I submit there is quite a difference between a state and a senator, but let's follow your analogy in another direction. If the only powers are those that are specifically enumerated then by your definition the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Space Force are illegal organizations because they are not specifically authorized by the Constitution. Correct?
I would disagree, regarding both Jefferson and Madison. Madison's opinions changed with time, but he very notably defended the right of each State ratifying the new Constitution, to withdraw (i.e., secede) from the supposedly “perpetual” union formed under the Articles of Confederation (see his writings in the relevant section of the Federalist Papers).
LOL! So the states seceded from the United States in order to form the United States? The convening of the Constitutional Convention was approved by Congress and the sending of the Constitution to the states for ratification was also approved by Congress. Nobody seceded from anything.
Clearly, not all governmental powers that may be implied, actually exist, or the Constitution becomes a meaningless scrap of paper…
Probably. But as Chief Justice Marshall wrote in the McCulloch decision, "Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people," thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument." If Congressional approval is required to join and Congressional approval is required for every other alteration in a state's status then a fair construction of the whole instrument would support Congressional approval being needed to leave as well.
Actually, I believe I used the phrase ‘necessarily implied’ – I never stated that federal powers are limited to those “specifically enumerated”. You may be remembering that phrase from a different post.
LOL! So the states seceded from the United States in order to form the United States? The convening of the Constitutional Convention was approved by Congress and the sending of the Constitution to the states for ratification was also approved by Congress. Nobody seceded from anything.
Come now - it’s well documented history; two different unions, formed under two different compacts. Membership went from 13 States (in 1787, under the Articles of Confederation); to nine States in the union formed under the Constitution, with four States NOT in that union, having not ratified the Constitution; to 12 States in the new union, in 1788, with Rhode Island existing as a separate sovereign State, NOT bound by the Constitution; to, eventually, 13 member States in the new union.
You have read the Articles of Confederation, have you not? Having read it, you cannot fail to recognize the numerous differences between the Articles and the Constitution. And no doubt you are aware that ratification of the Constitution extended over a considerable length of time, and that no State which had not ratified the new Constitution, was in any way bound by its terms.
As to the ratifying States “seceding” from the old union (formed under the Articles), to join the new union (formed under the Constitution), I will simply refer you to my Post #201, and the description provided from the 1803 edition of Blackwell’s Commentaries, which includes the following:.
“Yet the seceding states, as they may be not improperly termed, did not hesitate, as soon as nine states had ratified the new constitution, to supersede the former federal government, and establish a new form, more consonant to their opinion of what was necessary to the preservation and prosperity of the federal union.”
If Congressional approval is required to join and Congressional approval is required for every other alteration in a state's status then a fair construction of the whole instrument would support Congressional approval being needed to leave as well.
And it is equally true that State approval “is required to join” – no State can be forced to join without its approval. Furthermore, State approval “is required for every other alteration in a state's status” – as the Constitution states, such changes may not occur “without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned”. But apparently you would have us believe that it is “a fair construction of the whole instrument”, to ignore the powers reserved to the States and their people, imply additional federal powers that are not necessarily implied, and claim that States can be forced to remain in the union, without their consent.
Guess we define “a fair construction of the whole instrument” in entirely different ways…