Really? New one on me -- I'd heard of the diplomacy and state forces being kept (not just Militia but ships). What year did this occur in? It would have had to be after 1789, right? Since the Supreme Court didn't exist, really, until ratification.
But I am, notwithstanding, of opinion, that New Hampshire was bound, and Congress supreme, for the reasons already assigned, and that she continued to be bound, because she continued in the confederacy. As long as she continued to be one of the federal states, it must have been on equal terms. If she would not submit to the exercise of the act of sovereignty contended for by Congress, and the other states, she should have withdrawn herself from the confederacy.And again (3 Dall. 54, 95),
Two principles appear to me to be clear. 1. The authority was not possessed by Congress, unless given by all the states. 2. If once given, no state could, by any act of its own, disavow and recall the authority previously given, without withdrawing from the confederation.Justice Blair in the same case (3 Dall. 54, 113), cited his own circuit court decision stating the same:
[I]f she [New Hampshire] had such a right [to revoke any authority she may have consented to give to Congress], there was but one way of exercising it, that is, by withdrawing herself from the confederacy.