The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: What is interesting Joe is

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Proof is in the pudding? (see in situ)

Republicae's picture

What is interesting Joe is

What is interesting Joe is that you take one sentence from the context of the whole and upon that make an assertion that is solely based upon and dependent on taking that one sentence out of the whole context. The context is the final measure of the Constitution that was agreed upon, in that measure the Constitution, as a binding force, was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States, that fact is witness within the Conventions of the Several States as they debated Ratification, indeed, in the Debates of the Constitution that fact again was agreed upon. I never indicated nor asserted that such a position was not debated upon during the Conventions, only that the term and the inferred meaning of "national" were expunged from the Constitution. The fact of the matter is that it is simply not possible for the jurisdiction of the Constitution to be outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States who delegated the power in the first place otherwise we would never have had a republican form of government, nor for that matter would we have had federalism. What we would have had from the beginning is nationalism instead.

It is also very evident that you have either never read any of my other work on the subject, or have simply chosen to ignore the fact that I am well aware of the many people involved with the writing of the Constitution that were Monarchist or consolidationist to one degree or another, such as Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, John Marshall. In fact, the Virginia Plan as first proposed was a very Statist plan, yet it was thankfully rejected by the delegates of the States, so too were most of the proposals of Alexander Hamilton who wanted a President for life. None of those facts have been ignored nor overlooked, although you seem to assert that I have simply ignored a portion of history, to the contrary, my subject was on the Sovereignty of the States as expressed in and through the Constitution as Ratified and later amended with the Bill of Rights.

While I am sure you are putting forth a great deal of effort, it appears that you should perhaps go back and read not only the Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, but also read the Conventions of the Several States as well as, the Ordinances of Ratification of those States. Those are perhaps the clearest example of exactly what is meant by the statement you seem to want to pull out of the context of the whole.

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun