[Ken H]

Oh, so we're not going to do anything until this "rather than" phrase is settled? And here you are.

Correct. That was on a fundamental point of disagreement on another thread. You aren't supposed to be dragging such things to other threads.

Well, since you're going ahead with it, let me be the first to call your post a lie. Nowhere does Madison say "it was not to be used for the positive purposes of the general government".

Madison wrote: [the "power to regulate commerce among the several States"] was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General government.

Your position is that "rather than" means "but could also be". I say "rather than" means "not". That is the sticking point.

[robertpaulsen]

I said it was an acceptable choice, which implies multiple powers assigned to the regulation of commerce among the several states.

In the quote (the entire quote can be found in post #33), Madison is simply distinguishing which power was behind the formation of the clause and why. If he wanted to exclude all other powers, he would have said "not".

Just because you interpret "rather than" as "not" in this phrase doesn't give you the right to reword Madison's quote and post it as his. Let people read it for themselves -- wassa matter, scared they may not think the way you do? Or are other Freepers not as smart as you and need your translation?