And which bears absolutely no resemblance to the relationship between the states.
Just like a vote to expand a board of directors would be from a board of directors -- according to the bylaws of most [all?] companies.
And wouldn't the same be required to reduce the size of the board of directors?
All correct, except possibly the last, again the question becomes is a bereaved party still beholden to the contract's terms? Or does the law provide for the dissolution [with benefits] to the injured party?
A more salient question is who decides when a party is injured? The Southern states claimed their rights were violated and the compact broken. Why didn't the other states have the ability to disagree and insist that the compact was intact? Even in your marriage analogy one side does not have the right to unilaterally end the marriage and walk off with all the property they can get their hands on. The decision has to be mutual, or decided by a judge.
Looks like Madison agreed with me: that the federal government violating the Constitution was grounds for a State saying "no more".
You would be wrong. Later in the same letter Madison wrote: "The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but among the parties creating the Government. Each of these being equal, neither can have more right to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargain."
>> Not really; marriage is the fundamental compact in human society: that is it is the one that is recognized and revered universally.
>
> And which bears absolutely no resemblance to the relationship between the states.
Of course it does, being the fundamental compact must make it relevant if the relationship between the states [and federal government] is a compact.
(Your reply also indicates agreement with this premise.)
In theology saying that Jesus is a kind of Adam is not to say that he *is* Adam, that would be absurd, but precisely that there is a likeness/relevance/relationship between the two — in like manner to say “marriage is the fundamental compact” is to say that ALL other compacts share a “likeness” of some sort.
>> Just like a vote to expand a board of directors would be from a board of directors — according to the bylaws of most [all?] companies.
>
> And wouldn’t the same be required to reduce the size of the board of directors?
Not of necessity — what if the same bylaws require intimidate termination for some offense, or being investigated [as in arrested] for some offense (like, say, kindergarten teachers and arrest for pedophilia or child porn).
>> All correct, except possibly the last, again the question becomes is a bereaved party still beholden to the contract’s terms? Or does the law provide for the dissolution [with benefits] to the injured party?
>
> A more salient question is who decides when a party is injured? The Southern states claimed their rights were violated and the compact broken. Why didn’t the other states have the ability to disagree and insist that the compact was intact? Even in your marriage analogy one side does not have the right to unilaterally end the marriage and walk off with all the property they can get their hands on. The decision has to be mutual, or decided by a judge.
You are somewhat wrong - Jesus said that fornication was justification for divorce. There are obviously two witnesses to fornication, the fornicator & the one he is fornicating with — indeed there are three, for God Himself sees all the works of men. Proving it, however, is a different matter; but not generally a problem: a an unfaithful spouse acts from the heart, and that same heart will rule other actions. — Furthermore, there is no “mutuality” in dissolving a marriage in the manner that Jesus was talking about: there is only one exception for divorce, which is fornication. (In the same sentence he says that divorce in other situations was to “cause her to commit adultery” — this is something big, capitol offense big, look at the laws here: Deuteronomy 22:22; Leviticus 20:10; Proverbs 6:32)
Now, if you look at the Constitution — Can it be said that the Federal Government has kept the Compact? Has it stayed within the proscribed limits, or at least made good-faith efforts to do so? Or do things like Wickard, Raich, Kelo, Schenick, Affordable Care Act (all USSC decisions) indicate an overarching bad-faith? Indeed consider the recent federal gun registration and ObamaCare (both legislative) do these indicate good-faith? Now the executive: does Fast & Furious, or the EPA crackdowns, or the TSA searches, or the War on Drugs/No Knock Raid-style “execution” of ‘law’ indicate good-faith?