Replies

No. The states were required to establish conventions of the ~~American~~ people gathered by state.

Then why does the Constitution refer to "We the People of the United States..." and not as "We the People of New York, New Hampshire, Connecticut, etc."? Why not describe it as an agreement between the states as the Articles of Confederation did? Because it was ratified by the American people and not the people of Virginia, etc.

As Chief Justice Marshall put it, "[n]o political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass." McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 403 (1819)

Let's look at that in context:

"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. The convention which framed the Constitution was indeed elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States with a request that it mightbe submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each State by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification."

"This mode of proceeding was adopted, and by the convention, by Congress, and by the State legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject -- by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States -- and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments."

"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."

"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, 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."

Then why does the Constitution refer to "We the People of the United States..." and not as "We the People of New York, New Hampshire, Connecticut, etc."?

Probably because phones hadn't been invented yet and the founders couldn't get hold of Miss Cleo? </sarcasm>

Actually, the states were originally enumerated. The Committee of Revision (aka Committee of Style) - led by William S. Johnson (CN), joined by Alexander Hamilton (NY), James Madison (VA), Gouverneur Morris (PA) and Rufus King (MA) - made numerous changes. Morris is the one who changed the Preamble, since it was unknown which states would ratify. Additionally, denoting the states would require Constitutional amendments to revise the Preamble with each new state added.

Why not describe it as an agreement between the states as the Articles of Confederation did? Because it was ratified by the American people and not the people of Virginia, etc.

Wrong. It IS described as an agreement between the states (Article VII - 'The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.') And one would have to be insane to aver that it was ratified by the people en masse - can you point to this super-ratification made by all states in unison???

Then why does the Constitution refer to "We the People of the United States..." and not as "We the People of New York, New Hampshire, Connecticut, etc."?

Because both "people" and "states" are plurals in this construction. "People" was always a plural word in the 18th century, and the superplural "peoples" didn't show up until later. There is a hint there, about the ideology of nationality. It does not, however, illuminate original intent.

Why not describe it as an agreement between the states as the Articles of Confederation did? Because it was ratified by the American people and not the people of Virginia, etc.

Nonsense. When Virginia ratified, it was as the People of Virginia. When Connecticut ratified, the People of Connecticut ratified. There was no lumpen People of the United State: the People were the People, whether of Virginia (a State) or of the United States (more than one State).

The basic unit of polity in the United States is the People of a State. That's how we ratify changes to the Constitution, and it's how we elect the constitutional officers of the United States, the President and the Vice-President.

And that is why King George III recognized our States as free States and our People as their sovereigns: State by State, People by People seriatim, calling the roll all through the Treaty of Paris.

But we've been over all this. I'm surprised to see you trying to berate 4CJ over all this, after you've been so thoroughly refuted. Or do you think the thread gods will just forget, if you try to "reset" and start all over again?

Fat chance.