[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.
"That was the bottom line for the Founders as well as me."

I disagree. Too much time was spent discussing the rights of the states and the limits of the rights given to the Federal government for the founders to have believed the way you say when they defined the makeup with our nation.

Convenience and mutual safety were important, but it is clear that most signers believed in the sovereignty of the individual states.

Even so, I do have to think it's true that few of us regret the survival of the Union.

Irony is a dangerous thing, as it is subjective and too easily misunderstood. It's good, though, isn't it.

And now back to work.

Michael Frazier

[justshutupandtakeit]

One of the common misunderstandings is that the Constitution was to limit federal power but, in fact, it was written to limit STATE power while expanding federal power. The only prohibitions on federal power came through the amendments all other prohibitions are on states.

As Hamilton clearly pointed out in his Essay on the National Bank the federal government is limited by direct prohibitions, contrary to the spirit of the document, or immoral. None of the Founders believed that the government was forbidden to act unless that was specified even Jefferson didn't believe that. It is a framework not a detailed plan. Much of the Convention was spent shooting down plans for even more federal power. Even Madison proposed such.

States were only sovereign wrt matters SOLELY within a state. Any other actions which affected other states or the Union were subject to being forbidden or being brought before the federal courts for adjudication. States had never been truly sovereign even under the Articles though certainly more than after the Constitution. Speaking about "the great sovereign state of ...." became little more than political rhetoric.