And you're still wrong.
"The Preamble was written by Hamilton et al. before the Constitutional Convention substantially changed their offering from an amalgamated nation-state to the federal system we have today, and the People further modified the social compact by adding the Bill of Rights as sine qua non for the ratification of the Constitution."
Wrong about that, too. There were no conditions or requirements concerning ratification of the original document. With that said, a Bill of Rights was a prudent and reasonable compromise.
"The People of the United States are NOT amalgamated. Rather "People" is a plural form, as well as singular, because of its collective nature. The Framers invariably wrote "people" as a plural, to mean an individual people of a State, or all the People of all the States."
Standard confedero-doublespeak. For some things, there does, and did, exist a unitary "people."
Not.
There were no conditions or requirements concerning ratification of the original document.
Not what the dissenting States told Hamilton and his playmates.
What they told them was, we get amendments and a Bill of Rights or this is going down in flames. They meant it, too. We discussed the "necessary and proper" and other offending clauses above.
With that said, a Bill of Rights was a prudent and reasonable compromise.
Without which not. The Federalists caved, and they gave the store away on amalgamation and surrender of sovereignty: the Ninth and Tenth Amendment sealed that deal for all time.
'Til your boy Abe broke it with a war.
Standard confedero-doublespeak.
Not hardly, bub.
For some things, there does, and did, exist a unitary "people."
In your mind. In constitutional law, it doesn't exist.