You can plainly see this difference expressed in the preambles of the Articles of Confederation and the Preamble to the Constitution.
Articles of Confederation
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
The Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Notice there is no mention of the states in the constitution preamble. It is the People of the United States. The people of one country.
If that isn't proof enough for you. Here is the debate that ensued at the constitutional convention when a motion was passed to have the states (through their legislatures) ratify the constitution instead of the People (through state conventions) ratify the constitution.
Notes on the Constitutional Convention
Resol: 19. "referring the new Constitution to Assemblies to be chosen by the people for the express purpose of ratifying it" was next taken into consideration.
Mr. ELSEWORTH moved that it be referred to the Legislatures of the States for ratification. Mr. PATTERSON 2ded. the motion.
Col. MASON considered a reference of the plan to the authority of the people as one of the most important and essential of the Resolutions. The Legislatures have no power to ratify it. They are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and can not be greater than their creators. And he knew of no power in any of the Constitutions, he knew there was no power in some of them, that could be competent to this object. Whither then must we resort? To the people with whom all power remains that has not been given up in the Constitutions derived from them. It was of great moment he observed that this doctrine should be cherished as the basis of free Government. Another strong reason was that admitting the Legislatures to have a competent authority, it would be wrong to refer the plan to them, because succeeding Legislatures having equal authority could undo the acts of their predecessors; and the National Govt. would stand in each State on the weak and tottering foundation of an Act of Assembly. There was a remaining consideration of some weight. In some of the States the Govts. were not derived from the clear & undisputed authority of the people. This was the case in Virginia Some of the best & wisest citizens considered the Constitution as established by an assumed authority. A National Constitution derived from such a source would be exposed to the severest criticisms.
Mr. RANDOLPH. One idea has pervaded all our proceedings, to wit, that opposition as well from the States as from individuals, will be made to the System to be proposed. Will it not then be highly imprudent, to furnish any unnecessary pretext by the mode of ratifying it. Added to other objections agst. a ratification by Legislative authority only, it may be remarked that there have been instances in which the authority of the Common law has been set up in particular States agst. that of the Confederation which has had no higher sanction than Legislative ratification. Whose opposition will be most likely to be excited agst. the System? That of the local demagogues who will be degraded by it from the importance they now hold. These will spare no efforts to impede that progress in the popular mind which will be necessary to the adoption of the plan, and which every member will find to have taken place in his own, if he will compare his present opinions with those brought with him into the Convention. It is of great importance therefore that the consideration of this subject should be transferred from the Legislatures where this class of men, have their full influence to a field in which their efforts can be less mischeivous. It is moreover worthy of consideration that some of the States are averse to any change in their Constitution, and will not take the requisite steps, unless expressly called upon to refer the question to the people.
Mr. GERRY. The arguments of Col. Mason & Mr. Randolph prove too much. they prove an unconstitutionality in the present federal system even in some of the State Govts. Inferences drawn from such a source must be inadmissible. Both the State Govts. & the federal Govt. have been too long acquiesced in, to be now shaken. He considered the Confederation to be paramount to any State Constitution. The last article of it authorizing alterations must consequently be so as well as the others, and every thing done in pursuance of the article must have the same high authority with the article. -Great confusion he was confident would result from a recurrence to the people. They would never agree on any thing. He could not see any ground to suppose that the people will do what their rulers will not. The rulers will either conform to, or influence the sense of the people.
Mr. GHORUM was agst. referring the plan to the Legislatures.
1. Men chosen by the people for the particular purpose, will discuss the subject more candidly than members of the Legislature who are to lose the power which is to be given up to the Genl. Govt.
2. Some of the Legislatures are composed of several branches. It will consequently be more difficult in these cases to get the plan through the Legislatures, than thro' a Convention.
3. in the States many of the ablest men are excluded from the Legislatures, but may be elected into a Convention. Among these may be ranked many of the Clergy who are generally friends to good Government. Their services were found to be valuable in the formation & establishment of the Constitution of Massachts.
4. the Legislatures will be interrupted with a variety of little business, by artfully pressing which, designing men will find means to delay from year to year, if not to frustrate altogether, the national system.
5. If the last art: of the Confederation is to be pursued the unanimous concurrence of the States will be necessary. But will any one say, that all the States are to suffer themselves to be ruined, if Rho. Island should persist in her opposition to general measures. Some other States might also tread in her steps. The present advantage which N. York seems to be so much attached to, of taxing her neighbours by the regulation of her trade, makes it very probable, that she will be of the number. It would therefore deserve serious consideration whether provision ought not to be made for giving effect to the System without waiting for the unanimous concurrence of the States.
