No argument is being made by me that the ultimate authority on what our government can do rests with the People. However, it has been provided with constitutional means to have that influence exercised. Originally our government was established so that the state legislatures were actually represented in the Senate. However, the People were convinced that this was not democratic enough, amended the Constitution and now our Senators are elected like Reps. This was a big mistake.
Unfortunately, there is no credible belief that our government and People will not make mistakes, mistakes which could last for decades. Look at Dred Scott.
Many of us share your belief that the fedgov has become too powerful in too many areas. However, trying to negate it by an appeal to “Natural Law” is a fruitless endeavor since there is considerable dispute about what that means. Some claim we have a “right” to free health care. Some claimed we had a “right” to slavery.
Even the greatest advocates of Enumerated powers do not dispute that there are certain unenumerated powers associated with the sheer sovereignty of the nation. Hamilton’s magnificent Essay on the Constitutionality of the National Bank most clearly expostulates this concept.
Nor is there any realistic dispute that the history of this century shows that an extremely powerful national government is critical to our very survival. One with less powers would likely have succumbed to either Nazism or Communism. Nor should there be much dispute that it has taken to far more involvement in other areas than should be the case.
However, most of this I blame on the People for continuing to elect Democrats and falling for every sweet-talking scam artist who decides to enter politics. Or they just don’t pay any attention to significant issues until they are huge problems. Or they just don’t give a crap and don’t even vote.
The federal constitution is the creature of the People not the states. It was deliberately set up to be voted on by the People in convention in the states rather than state legislatures exactly so that it could not be truthfully claimed to be the “creature of the states”. If a state legislature were allowed to ratify then it could at a later date vote to de-ratify.
Back when Madison was more Hamiltonian than Hamilton he even proposed that the states be abolished and made into administrative units created by the general government. He also wrote to H during the NY ratification convention that once ratifying the states could not withdraw. Nor could they ratify “conditionally”.
Nullification is a bird of the same feather. Could Idaho have said “No, we are nullifying the Draft Law. Our boys are not going to fight Hitler”? Of course not.
Our government was set up with DIVIDED powers not as a monolith. So far it has worked pretty well in spite of various mistakes and problems. Court rulings have overturned legislative and executive decisions and they have generally been accepted and followed. Jefferson tried to make the Court subordinate to his ideology and failed. It is designed not to be political. But it requires people of integrity to make it so. If it ever gets to the point of being totally political then something will happen to our nation and it won’t be good.
I agree that it was a big mistake. I also believe that there is more to it than what the naked eye can detect. It is a "conditioning effect" if you will. Kinda like flash cards, they slowly convince the mass that tyranny is good. Then before you know it, BOOM.. Obama.
Even the greatest advocates of Enumerated powers do not dispute that there are certain unenumerated powers associated with the sheer sovereignty of the nation. Hamilton’s magnificent Essay on the Constitutionality of the National Bank most clearly expostulates this concept.
There were certainly several Senators recalled by their State over the "National Bank". I do not share Mr. Hamilton's view on our system of Government. If I had to classify myself, it would be Jeffersonian in nature.
The federal constitution is the creature of the People not the states. It was deliberately set up to be voted on by the People in convention in the states rather than state legislatures exactly so that it could not be truthfully claimed to be the “creature of the states”. If a state legislature were allowed to ratify then it could at a later date vote to de-ratify.
Your comment above is where you and I completely differ. The Federal Constitution was created by the States, for their benefit, to be mutually beneficial to all States and the people thereof. That is why we have a Federal Government, not a National Government. I understand terminologies change over time, but historical fact is just that. As Madison said," the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several States, who were parties to it; and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity."
It is also a historical fact that Madison said a great many things. Please continue reading..
Back when Madison was more Hamiltonian than Hamilton he even proposed that the states be abolished and made into administrative units created by the general government. He also wrote to H during the NY ratification convention that once ratifying the states could not withdraw. Nor could they ratify “conditionally”.
If this above is true, they sure didn't make this aware to the State of New York. I also believe that New York ratified before that letter saw the light of day. Furthermore, they did ratify the Constitution “conditionally”.
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788.
WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known. ...
That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; ...
In regards to Mr. Madison, here is what he said during Virginia's ratification:
That resolution declares that the powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people, and at their will. It adds, likewise, that no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the general government, or any of its officers, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for these purposes. There cannot be a more positive and unequivocal declaration of the principle of the adoption — that every thing not granted is reserved. This is obviously and self-evidently the case, without the declaration.
Here is that resolution:
We the Delegates of the people of Virginia . . . declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes. . .
The citizens of each state were/are the ultimate sovereign in deciding whether or not their state would join, or remain with the Union. It is true about the letter you mentioned in regards to Madison and Hamilton. They I believe were willing to sell their own mother in trying to get the Constitution ratified. Here Madison in his letter to Nicholas P. Trist, dated February 15, 1830. In it he said something completely different than the letter you've mentioned:
Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as embodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect."
After all, it was Madison who said that the states had the right to decide when the federal government was abusing its powers. In such cases the states could interpose their authority in order to protect their citizens. During the same year as the Trist letter, Mr. Madison also wrote to Robert Hayne. In that letter he stated: "extreme cases of oppression" a state would be “absolved . . . from the Constitutional Compact to which it is a party"..
I'll wait your response