Can't help but start out with a DISTORTION can you? Of course, the issue was not INVASION but INSURRECTION so your attempted deception and dishonesty does not address anything. Plus, you tried to pass off this dishonest bullshiite earlier in the thread to the same disdain.
It is CLEAR that INSURRECTION within or between states can be put down by federal forces as per the Constitution. This is extensively discussed in the Federalist.
Federalist is the definitive explanation of the Constitution. If it says something about the Constitution (as existing in 1787) that is the final word. Virtually all constitutional decisions of the Courts begin with studying the relevant portions of the Federalist. Marshall stated that was his method and it has remained true to this day.
Putting vague, half-assed constitutional Know Nothings up against the Federalist is like putting the Shabbona Park White Sox up against the Chicago White Sox. Laughable.
There are no "ratification documents" which dispute anything in the Federalist and they add NOTHING to the knowledge of what the Constitution means. There only significance is that they said "Yes". The ways they said it are not important and don't support the insane claims of the secessionists anyway. Claiming the American People have the ultimate sovereignty in no way authorizing destruction of the Union by non-constitutional means.
I don't know what your obsession with this Faber is but it has nothing to do with me or my ideas so forget it.
The Constitution was written to remove sovereignty from the states since the theory of complete state sovereignty had been PROVEN not to work. Federalist explains why that was and what had to be done about it. This is not even disputable.
You have not addressed ANY of the relevant arguments preferring instead to beat the dead Faber horse. If you cannot address them then just admit it there is nothing more to say.
Plus, you tried to pass off this dishonest bullshiite earlier in the thread to the same disdain.Same disdain = "I failed to address it then, either."
It is CLEAR that INSURRECTION within or between states can be put down by federal forces as per the Constitution.
ON APPLICATION FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE.
Which state legislature petitioned King Lincoln for a federal invasion?
Virtually all constitutional decisions of the Courts begin with studying the relevant portions of the Federalist.
Daniel Farber begain with studying the Federalist. What he came up with was that
it would be a mistake to view the Framers as purely nationalistic. During ratification, the most direct discussion of the source of the Constitution's legitimacy was in Federalist 39. Inquiring into the formation of the new Constitution, Madison explained that ratification takes place by the authority of the people -- "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." Madison went on to call ratification a "federal and not a national act," that is, "the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation." This passage seems at odds with Lincoln's theory,
I don't know what your obsession with this Faber is but it has nothing to do with me or my ideas so forget it.
Nonsense. You have repeatedly contended that there existed an ironclad union which predated the states. Farber is one of few, if not the only, historian to take on the task of demonstrating it.
You can see how poorly he did in his task, and take comfort in the fact that he comes infinitely closer than do you.