[WayneS]

Please do me the favor of posting a link to, or the name of, a document I can read which contain a transcript of the discussions you reference.

I have been basing virtually ALL of my statements and/or arguments on the actual words which are actually in the Constitution (or the lack of certain words in that same document).

You continue to make statements like "so and so discussed this and they decided it is this way"; but you never provide a citation. Not that it makes much difference anyway since the Constitution says what it says and it DOESN'T say what it DOESN't say, no matter what was debated and/or discussed during its formation.

And it IS supposed to be a strait-jacket; a strait-jacket on our government, with just enough wiggle room to allow it to perform its critical functions WITHOUT trampling on the rights of the citizens. The sad part is, our government slipped out of that strait-jacket many decades ago.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't do links or many quotes so if that bothers you you will have to talk to others. I prefer speaking with people who primarily use their own words not the words of others. Though I have referred you to Hamilton's Essay on the National Bank which explains comprehensively how one determines the constitutionality of an action. It would show you also why secession was not constitutional though not directed at that issue.

You appear not to recognize the entire intent of writing the Constitution was to Strengthen the federal government and Weaken the state governments NOT the other way around.
It certainly did put a straight jacket on the states but there were few prohibitions on federal actions in the Constitution prior to the BoR which hopefully others by now have convinced you was directed at the fedgov and not the states as I claimed earlier.