Replies

As a point of fact, the term “union” is the only term used in the text of the Constitution to refer to the United States, while the word “nation” never appears a single time.

Thus, the force and effectiveness of this sovereignty which was thus “retained” from the Declaration of Independence, was equivalent to that of any other nation; this was made clear in the Declaration, via the statement:

“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do”

Note that the term “state” used here in the Declaration, is clearly used synonymously with the term “nation” for the purposes of this document; as such, the United States had no more claim in binding South Carolina or Virginia, than it had in binding England or France, and the term “United States” literally meant “United Nations.”

You then, must believe that the states somehow “surrendered” their status as sovereign nations, in the act of ratifying the Constitution

However this is negated by the 10th Amendment specification that powers were merely delegated,

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”

In this context, therefore, powers were delegated to the federal government via the Constitution by the states ratifying it, not out in the interest of any sort of collectivism, but merely for the purposes of practical harmony in co-existence – with both union and non-union nations – solely for advancing the individual benefit of the respective delegating state.

Meanwhile, the 9th amendment likewise states that:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Since the term “others” as used here, clearly refers to rights not enumerated in the text of the Constitution, then it thus implicitly preserves those rights enumerated via prior documents – such as the Articles of Confederation, which specifically retains the “sovereignty, freedom and independence” of every state – which the Constitution does not exclude anywhere (but rather preserves, since states would have to retain their sovereign powers in order to delegate them.

Articles of Confederation, which under Article II states that:
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

To claim otherwise, i.e., that every state committed itself to the supreme and final binding arbitration (and mercy) of the Federal government in settling disputes – under force of law wielded by such – would not only be nonsensical for the purposes of protecting the states from possible abuses by this same Federal government, but moreover is nowhere expressed – or even implied – in the Constitution or any other document.

I cannot imagine why anyone would imagine that separate nations, would knowingly and willingly surrender their individual sovereignty – particularly, as in the case of the United States, after their having just won it via bloodshed from centralized and consolidated tyranny firsthand.

States claimed sovereign powers during the Revolution but it soon became clear that they could only exercise them partially and destructively. The Union formed by these states was also considered to be perpetual. The Constitution strengthened that perpetual Union by removing certain powers from the states and vesting them in the federal government. These powers are exactly those most important in forming a nation.

It was the intention of the Founders to strengthen that NATION which called itself the United States of America. The reality was there were not thirteen sovereign nations which became free nor did they act as if there were.

The tenth amendment essentially means that the local police and regulatory powers are reserved to the states when there is no federal impact. It reserved no right of secession a concept explicitly refuted by Madison during the New York ratification fight.

Nor does the ninth amendment allow secession except through a constitutional means. A constitution is a fundamental act which cannot be changed unilaterally or by means outside its framework of amendment. A state declaring secession has unilaterally done just that by changing the composition of the UNION.

Madison deviated from the true faith of the founding when Jefferson returned to the country from France. He afterwards supported all manner of nonsense such as the KY and VA resolutions which the country rejected contemptuously. But even he reigned in some of Jefferson’s crazier followers when they started talking secession.

As far as your inability to imagine others’ imagining it is inconceivable to me that one could have believed the US would have survived without a strong central government. Otherwise we would all be speaking German no doubt.