Replies

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.

Wrong!!!!! The Constitution specifically delegates the powers that the federal government may exercise(Article I - All legislative Powers herein granted ... Article I § 8 - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution ...)

Even without a Bill of Rights both Madison and Hamilton argued that such was uneccessary - as the federal government could not exercise any power not delegated. IN particular, Hamilton in Federalist No. 84,

Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. ...
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government.

To ensure that the feds wouldn't attempt to twist the meaning of the enumerated powers (as you attempt to do), the ratifying states - separately - as there is no American people aggregated en masse - demanded a Bill of Rights (those proposed amendments put forth by almost every state convention). The proposed amendments known as the Bill of Rights we prefaced by,

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

You are correct though, the amendments limited the federal government, not the states. A position held by the Supreme Court including Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia

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.

To further ensure that nationalists/quacks would understand that the states, and the people of the states severally (not jointly), possessed ALL powers not delegated, they included Amendment X, '[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'

The states were sovereign, the union is not God and create itself, nor did the union create the states. The states pre-existed the union, and the Constitution acknowledges that nine of the former 13 states would be sufficient to form a new union - leaving 5 in the dust heap of history. Regardless of whether or not the vernacular of addressing a state has changed, that in no way is sufficient legal authority to transfer sovereignty from the people of the state. Regarding adjudication of matters by the federal government, Amendment XI prohibits suits against a state by citizens of a different state. That is NOT a case of matters solely within a state.

Hamilton's later writing in the Essay on the National Bank greatly expands the concept of permissable federal powers and Washington agreed as did the Congress. There clearly are powers which are not specified such as the power to guard the borders (not mentioned) or the power to purchase Louisiana. Almost anything can be tied to the exercise of the specific powers mentioned which makes this a much greater grant than you are willing to acknowledge. And all the Founders (and Jefferson) agreed there were implied powers.

In fact, the Union did predate the States and they came into being after the Continental Congress asked them to write constitutions and become states. Before that they were just colonies. The Articles of Association came into being October 20, 1774 over a year before ANY state was created. The United Colonies 1st Congress convened in Sept of 1774 BEFORE any states were created. There was never a truly sovereign state except Texas. All were colonies bound to Britain then part of the Union before any state called itself a state.