“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government...will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.”
So explain how a ban on domestic slavery fits into the category of “external objects.”
“The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
So you’re saying you think the issue of slavery, obviously falling into the category of “lives, liberties, and properties,” should revert to the states?
The slave trade was foreign commerce.
“The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” So you’re saying you think the issue of slavery, obviously falling into the category of “lives, liberties, and properties,” should revert to the states?
And yet some of the separate and sovereign northern states passed legislation independent of the federal government banning slaves, some even banning the existence of blacks within their borders (the Oregon Constitution went so far as to ban 'Chinamen' (their words not mine)). Apparently to these northern states it did fall under the purview of the states as to what their powers were.
But marriage has nothing to do with 'foreign commerce' does it? It clearly falls under the limitations of Federalist 45. If the Framers knew there were some advocating passage of an Amendment to ban associations at the federal level (no matter how disgusting they may be), they would be laughing their heads off.