As with any Government, it grows and usurps authority from it's rightful owners. There were a great many opinions over such matters, as we still have these debates. I ask, under what understanding did the States ratify the Constitution? Was their understanding the same as Madison when he said this during the Virginia Ratification Convention:
That resolution declares that the powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people, and at their will. It adds, likewise, that no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the general government, or any of its officers, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for these purposes. There cannot be a more positive and unequivocal declaration of the principle of the adoption — that every thing not granted is reserved. This is obviously and self-evidently the case, without the declaration.
I think the States understood that they could reassume their delegated authority, as their understanding was verified by their ratification documents, and vindicated by the Federalist.
Personally, I believe the Anti-Federalist were correct in their fears. The Constitution has failed to restrict the growth of Government. It has, with the helping hand of the courts, turned the law upside down. I've read some post by you where you've asked the kind gentlemen from Texas about the Chicago court Case regarding firearms and the 14th Amendment. I now will ask you your feelings about federal gun restrictions? Health care? Endangered species acts? Illegal searches? ETC,ETC,ETC??
I'll respond to your reply when I get chance. Speaking of federal agencies, I'll be getting patted down soon, as we have some business to take care of in Arkansas.
Patrick Henry - June 1788:
"How were the Congressional rights defined when the people of America united by a confederacy to defend their liberties and rights against the tyrannical attempts of Great-Britain? The States were not then contented with implied reservation. No, Mr. Chairman. It was expressly declared in our Confederation that every right was retained by the States respectively, which was not given up to the Government of the United States. But there is no such thing here. You therefore by a natural and unavoidable implication, give up your rights to the General Government. Your own example furnishes an argument against it. If you give up these powers, without a Bill of Rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw – A Government that has abandoned all its powers – The powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a Bill of Rights – without check, limitation, or controul. And still you have checks and guards – still you keep barriers – pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated State Government! You have a Bill of Rights to defend you against the State Government, which is bereaved of all power; and yet you have none against Congress, though in full and exclusive possession of all power! You arm youselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity? What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong energetic Government? To that Government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real actual defect. . . "
I'll be needing to read the Anti-Federalists soon: it's the second time I've said that in as many weeks.
It's amazing the intransigence of the anti-10th, pro-Lincoln-the-Imperialist, crowd. These threads on the War of Northern Imperialist Aggression are never-ending.
Thanks for the ping. I only come on once in a blue moon or thereabouts.