[Who is John Galt?]

The Constitution may be said, as southerners argued, to be a voluntary union between states. But it was also just as much a union between the men of those states. To the extent that it was the latter, secession becomes a difficult issue.

Actually, the Constitution itself notes that it was established “between the States so ratifying the same” (Article VII), and can only be lawfully amended by “three fourths” of the States (which might one day actually be inhabited by a minority of the ‘national’ population ;>). As Mr. Justice Thomas so astutely noted only a few short years ago:

“…[I]t would make no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation.”

Clearly, the federal union is much less a union of the undifferentiated ‘American people’ than it is a union of the several States.

;>)

[jonestown]

. Justice Thomas noted only a few short years ago:

"The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation."

Not true if we had fully informed jurors, allowed to establish both the facts and the application of the law, in the cases before them.
Juries judging the Constitutionality of law in the case at hand would provide the mechanism for action 'by the people'.. -- [And impartial juries are guaranteed by the 6th Amendment]
Which is precisely why jury nullification is not allowed in most of our 'justice system'.

Clearly, the federal union is much less a union of the undifferentiated 'American people' than it is a union of the several States.

Why does anyone want States to have sovereign power over individuals, - over their rights to life liberty or property?
-- It's a counterintuitive puzzle.