If that's the real issue - the method by which injustices should be corrected - then what is the relevance of the "positive purposes of the General Government" outside of that context?
If all he's talking about in this letter is how the injustices are to be remedied, then he isn't talking about any use of the power to RCASS for any purpose beyond that.
If you think that Congress was to be the sole arbiter of conflicts, that Congress was to be the sole remedial power, you are 100% wrong.
I know you're wrong because that is not the way it was done, and is not the way it is being done today.
Your only support for that contention is an exercise in sophistry, tring to make it appear that the "dormant commerce clause" is a power exercised by the states. It is not. The states may take their grievances before a federal court, but that court is still a part of the federal government. Wheather by positive explicit action by Congress, or finding of an implicit negative restriction by the federal courts the remedial power resides with the federal government, alone.
Injustices may be remedied in the courts by the states themselves or may be remedied by Congress enacting a law (which would be considered a positive purpose). It was Madison's intent that the former be used, rather than the latter.
If all he's talking about in this letter is how the injustices are to be remedied, then he isn't talking about any use of the power to RCASS for any purpose beyond that."
Other than the phrase "positive purposes of the General Government", no. Certainly Madison wasn't precluding Congress from preserving a healthy nation by prohibiting the "exportation or shipment in interstate commerce of livestock having any infectious disease".
Wouldn't preserving a healthy nation be a "positive purpose of the General Government"?
"Wheather by positive explicit action by Congress, or finding of an implicit negative restriction by the federal courts the remedial power resides with the federal government, alone."
Correct. But you may want to ask yourself why it is that a state can seek protection under the federal commerce clause when there is no federal law involved?
"tring to make it appear that the "dormant commerce clause" is a power exercised by the states."
I said it was a negative and preventative provision against injustice, not a "power". Although the Commerce Clause is a definition of federal power, the states may use the protection of "Dormant Commerce Clause" when seeking to rectify injustice.