Didn't need to. Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 says Congress has the power to call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. Congress gave the President the power to call up the militia to suppress rebellion if Congress is not in session, first in the Militia Act of 1792, renewed in 1795.
Ideas about sovereignty may also color the understanding of particular constitutional issues. Thus, while it may not be useful to ask who really had sovereignty in 1776 or 1789, it is potentially useful to ask who was believed to have sovereignty then.
Please continue. Farber went on to say "As it turns out, however, the historical record does not supply a clear answer to the later question either."
A contract between the peoples of the separate states might well be termed a compact. The critical question was whether a national social compact arose at some point, binding all Americans together into one people, or whether the only real social compacts were at the state level, with those political societies then forming a second-level compact. The "compact theory" of sovereignty refers to this second-level compact, which is considered to have a less fundamental status than the social compacts establishing each state. If this all seems rather aridly metaphysical, that's because it is,
And then Farber says, "Asking whethre the state populaces or the national one "really" had csovereignth in 1776 or 1789 is somewhat like asking if Lady Macbeth really had children. In both cases the available textual material supports conflicting inferences, and perhaps one set of inferences is a bit stronger than the other...Still, like Lady Macbeth's children, popular sovereignty lacks any physical existence. We might politely call it a useful fiction."
Please refer to my 1300: Tired whiskeypapa referrals to repealed laws won't save you from this one.
The militia act of 1795 required petition from the state legislature, as outlined in the Constitution. The act of 1792 was repealed by the act of 1795 - you know this, because I have posted it to you before.
Farber went on to say "As it turns out, however, the historical record does not supply a clear answer to the later question either."
And this is the rock-solid foundation of both his and your argument. Keep up the good work.
"popular sovereignty lacks any physical existence. We might politely call it a useful fiction."
And you believe this? It looks more like Farber set out to demonstrate that sovereignty not only existed, but that the federal government was the sole owner and proprietor. When the historical record was overwhelmingly set against him, he instead hung his hopes on decimating even the idea that sovereignty existed.
Of course, it did. It must have. Without it, we would have no independence, no Constitution, no government, no America. So it's not at all like asking Lady Macbeth really had children. In both cases the available textual material supports conflicting inferences, and perhaps one set of inferences is a bit stronger than the other...
I am SHOCKED to find a cherry-picked deceptive quote from gianni and so soon after I claimed that to be EXACTLY what he and the rest of the Neo Confeds do.