The Articles of Confederation did prove insufficient, but I think it was because of pretty specific problems, such as states not honoring out-of-state debts. Some of the changes made were akin to using a sledge hammer to swat flies.
Again, as I pointed out before, the Anti-Federalist papers have proven pretty accurate in pointing out the shortcomings of the Constitution. I think the discussion of “were the Federalists right” is one worth having in this day and age.
Absolutely. I never denied that. It would also refreshing to hear strict constructionists say that the Constitution was a mistake rather than their traditional pose as the ultimate Constitution lovers whose interpretation of that document is the "one true official interpretation." As I said, strict constructionism was the natural position of the opponents of the Constitution once it was adopted.
My one point was simply that local politicians are as human (meaning as fallible, venial, and corrupt) as national politicians, and state sovereignty would not necessarily mean some sort of conservative utopia, as so many seem to hold.
American history is as fascinating as that of any ancient nation. I never joined this thread to belittle General Lee in the least, but only to protest when an extremist proponent of local custom implied an attack on objective morality. That was my only reason for being here.