As such, the 14th Amendment, and all US laws made in pursuance of it, are part of “the supreme Law of the Land”...the Preamble of the Constitution (or your opinion of what it means, or what it should imply) notwithstanding.
Instead of:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
This has led the Senate to believe that they can remove someone from office and separately vote to disqualify someone from future office.
Does a plain reading of this suggest that it is a dual and conjoined punishment, that is, that someone convicted of impeachment is both removed from office and denied future office; or is it two separate and distinct punishments?
If they are separate and distinct punishments, can the Senate vote to keep someone in office but disqualify them from running for future office? Is there a dependency defined by the conjunction AND that implies order? There is no "normal" reading of such conjunction language that suggests that the order of the actions that are conjoined has any bearing on the meaning of the phrase.
Yet somehow, these punishments have been separated; the Senate can remove someone from office and still remove the "disability" of holding future office. Separate votes have been held to remove someone from office but still let them run for future office.
Similarly, the impeachment clause could have been written like the 14th amendment as:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Senate may by a vote of two-thirds remove such disability: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.This would make it clear that the Senate has a second interdependent power to remove the disability of a bar on future office, but it's not written that way.
We have to interpret it the way it's written, not the way we would like it to be written. Article VI is written the way it is written, too, and says that "any thing in the Constitution" is supreme law of the land.
-PJ