A statement, such as "That is patently false" does not form an adequate rebuttal, thus it is difficult to reply unless you expound on what you think is patently false about the statement. Since you think that is patently false, tell me exactly what that statement means in construing the Constitution with regards to the Sovereignty of the States? Also, if you read the Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 and also the The Debates in the Several State Conventions you will find that is exactly what those who framed and later Ratified the Constitution considered it to be. It could not be otherwise if all power and authority delegated within the Constitution was delegated from the States to begin with, where else would such jurisdiction be held? Indeed, in many of the Ordinances of Ratification, there are statements that mirror the one I made and even go as far as concluding that even if territory is ceded to the federal government by a State, that such cession does not, in any way, relinquish the jurisdiction of the State over that territory or outside the parameters of the Treaty of 1787 of which the States are the only parties.
Either the originating power and authority stems from the delegating power or it is, in one manner or the other, simply usurped power. It can not be any other way, power does not simply exist without first having residence within a reservoir, that reservoir being the People expressing their Sovereignty through the States. The highest expression of Sovereignty is the ability to form and establish government.
"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul repre