You are long on assertions that simply are wrong.
1. The Constitution was a compromise. Because of compromises many who opposed early drafts ultimately supported it.
2. “Federalists” were a political party that died an early death. Supporting the existence of a federal government doesn’t make one a “Federalist”. If that were the case, I would have been a “Federalist”, but I can’t have been because you have decreed that I am an “anti-federalist”. As long as we are talking about political parties, Democratic-Republicans also supported the Constitution, FYI.
3. Your secession mechanism is your invention. The Constitution gives the federal government no powers except those that are enumerated, and those don’t include forcing states to remain in the Union. The Constitution does reserve the states individual rights and does not subject them to “Perpetual Union” as the Articles did. Odd that you support succession from the Articles in spite of the language of the Articles, and oppose it under the Constitution despite the language of the Constitution.
4.Your use of “war” and “realism” gives away the game. It doesn’t matter that the Alien & Sedition Act was lawless and unconstitutional, just as you don’t care that Lincoln did a number of things that were lawless and unconstitutional. All you need to do to amend the Constitution is to claim that some lawful action is “unrealistic”, and so the government can ignore the Constitution. As I have said, you really suppoort a “Living Constitution” jurisprudence, not original intent.
5. The Republic didn’t remain unchanged for 100+ years. The Civil War completely transformed the nature of American government. The Lincoln regime forced an unlawful income tax and fiat money on the country, for example. These toxic policies laid the groundwork for what was cemented into place less than 50 years later. Of course, the changes were more far reaching that just those two examples.
6. Hamilton got very little language into the Constitution. One provision he did get was the federal assumption of the war debt. Yet, there is nothing that permits a central bank or (federal)paper money, for example, both of which Hamilton favored.
7. Marshall seized something that no one gave the courts. You apparently believe that anyone who was what you call a “founder” isn’t bound by the document NEGOTIATED and ratified (by the states, the true founders).
Ha! No, they're all correct, and demonstrable as needed.
Your problem obviously is lack of reading comprehension exceeded by your ignorance of real history, as I will show...
achilles2000: "1. The Constitution was a compromise.
Because of compromises many who opposed early drafts ultimately supported it."
Of course, many compromises were made, most notoriously, the 3/5 rule for counting slaves -- hence the moniker "slave-power".
Still, many adamantly opposed ratifying the new Constitution in 1788, and here's where your ignorance of actual history betrays you -- those who favored the new Constitution were called "Federalists", as in "The Federalist Papers" by notable Federalists Hamilton, Madison and Jay.
Those who opposed the new Constitution were called anti-Federalists, as in "The Anti-Federalist Papers" by New York Governor George Clinton, Judge Robert Yates, including some speeches by Patrick Henry.
When the Constitution was fully ratified, those Anti-Federalists were defeated, and so are not, repeat NOT, Founders of the Constitution.
That makes their opinions of no account in determining what was, or was not, Founders original intent.
achilles2000: "2. 'Federalists' were a political party that died an early death.
Supporting the existence of a federal government doesn’t make one a 'Federalist'.
If that were the case, I would have been a “Federalist”, but I can’t have been because you have decreed that I am an “anti-federalist”.
As long as we are talking about political parties, Democratic-Republicans also supported the Constitution, FYI."
Sorry, but you are very confused and unschooled.
Really, you should have paid attention in history class -- this is all the most fascinating stuff imaginable!
The fact is that after their defeat in the ratifying conventions, anti-Federalists soon became a political party in the new government, under Jefferson's leadership, first known as the "anti-Administration Party", they eventually became Jefferson's "Democratic-Republicans".
Jefferson & Madison, of course, were originally Federalists, supporting ratification, and in Madison's case leading the charge.
But they joined with anti-Federalists in opposing Hamilton's ideas, and eventually opposed the entire Northern party of John Adams, then known as "Federalists".
Important to remember that the Northern Federalist party eventually collapsed as serious opposition Jefferson's party, now called "Democratic-Republicans" over New England threats to secede because of Madison's War of 1812.
Now must stop here, will pick this up again later...
Once again, your lack of reading comprehension is only exceeded by your manifest ignorance of actual history.
First, there is no secession mechanism specified in the Constitution, doubtless because our Founders hoped there would be no need for it.
They did, however, provide numerous mechanisms for changing laws, challenging legal interpretations, and changing or rewriting the Constitution itself -- so that's what they hoped for the future.
Founders' views on "disunion" were all consistent with the ideas that it should be by mutual consent or from some material breach of contract, such as "oppression" or "usurpations".
So those qualify as "original intent".
Second, no effort -- zero, zip, nada -- no effort was made by two US Presidents (Buchanan & Lincoln) to, in your words, "force states to remain in the Union:.
What Lincoln did, instead, was first: unconditionally defeat the alien military power which first provoked, then started and formally declared war on the United States, then second, Presidents Lincoln & Johnson allowed their citizens (all of their citizens) to elect representatives to Congress and to presidential electoral colleges.
Third, again: Founders' original intent was that lawful secession come through mutual consent (i.e., approval of Congress) or by some material breech of contract.
Therefore, US "secession" from the old Articles of Confederation was 100% lawful, while Deep South slave-power unilateral declarations of secession were 100% illegal, period.
FRiend, there is no "game" here for me to "give away".
My position is: "Founders' original intent as modified by later amendments," period.
So I am now defending their "original intent", even where that is difficult, as in the case of the "Alien & Sedition" laws of 1798.
So first, let's remember that the "Alien Enemies Act" of 1798 is still US law, was never challenged & declared unconstitutional by any branch of government.