Mr. ELSEWORTH. If there be any Legislatures who should find themselves incompetent to the ratification, he should be content to let them advise with their constituents and pursue such a mode as wd. be competent. He thought more was to be expected from the Legislatures than from the people. The prevailing wish of the people in the Eastern States is to get rid of the public debt; and the idea of strengthening the Natl. Govt. carries with it that of strengthening the public debt. It was said by Col. Mason
1. that the Legislatures have no authority in this case.
2. that their successors having equal authority could rescind their acts.
As to the 2d. point he could not admit it to be well founded. An Act to which the States by their Legislatures, make themselves parties, becomes a compact from which no one of the parties can recede of itself. As to the 1st. point, he observed that a new sett of ideas seemed to have crept in since the articles of Confederation were established. Conventions of the people, or with power derived expressly from the people, were not then thought of. The Legislatures were considered as competent. Their ratification has been acquiesced in without complaint. To whom have Congs. applied on subsequent occasions for further powers? To the Legislatures; not to the people. The fact is that we exist at present, and we need not enquire how, as a federal Society, united by a charter one article of which is that alterations therein may be made by the Legislative authority of the States. It has been said that if the confederation is to be observed, the States must unanimously concur in the proposed innovations. He would answer that if such were the urgency & necessity of our situation as to warrant a new compact among a part of the States, founded on the consent of the people; the same pleas would be equally valid in favor of a partial compact, founded on the consent of the Legislatures.
Mr. WILLIAMSON thought the Resoln.: so expressed as that it might be submitted either to the Legislatures or to Conventions recommended by the Legislatures. He observed that some Legislatures were evidently unauthorized to ratify the system. He thought too that Conventions were to be preferred as more likely to be composed of the ablest men in the States.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS considered the inference of Mr. Elseworth from the plea of necessity as applied to the establishment of a new System on ye. consent of the people of a part of the States, in favor of a like establishment. on the consent of a part of the Legislatures as a non sequitur. If the Confederation is to be pursued no alteration can be made without the unanimous consent of the Legislatures: Legislative alterations not conformable to the federal compact, would clearly not be valid. The Judges would consider them as null & void. Whereas in case of an appeal to the people of the U. S., the supreme authority, the federal compact may be altered by a majority of them; in like manner as the Constitution of a particular State may be altered by a majority of the people of the State. The amendmt. moved by Mr. Elseworth erroneously supposes that we are proceeding on the basis of the Confederation. This Convention is unknown to the Confederation.
Mr. KING thought with Mr. Elseworth that the Legislatures had a competent authority, the acquiescence of the people of America in the Confederation, being equivalent to a formal ratification by the people. He thought with Mr. E-also that the plea of necessity was as valid in the one case as in [FN10] the other. At the same time he preferred a reference to the authority of the people expressly delegated to Conventions, as the most certain means of obviating all disputes & doubts concerning the legitimacy of the new Constitution; as well as the most likely means of drawing forth the best men in the States to decide on it. He remarked that among other objections made in the State of N. York to granting powers to Congs. one had been that such powers as would operate within the State, [FN11] could not be reconciled to the Constitution; and therefore were not grantible by the Legislative authority. He considered it as of some consequence also to get rid of the scruples which some members of the State Legislatures might derive from their oaths to support & maintain the existing Constitutions.
Mr. MADISON thought it clear that the Legislatures were incompetent to the proposed changes. These changes would make essential inroads on the State Constitutions, and it would be a novel & dangerous doctrine that a Legislature could change the constitution under which it held its existence. There might indeed be some Constitutions within the Union, which had given a power to the Legislature to concur in alterations of the federal Compact. But there were certainly some which had not; and in the case of these, a ratification must of necessity be obtained from the people. He considered the difference between a system founded on the Legislatures only, and one founded on the people, to be the true difference between a league or treaty, and a Constitution. The former in point of moral obligation might be as inviolable as the latter. In point of political operation, there were two important distinctions in favor of the latter. 1. [FN12] A law violating a treaty ratified by a pre-existing law, might be respected by the Judges as a law, though an unwise or perfidious one. A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void. 2. [FN12] The doctrine laid down by the law of Nations in the case of treaties is that a breach of any one article by any of the parties, frees the other parties from their engagements. In the case of a union of people under one Constitution, the nature of the pact has always been understood to exclude such an interpretation. Comparing the two modes in point of expediency he thought all the considerations which recommended this Convention in preference to Congress for proposing the reform were in favor of State Conventions in preference to the Legislatures for examining and adopting it.
On the question on Mr. Elseworth's motion to refer the plan to the Legislatures of the States
N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. ay. no. Pa. no. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no.
Notes on the constitutional convention July 23, 1787
As you can see from the notes there was much debate on whether the states or the people should ratify the constitution. In the end it was decided that the people would.
The ConstitutionWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Notice there is no mention of the states in the constitution preamble. It is the People of the United States. The people of one country.
If that isn't proof enough for you. Here is the debate that ensued at the constitutional convention when a motion was passed to have the states (through their legislatures) ratify the constitution instead of the People (through state conventions) ratify the constitution.
Notes on the Constitutional Convention
Resol: 19. "referring the new Constitution to Assemblies to be chosen by the people for the express purpose of ratifying it" was next taken into consideration.
[...]
On the question on Mr. Elseworth's motion to refer the plan to the Legislatures of the States
N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. ay. no. Pa. no. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no.
Notes on the constitutional convention July 23, 1787
As you can see from the notes there was much debate on whether the states or the people should ratify the constitution. In the end it was decided that the people would.
The link for the above is:
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr00227))
It is from Farrand's Records, Vol 2, starting at page 88, from the proceedings of July 23, 1787. It is from several months before the Committee on Style had created a preamble with the words We the people. The People ratified the Constitution AS STATES. The People referred to were the People organized and existing as political bodies, the States. The Constitution was approved when ratified by nine of the political commmunities, i.e. States. The new government was formed with approval of eleven political communities, i.e. States.
The Ellsworth plan to refer the Constitution to the STATE LEGISLATURES was defeated, and the plan to refer it to STATE CONVENTIONS representing the People of each State was approved. What was denied was referring the matter to STATE GOVERNMENT.
At no time in American history has there been a national, consolidated vote of all the People for any purpose. The sovereigns express their will as States, and only as States.
The final text of the preamble, with the change to We the people was made by the Committee on Style after the Convention. See Farrand's Records, Volume 2, pg. 590, Madison's annotated copy of the the Report of the Committee on Style, bearing the date Sept, 12, 1787
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr002175)):
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 2, p. 590]
Report of Committee of Style
Madison annotated his copy of the Report of Committee of Style with,
As Reported by Come. of revision, of Stile & arrangement. Sept. 12. consisting of Mr Johnson Mr Hamilton Mr. Morris, Mr. Madison & Mr King.
Farrand's Records at page 581 notes on September 11, 1787, "The report of the Committee on Stile & arrangement not being made & being waited for, the House adjourned.
Farrand's Records at page 582 notes on September 12, 1787, "The honorable Mr. Johnson from the Committee of revision informed the House that the Committee were prepared to report the Constitution as revised and arranged. The report was then delivered in at the Secretary's table—and having been once read throughout. Ordered that the Members be furnished with printed copies thereof."
In the Convention, the draft of the Constitution was transmitted to the Committee on Style (Mr Johnson, Mr Hamilton, Mr. Morris, Mr. Madison & Mr King) just before the convention delegates departed. The preamble did not origijnally contain the phrase We the People..
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr002167)):
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 2, pg. 565; proceedings of September 10, 1787] Proceedings of Convention Referred to the Committee of Style and Arrangement1
[Note 1: 1 Compiled by the editor from the proceedings of the Convention.]
We the People of the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government and our Posterity.ARTICLE I.
The stile of this Government shall be, "The United States of America."[...]
That is what was reported as a draft at the Convention to the Committee on Style.
This was changed by the Committee on Style to "We the People".... The Committee on Style had the authority to clean up the grammar and usage; they had no authority to change the meaning of anything. The intended meaning is clear that the Preamble was referring to the people of the states, but only the people of the states that ratified. In this sense, the people of the states, and the people of the United States, are synonomous terms. The members of the union are the states that ratified. The delegates to the Convention were deputed by States. Ratifications were made by States. When George Washington was inaugurated, the Constitution had been ratified by eleven states. Article 7: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same."
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:13:./temp/~ammem_jCMu::
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 2, at pg. 590, proceedings from September 12, 1787]
Report of Committee of Style
WE, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.ARTICLE I.
Sect. 1. ALL legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.[...]
There is no right of the people to vote in national elections for President. Delegates to the Electoral College are selected as determined by State legislatures. The legislatures may choose directly or hold a popular vote.
Note also the original phrasing "declare and establish the following Constitution for our Government and our Posterity." The Constitution follows the Preamble. The Preamble is not part of the Constitution; it is an introductory paragraph, and the Constitution follows it. The Preamble has no force of law, and provides no legal rights or benefits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
DraftingThe Preamble was placed in the Constitution during the last days of the Constitutional Convention by the Committee on Style, which wrote its final draft, with Gouverneur Morris leading the effort. It was not proposed or discussed on the floor of the convention beforehand. The initial wording of the preamble did not refer to the people of the United States, rather, it referred to people of the various states, which was the norm. In earlier documents, including the 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France, the Articles of Confederation, and the 1783 Treaty of Paris recognizing American independence, the word "people" was not used, and the phrase the United States was followed immediately by a listing of the states, from north to south. The change was made out of necessity, as the Constitution provided that whenever the popularly elected ratifying conventions of nine states gave their approval, it would go into effect for those nine, irrespective of whether any of the remaining states ratified.
