Ok, let us focus only on the FRAGMENT of a statement that you “pull out” and consider, for a reason that I have yet to fully understand, as “dangerously false”, the argument that you have made makes no sense whatsoever in consideration of the entire subject of the essay itself. I could understand if your argument was focused on the whole article, but it is extremely narrowly focused on a fragment of a sentence, seemingly without regard to the entire essay, even without regard to the entire statement. I find it quite odd to build an argument on such fragmentation. You have, time and again simply ignored the actual position taken in the essay and rather taken that fragment and used it to distort that position and misrepresent me as a liar. Yet you have the gall to accuse me as presenting "Straw Man" arguments when you have presented the classic "Straw Man" argument yourself.
" the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States."
Read that statement again within the context of the whole and then tell me what it means within that context rather than as a fragment upon which you have built your argument and continue to SPIN that fragment into something that it simply does not say:
“Each of the Free, Sovereign and Independent States of this Union gave Assent to the Constitution and Ratified it, thus establishing the Constitution within the States themselves as the Law in conjunction with their individual State Constitutions, this act of Assent and Ratification subjected the Citizens of each of the States to the operation and function of the Constitution, yet, the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States. There is absolutely no contradiction between the Sovereignty of the States and the act of federalizing themselves into this voluntary union between them. The act of federalization was simply another act of Sovereignty, for federalization could have never taken place without their individual Sovereignty. The act of federalization did nothing but create and establish a functioning government that was deputized on behalf of the States, it neither transferred nor imbued sovereignty on the federal government and indeed, there is absolutely no sovereignty within the federal government, only limited delegated authority and power stemming from the Sovereignty of the States themselves.”
Above is the opening paragraph upon which the rest of the essay builds upon. The statement is then supported by the remainder of the essay and yet, you have asserted that one fragment of a statement is patently false and called me a liar on top of it. The statement refers to the finished Constitution as presented to the State Conventions considered for Ratification, not the Debates or any quotes that stem from those Debates.
Again, in support of that statement I wrote the following: “It is vital to understand just what took place when each of the Several States met in Convention to discuss and debate the Ratification of the Constitution and exactly how this action was viewed, it was most certainly not viewed as relinquishing any portion of the Sovereignty of the States themselves, otherwise the Constitution would have never been Ratification and we would have remained under the Articles of Confederation [which may or may not have been a good thing]. As an example, the Ordinance of Ratification from the State of New Hampshire concluded in 1788 and yet, to reiterate the Sovereign character of that State, in 1792 the New Hampshire Bill of Rights was added to her Constitution, several years after ratifying the federal Constitution, included were these words: Article VII: "The People of this State have the Sole and Exclusive Right of Governing themselves as a Free, Sovereign and Independent State; and do, and Forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every Power which is not, and my not hereafter be, by them, expressly delegated to the united States in Congress Assembled."
The Delegation of power from the States did not, in any way, relinquish any portion of the Sovereignty of the States. Nor did the States relinquish any jurisdiction, it was retained and an example of that fact can be found in the Constitution of the State of New York:
"the Sovereignty and Jurisdiction of this State extend to all the places within the boundaries thereof, as declared in the preceding title; but the extent of Jurisdiction over places that have been, or may be, ceded to the united States, shall be qualified by the terms of such cession."
"The SUPREME, ABSOLUTE AND UNCONTROLLABLE POWER IS IN THE PEOPLE before they make the Constitution, and remains in them after it is made...The absolute SOVEREIGNTY never goes from the People." James Wilson of Pennsylvania
"The SOVEREIGNTY of government is an idea belonging to the other side of the Atlantic. No such thing is known in North America: with us ALL POWER IS WITH THE PEOPLE. THEY ALONE ARE SOVEREIGN; and will erect what governments they please and confer on them such power as they please. NONE of these governments is sovereign." Daniel Webster (who later became a Nationalist)
"That the people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive Right of governing themselves, as a Free, Sovereign, and Independent State; and they will Forever exercise every Power and Right, which may not be by them Expressly Delegated to the united States, assembled in Congress;
That all Power, residing originally in the People, and being derived from them, all officers of government are their Substitutes and Agents, and are at all times Accountable to them;
And, finally, that the People of the commonwealth alone, have an inalienable and indefeasible Right to institute government, and to reform, alter or totally change the same, whenever they think their safety and happiness require it." The Massachusetts Constitution
All of these, and there are obviously numerous other references, describe the exact same thing as did the statement I made. The States, being the expression of the Sovereignty of the People are to act upon that same Sovereignty and only in the interest of that Sovereignty, at least that was the plan; so too, was the Constitution between the States based upon the Sovereignty of the People as expressed within their respective States.
You have indeed made false statements and have build your argument on false premise, you have accused me of lying. I don't see any honor in that at all, do you? Rather than explaining yourself, the first statement you made was to say that the fragment you cited was patently false, that was the sum of your rebuttal; since then you have continued without ever really making a case. If there is anyone crafting a "straw man" argument that would appear to be you Joe.
"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun