The law which you consider supreme over any other in enforcing 38 USC 5301? “…and shall not be liable to attachments, levy, or service by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary.”

How for decades the Veterans Administration, in processing State court orders, administratively garnish a veterans’ disability compensation as alimony. In doing so, refer to VA guidelines that supersede and override the linchpin of the Constitution, “The Supremacy Clause, Article VI of the United States Constitution. “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 Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
=
Yes, this you know. However! The key word here is, “notwithstanding” which means, in spite of, despite. “[N]otwithstanding” also appears where State courts go to direct the VA by court order, the consent to enforcement and justify the taking of your, as well as thousands upon thousands veterans’ disability compensation as alimony awards. Using that exact same word, and then reference 5301 in order to make it quite clear any such waiver is not possible. “Notwithstanding” is found in Title 42 USC 659. “Consent by the United States to income withholding, garnishment, and similar proceedings for enforcement of child support and alimony obligations.”
=
Enforcement of 42 USC 659 is also embedded in 10 USC 1408. “Nothwitstanding any other provision of law.. payable by the Secretary…under all court orders pursuant to this section and all legal processes pursuant to section …42 USC 659.”
=
Briefly; 42 USC 659(a) Consent to enforcement.
Nothwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 407 of this title and section 5301 of title 38)…moneys.. due from, or payable by, the United States…to any individual, including members of the Armed Forces of the United States, shall be subject…to withholding in accordance with State law…to enforce the legal obligation of the individual to provide child support or alimony.”
=
(h)(V) By the Secretary of Veterans Affairs as compensation for a service-connected disability paid by the Secretary to a former member of the Armed Forces who is receipt of retired or retainer pay if the former member has waived a portion of the retired or retainer pay in order to receive such compensation.”
=
I went to a law professor looking for an answer to this question. I asked, I think I know the answer, however, I cannot pinpoint it to any particular reference of law other than the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution. I would like your opinion on the Article VI “notwithstanding” and the use of “Notwithstanding in any other provision of law ” found elsewhere in the United States Code.”. I would think Article VI prevails, would you agree? He replied, “Yes, the US Constitution always trumps any other form of law. “
=
Here, your question is, or should be, which is it going to be? Either the United States Constitution Article VI “notwithstanding” , 42 USC 659 administrative law “notwithstanding” or 10 USC 1408 “notwithstanding“? Here… there I believe is the legal certainty. Which is it going to be?

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

As you can see here the U.S. judicial courts has quite a lot of rather spesfic jobs given/assigned to them under the U.S.Constitution, all of which would be redundant/meaningless if they had the unlisted job of dictating to the rest of us the meaning of that constitution, and thus what else was under that Constitution and thus the extent of their own job/powers.

Had the founders intended to give them such all encompassing judicial powers they would not have bothered to list out all theses specific jobs nor so extensively and specifically uses the term "under".

So yes States and the people do(and must) have an equal right and responsibility to read, enforce and interpret this constitution.

Congressional law cannot weld powers not given to congress, just as executive orders can not weld powers not given to the president, UNDER this constitution. That is the matter at hand here, and that is the excesses that our States have the sworn duty and oath to protect us from.

Let us say that the constitution was in fact so poorly designed as to permit this tyranny, what should we do about it?

How can any free people tolerate this kind of dictatorial rule? It is either a revolution to overthrow that government so poorly designed to as permit this tyranny or it is a restoration to that government which was designed to insure consent of the governed.
In the end its up to you to decide what you beleive, it is NOT however up to you to re-decide unilaterally the limits of our(Not your) consent to be governed.(our constitution) That is a right intrinsically reserved to the people for themselves. Both as expressed by means of the unilateral right of secession/immigration, and that of the their right to form a government and thus a constitution in the first place among each other.

I either need to stop typing so fast or use spellcheck a little more often