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.
Citizenship is granted by the federal government. There is only ONE way of becoming an American citizen and states have NOTHING to do with it. We are one People and have been since about 1770 or a couple of years earlier.
Ridiculous. When the people ratified it, it was in their role as citizens of the United States acting within the borders of Virginia. Where else should they have voted? Pennsylvania?
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.
You can take it farther and say that the basic political unit is a county or a town. Both those have officers elected by the people. The fact that the people's voice on matters of constitutional change is expressed through their legislature is a matter of convenience. The Constitution makes it clear that an alternate route for approving an amendment is by the people themselves assembled in convention. If states alone ratified the amendment then why include that clause?
As for the President and Vice-President do you really want to get into that whole Electoral College thing?
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.
What King George said or did while we were operating under the Articles of Confederation is meaningless. We are now governed under the Constitution, and it does not recognize the states as sovereign in the same manner that you seem to.
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.
Oh you mean like now? In your dreams!