- - - - - - - - - -
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 , 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).
Neither women, nor men, have a right to vote except as provided by the state. The 19th Amendment did not give anyone the right to vote, rather it prohibited discrimination regarding voting based on sex. Where men are permitted to vote, women must also be permitted on an equal basis.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep197/usrep197011/usrep197011.pdf
Jacobsen v Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question (§ 137, c. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States unless, apart from the Preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. 1 Story's Const. § 462.
- - - - - - - - - -
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr003117))
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3]CIII. James Madison to Thomas Jefferson.
Philada. Sepr. 6. 1787.
As the Convention will shortly rise I should feel little scruple in disclosing what will be public here, before it could reach you, were it practicable for me to guard by Cypher against an intermediate discovery. But I am deprived of this resource by the shortness of the interval between the receipt of your letter of June 20, and the date of this. This is the first day which has been free from Committee service, both before & after the hours of the House, and the last that is allowed me by the time advertised for the sailing of the packet.
The Convention consists now as it has generally done of Eleven States. There has been no intermission of its Sessions since a house was formed; except an interval of about ten days allowed a Committee appointed to detail the general propositions agreed on in the House. The term of its dissolution cannot be more than one or two weeks distant. A Governmt. will probably be submitted to the people of the States, consisting of a president, cloathed with Executive power; a Senate chosen by the Legislatures, and another House chosen by the people of the States, jointly possessing the legislative power; and a regular judiciary establishment. The mode of constituting the Executive is among the few points not yet finally settled. The Senate will consist of two members from each State, and appointed sexennially. The other, of members appointed biennially by the people of the States, in proportion to their number. The Legislative power will extend to taxation, trade, and sundry other general matters. The powers of Congress will be distributed, according to their nature, among the several departments. The States will be restricted from paper money and in a few other instances. These are the outlines. The extent of them may perhaps surprize you. I hazard an opinion nevertheless that the plan, should it be adopted, will neither effectually answer its national object, not prevent the local mischiefs which everywhere excite disgusts agst. the State Governments. The grounds of this opinion will be the subject of a future letter. ...
Nothing can exceed the universal anxiety for the event of the meeting here. Reports and conjectures abound concerning the nature of the plan which is to be proposed. The public however is certainly in the dark with regard to it. The Convention is equally in the dark as to the reception wch. may be given to it on its publication. All the prepossessions are on the right side, but it may well be expected that certain characters will wage war against any reform whatever. My own idea is that the public mind will now or in a very little time receive anything that promises stability to the public Councils & security to private rights, and that no regard ought to be had to local prejudices or temporary considerations. If the present moment be lost, it is hard to say what may be our fate. ...
Mr. Wythe has never returned to us. His lady whose illness carried him away, died some time after he got home.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr003118)):
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3]
CIV. Jonas Phillips to the President and Members of the Convention.
SiresWith leave and submission I address myself To those in whome there is wisdom understanding and knowledge. they are the honourable personages appointed and Made overseers of a part of the terrestrial globe of the Earth, Namely the 13 united states of america in Convention Assembled, the Lord preserve them amen--
[...] Your Most devoted obed Servant
Jonas PhillipsPhiladelphia 24th Ellul 5547 or Sepr 7th 1787
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr003124)):
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3]
CX. George Washington: Diary.
[September] Monday--17th.Met in Convention when the Constitution received the unanimous assent of 11 States and Colo. Hamilton's from New York (the only delegate from thence in Convention) and was subscribed to by every Member present except Govr. Randolph and Colo. Mason from Virginia -- & Mr. Gerry from Massachusetts. The business being thus closed, the Members adjourned to the City Tavern, dined together and took a cordial leave of each other. -- after which I returned to my lodgings -- did some business with, and received the papers from the secretary of the Convention, and retired to meditate on the momentous wk. which had been executed, after not less than five, for a large part of the time six, and sometimes 7 hours sitting every day, sundays & the ten days adjournment to give a Commee. opportunity & time to arrange the business for more than four months.--
Alexander Hamilton had no authority to act on behalf of the state of New York as the rest of the delegation had walked out early. Rhode Island refused to send a delegation. Once the delegates decided to exceed their mandate to draft amendments to the Articles of Confederation, and instead draft a proposed Constitution for an different system of government, only eleven states participated at the Convention.