Dead and paine want to argue that the original intent of the Constitution should be interpreted not viewed in the light of the times that it was written, --
Hogwash. -- We both argue that the clear words of the Constitution itself [in Article VI] make it obvious that State constitutions/laws cannot contradict the "supreme Law of the Land". -- Just as it was written.
-- but according to the changed geopolitical landscape created by the Civil War. It's like they want to be strict constructionists while standing in the wrong period of time.
Nothing in the war [or the 14th] "changed" this basic principle of the US Constitution. -- States have always been "-- bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"
The words "General Government" being used in reference to the Federal government aren't mine, they're Madison's.
"-- But I will candidly acknowledge, that, over and above all these considerations, I do conceive that the constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the General Government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done. --"
Want to cross out Madison's words too t?
Why would I luis? -- Nothing he is writing implies that State or local gov't has a power to ignore our Law of the Land.
In fact, just below he 'boldly' says States do not have such powers:
"-- It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say, that this objection lies against such provisions under the State Governments, as well as under the General Government."
There's that pesky prase again...want to correct Madison again t?
Again, why would I 'correct' words that make my point? -- Are you daft?
"It is true, the powers of the General Government are circumscribed, they are directed to particular objects; but even if Government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent, in the same manner as the powers of the State Governments under their constitutions may to an indefinite extent; because in the constitution of the United States, there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; this enables them to fulfil every purpose for which the Government was established. Now, may not laws be considered necessary and proper by Congress, for it is for them to judge of the necessity and propriety to accomplish those special purposes which they may have in contemplation, which laws in themselves are neither necessary nor proper; as well as improper laws could be enacted by the State Legislatures, for fulfilling the more extended objects of those Governments.
I will state an instance, which I think in point, and proves that this might be the case. The General Government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the Legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for this purpose, as well as for some purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the State Governments had in view? If there was reason for restraining the State Governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the Federal Government."
Want to take five guesses as to what Madison was discussing in his speech t?
No 'guessing' needed luis. He is discussing restraining both Fed & " State Governments from exercising this power, [the power to write "improper laws"] there is like reason for restraining the Federal Government." [from the power to write "improper laws"]
Typically luis, -- in your inability to understand Madison, you've shot your own foot; -- its quite amusing.
Restraints of the States were already in place via their own individual Constitutions, that's why Madison, in speaking about the framing of the Federal Constitution, says that there was "like reason" to place restraints on the Federal goverment.
You can't read your own native language.