Oh, let us not get too carried away. We are in partial agreement, but that is progress.
The People delegate power to the various Governments.
Hence, the right of change any government is the right to revolution taking back that delegated power if it is being abused.
About this, we disagree.
The people met and reclaimed their delegated powers from the government under the Articles of Confederation. There was no revolution. There was no need to demonstrate any power being abused. If the people are the sovereigns, they do not need permission from anyone to exercise their sovereign power.
The people in the aggregate do absolutely nothing under the Constitutional government. The constitutional government was formed after eleven ratifications were agreed upon. There were not millions of ratifications, but one for each state. The people organized themselves by state, and they acted by state. Each such group of people acted independently of the other twelve groups.
The sovereigns have the right of change of their government. They do not need to stage a revolution to exercise their rights. They need not justify the exercise of their rights to anyone. If they have the right to do something, that have that right even if exercising it would be an act of gross stupidity. They can exericise their rights for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.
Actually, they did have to demonstrate that the Articles of Confederation were a failure and thus the relationship between the States needed to be stronger if they were to survive as a People.
The argument by the anti-federalists was that the Articles could be modified but did not have to be scrapped.
As for a 'revolution'well it was certainly a radical change.
And not every revolution has to be violent, as shown by the glorious revolution.
The people in the aggregate do absolutely nothing under the Constitutional government. The constitutional government was formed after eleven ratifications were agreed upon. There were not millions of ratifications, but one for each state. The people organized themselves by state, and they acted by state. Each such group of people acted independently of the other twelve groups.
The People send representives of their states to Washington to represent them, and that is how their voice is heard at the Federal level.
The sovereigns have the right of change of their government. They do not need to stage a revolution to exercise their rights. They need not justify the exercise of their rights to anyone. If they have the right to do something, that have that right even if exercising it would be an act of gross stupidity. They can exericise their rights for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.
Well, once agreed upon the People had commited themselves to a Union.
The People were now more strongly People of the United States, not only People of the various states.
One was important as the other and just as the People of the United States could not reject reject the People of any state or states, so the People of the states (in any combination) could not reject the People of United States as such.
Any other interpretation is simply anarchy, with the potential of every level of gov't seceding from one another (towns from counties, counties from States, States from the Federal gov't.)