If it's a contract, it's the funniest looking contract I have ever seen. The Constitution is not a contract. It is an incorporation document that spells out the duties, structure and workings of the national government including a strong executive and superiority of national over state laws and explicitly declares that the constitutions of the states states must conform to it, not the other way around.
If you see it as a contract, you can only then be of the anti-Federalist (anti-Constitution) camp since the constitution puts itself above state constitutions which is the reason the anti-Federalists opposed adoption.
Yes. Establishing a legal, political entity known as the United States.
---------
including a strong executive and superiority of national over state laws and explicitly declares that the constitutions of the states states must conform to it, not the other way around.
No.
Which came first, the commonwealth States, or the federal government?
The States, of course!
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. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.
________________________________________________________________
Samuel Adams to Elbridge Gerry
The Sovereignty of the State extends over every part of its Territory. The federal Constitution expresses the same Idea in Sec. 8, Art. 1. A Power is therein given to Congress "to exercise like Authority," that is to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, "over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, and other needful Buildings," among which Light-houses may be included. Is it not the plain Conclusion from this Clause in the Compact, that Congress have not the Right to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, nor even to purchase or controul any part of the Territory within a State for the Erection of needful Buildings unless it has the Consent of its Legislature.
---------
If you see it as a contract, you can only then be of the anti-Federalist (anti-Constitution) camp since the constitution puts itself above state constitutions which is the reason the anti-Federalists opposed adoption.
Uh, then why do I keep using the Federalist papers?
Because even the Federalists knew the meaning of the words *Republic* and *limited* government. :-)