[dirtboy]

From the understanding of the Framers, why would you amend a federal document to change a state law?

Then why did they even bother passing a new Constitution anyway? They could have just kept the Articles if that were the case.

Once again, your argument falls apart because the Constitution itself gave the fedgov powers at the expense of states - and it was the states that ratified the Constitution in the first place. So if the states could give some of their powers to the fedgov by ratifying the Constitution, why would they in turn not be able to give another power to the fedgov by ratifying an amendment?

[billbears]

Then why did they even bother passing a new Constitution anyway? They could have just kept the Articles if that were the case.

No, because certain aspects of the federal government were not addressed under the original articles (namely taxation, commerce, etc). Eventually it would have broken down

So if the states could give some of their powers to the fedgov by ratifying the Constitution, why would they in turn not be able to give another power to the fedgov by ratifying an amendment?

But again from the Framers' understanding why would they want to do such a thing? Madison's statement was to alleviate the concerns of many within the states. The federal government's powers would be limited, the states for the most part would not.

Now from a federal supremacist point of view, one would believe the states would want to release powers to the states. However, that was not necessarily the popular opinion of the time in all corners.