Replies

Figures that you would have breezed right by this part, "In discussing this question, the counsel for the state of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the constitution, to consider that instrument, not as emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states. The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion. It would be difficult to sustain this proposition." Marshall is making it clear that it was the people of the United States who ratified it, and not the states. Which he reinforces in this part, "From these conventions, the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is 'ordained and established,' in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained, 'in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity.' The assent of the states, in their sovereign capacity, is implied, in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the state governments. The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties." Again, he is speaking of the people of the United States, and that the government created by the people of the United States through the Constitution binds the states and not the other way around. And then there's this line and what Marshall has to say about your lame theory that the states created the government, "It has been said, that the people had already surrendered all their powers to the state sovereignties, and had nothing more to give. But, surely, the question whether they may resume and modify the powers granted to government, does not remain to be settled in this country. Much more might the legitimacy of the general government be doubted, had it been created by the states. The powers delegated to the state sovereignties were to be exercised by themselves, not by a distinct and independent sovereignty, created by themselves. To the formation of a league, such as was the confederation, the state sovereignties were certainly competent. But when, 'in order to form a more perfect union,' it was deemed necessary to change this alliance into an effective government, possessing great and sovereign powers, and acting directly on the people, the necessity of referring it to the people, and of deriving its powers directly from them, was felt and acknowledged by all. The government of the Union, then ( whatever may be the influence of this fact on the case), is, [17 U.S. 316, 405] emphatically and truly, a government of the people. In form, and in substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit." Context is important, as you demonstrate time after time.

Figures that you would have breezed right by this part....

I didn't "breeze by" anything. I guess you didn't like the answer, is all.

[You, quoting Marshall again]

".....The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion. It would be difficult to sustain this proposition."

Marshall is making it clear that it was the people of the United States who ratified it, and not the states. [Emphasis yours.]

You're being deliberately obtuse.

I made the point, far from "breezing by" the issue, that Marshall was commenting on the claim of the Maryland attorneys, that the States' sovereignties were separate from the People of those States who ratified the Constitution in their conventions. The Maryland argument was bogus, but you and Marshall both do the same thing Maryland did, which is to try to separate the People from the State they compose.

So to believe, is never to have heard of the concept of a polity, which is what the States are. Polities are composed of people, not alternative abstractions such as those dragged in by Maryland's pleaders, and they are not to be confounded with the lawmaking and administrative apparatuses of archons, praetors, legislators and governors erected by those polities to serve the People and their needs, which is what state governments are.

But now you'll want to argle-bargle about what a polity is, and claim that I don't know what I'm talking about, because I can't be allowed to claim a point, or ever be right about anything, having laid hands on Lincoln's legend as a Buddha-like political atman, and having said, rudely, that he was instead a railroad lawyer and a machine politician.

The fact of the matter is, the States did ratify the Constitution, convention by convention. The People of each State are the State. Here is Madison in Federalist 39 again, just in case you indolently skipped over the part I carefully underlined for you in my post above, talking about the identity of the States, as polities, with the People of same, as they ratified the Constitution:

That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. [Emphasis in original.]

Context is important, as you demonstrate time after time.

Yes, and I've just demonstrated it again, to your embarrassment. So is quoting the right guy.