The Sedition and Alien Friends acts were both temporary war-measures which expired by 1801 -- though not before President Jefferson used them to prosecute some of his own political enemies.
Second, let's remember that every Founding President faced internal threats to the young Republic, in the forms of rebellion (Washington), threats of sedition (Adams), attempted treason (Jefferson) and secession (Madison).
Each Founding President then used what they believed were Constitutional military & legal powers when, "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (Section 9 of Article 1).
Third yes, today we classify Franklin Roosevelt's WWII shipping of Japanese civilians off to concentration camps, along with the Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798, as "unconstitutional over-reach of Federal powers, in response to less-than deadly threats."
But the principle here is enshrined in the Constitution, and remains unchallenged: during times of "Rebellion or Invasion", the Federal government assumes more power to protect "the public Safety".
That same principle during Lincoln's time of "Rebellion or Invasion" lead him to actions which would not otherwise have been acceptable.
But since then, none of Lincoln's wartime actions were declared, in your words, "unlawful" or "unconstitutional" by any branch of government.
Indeed, we see this all again today in debates over the "War on Terror" Patriot Act, where the government may, or may not, have assumed more power than strictly necessary to defend our Safety from terrorists.
In summary, although we today disagree with those laws, our Founders originally considered the Alien & Sedition Acts to be neither, in your words, "lawless" nor "unconstitutional", but rather made necessary by immanent war.
This included not only Adams & Washington, but also Jefferson -- who did not originally oppose them, and ended up using them, as President, for his own political benefit.
That's why we're not talking about a "living constitution" here, but rather, "Founders' original intent".
Of course, the Republic changed to some degree or another with every election.
For example, the election of 1856, along with the 1857 Dred-Scott Supreme Court decision, and the 1850 Fugitive Slave laws came very close to making slavery lawful in every state and territory.
Then election in 1860 of Lincoln's "Black Republicans" began to reverse the trend toward more lawful slavery.
But there was no fundamental transformation of the Federal government's role, size and scope before passage of the 16th & 17th Amendments 100 years ago.
We can see this in the following facts:
Of course, in years between those listed, Federal spending went up & down, depending on wars, politics & economic conditions.
But we can clearly see how the size, cost & scope of Federal government remained essentially unchanged from the Founding of the Republic (Washington) until passage of the 16th & 17th Amendments (Wilson), 100 years ago.
Yes, of course, the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments did also fundamentally transform America, but for the better, and nobody, but nobody, on Free Republic has ever, ever suggested those amendments should be repealed.
And naturally, I assume you agree with that.
First, I'm no expert on Hamilton's role in the Constitution Convention of 1787 -- but I do know he made the greatest single contribution to the 1788 Federalist Papers, which makes Hamilton's ideas first and foremost in expressing our Founders' original intent.
Therefore, Hamilton is a very important figure amongst our Founders.
Second, beginning in 1782, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress sponsored the Bank of North America, modeled on the Bank of England and opened by Robert Morris, then United States Superintendent of Finance.
This bank competed with state banks and was strongly opposed by some Founders.
In 1791, former Morris aid -- Alexander Hamilton -- negotiated a deal with Southern politicians whereby the Federal capital was moved from New York City to Washington DC, and they agreed to a 20-year charter (1791 to 1811) for the First Bank of the United States -- again modeled after the Bank of England, but still competing against similar state sponsored banks.
The law effecting this was passed by Congress and signed by President Washington.
Yes, it was opposed by anti-Administration Party leaders Jefferson & Madison, but Jefferson did nothing to repeal it while President, and President Madison signed into law the 20-year charter for the Second Bank of the United States (1816 to 1836).
So, when push came to shove, all of our Founders, from the time of the Articles of Confederation onwards, supported or extended a Federally chartered bank, modeled after the Bank of England.
It therefore qualifies as Founders' original intent.
That may explain why, although Federal income tax did require a constitutional amendment (the 16th), the simultaneously enacted Federal Reserve Act of 1913 did not.
Throughout this period, state chartered banks existed alongside the national bank, and issued notes against specie (gold & silver coins) according to their own state's currency reserve laws.
As political opposition to a national bank rose or fell, the state chartered banks rose or fell in relative importance.
Lincoln argued that it was the Union which founded the states, and not visa versa, based on the fact that states were all just British colonies before the Union declared them to be States, and the Union (not the states) won the war for their independence.
So, Lincoln argued: the Union created the States.
The truth of this matter is that it's an obvious "chicken or egg" question, a matter of semantics, in which both sides are inextricably interwoven with the other.
Without the Union there would be no independent states in 1787, and without the states, no Union would be possible, ever.
Now, as for Chief Justice Marshall, you may remember that his predecessor, George Washington's appointee Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth, also addressed the issue of judicial review (in Hylton v US, 1796), though not as forcefully as Marshall.
Point is: once again, that idea was around from the beginning and was accepted by all Founders at the time.
It therefore qualifies as original intent.
Jefferson's written opposition to Marshall's judicial review was both mild and not followed with vigorous actions to revoke it.
Nor is there a record of serious state or general public opposition to Marshall's interpretation of Founders' original intent.
Again, I remind you that Marshall himself was a critically important Federalist Founder, in the state of Virginia's ratification convention, leading the fight along with Madison & Rutledge to approve the new Constitution.
So Marshall's opinions matter, big time.
Now we come to the end of your seven points, none of which are valid, and all of which display serious ignorance of US history, but dead-certain devotion to the full panoply of pro-Confederate talking points.
So my suggestion to you is: get off the anti-US Kool-Aid, and read some real history for a change.
It will change your perspectives considerably.