Replies

Your really good at throwing a lot of S*&% at a wall and hoping it sticks, but your still wrong.

I posted the actual notes from the constitutional convention showing the debate on whether the states(through their legislatures) would ratify the constitution, or whether the people (through conventions held in their state) would ratify the constitution. Yet you say its a distinction without a difference.

It was the late 1800s do you think it was practical to have a huge group of representatives meet in one location?

Here’s the letter sent to the states by Congress with the constitution for it’s approval.

“Resolved unanimously, That the said report with the resolutions and letter accompanying the same be transmitted to the several legislatures in order to be submitted to a convention of delegates chosen in each state by the people thereof in conformity to the resolves of the Convention made and provided in that case.”
Congress transmittal letter to the states for ratification of the constitution

It clearly says that it is to be submitted to a convention of delegates chosen by the people in convention for ratification in conformity with the method provided in the constitution. Notice it doesn’t say for the state or the people of the state but the people.

All the states did was set up the election for the delegates to the convention and then transmit the results of the convention to congress. They did not ratify the constitution.

And in fact just five short years after ratification of the constitution the Supreme Court affirmed that the people had established the constitution. The chief justice of the Supreme Court at this time was John Jay, a founding father.

“We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution. Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country, and, in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will that the State governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner, and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects in a certain manner. By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, etc. etc.” – Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793

The supreme court made an even more explicit statement on the nature of the constitution and the relationship of the states to it 1819. The chief justice at the time was John Marshall, another founding father.

“The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone posses supreme domination.

“It would be difficult to sustain this proposition. The convention, which framed the constitution, was indeed elected by the state legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. It was then reported to the then existing congress of the United States, with a request, that it might be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification. This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the convention, by congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner, in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several states—and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines, which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be measures of the people themselves, or become the measure of state governments.

“From these conventions the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is ‘ordained and established’ in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained ‘in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to them selves and to their posterity.’ The assent of the states, in their sovereign capacity, is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the state governments. The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties.”
McCullough v Maryland

He explicitly addresses why the people acted in their states instead of coming together in one mass.

“It is true, they assembled in their several states—and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines, which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass.”

Hell, even the enemies of constitutional ratification understood what it did.

“In short, consolidation prevades the whole constitution. It begins with an annunciation that such was the intention. The main pillars of the fabric correspond with it, and the concluding paragraph is a confirmation of it. The preamble begins with the words, “We the people of the United States,” which is the style of a compact between individuals entering into a state of society, and not that of a confederation of states...”
From the minority report of the Pennsylvania ratification assembly (December 1787):

No matter how much you distort, obfuscate, or misrepresent the history there is no denying the fact that the constitution was established by the people, all the people of the United States, and can only be unmade by all of them.

You certainly don’t seem to care what Supreme Court Chief Justices who were founding fathers said about who established the constitution so you probably won’t care what the father of the constitution said about who established it but here it is in his own words.

“The government of the United States relies on its own means for the execution of its powers, as the state governments do for the execution of theirs; both governments having, a common origin, or sovereign, the people; the state governments , the people of each state, the national government, the people of every state; and being amenable to the power, which created it. It is by executing its functions as a government, thus originating and thus acting, that the constitution of the United States holds the states together, and performs the office of a league. It is owing to the nature of its powers , and the high source, from whence they are derived, the people, that it performs that office better than a confederation, or any league, whichever existed, being a compact, which state governments did not form, to which they are not parties, and which executes its own powers independently of them.”

Source: Mr. Madison’s letter, North American Review, Oct. 1830.

Your really good at throwing a lot of S*&% at a wall and hoping it sticks, but your still wrong.
I posted the actual notes from the constitutional convention showing the debate on whether the states(through their legislatures) would ratify the constitution, or whether the people (through conventions held in their state) would ratify the constitution. Yet you say its a distinction without a difference.

Your are absolutely exceptional at giving your version of what someone said without quoting them so that you can attribute your bullshit to them, and then argue against your bullshit.

Of course, I did not say the bullshit you attribute to me. I said quite the opposite.

First, I quoted your crap about the Preamble and the People, and your cut and paste of Framers from July 1777. I documented with cites, quotes and links that, at that time in 1777, the preamble did not exist. Nobody was talking about the content of the then-nonexistent preamble or its effect. I went on to document that when it did exist in the Convention, it did not contain "We the People" but a recitation of the States by name. The change by the Committee on Style after the delegates had departed could modify the wording, but not change the meaning. I also indicated that changing from the recitation of 13 names to "We the People" served the purpose of including the then-unknown States that would ratify, and not including the then-unknown States that would not ratify. It was a stylistic change the Committee of Style was authorized to make. It was not the unauthorized amendatory change you would imagine it to be.

You quoted Ellsworth:

Mr. ELSEWORTH moved that it be referred to the Legislatures of the States for ratification. Mr. PATTERSON 2ded. the motion.

You also quoted, in relevant part,

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.

I noted that referral to the Legislatures of the States was voted down. Of course, I did NOT say it was a distinction without a difference. I noted the very important and distinct difference. The State constitutions were sovereign acts of the people. Changing or replacing them required another sovereign act of the people. As Madison noted, acts of the legislature would lack the authority to override the existing State constitutions. The people had the sovereign authority and they exercised it by their acts in State conventions.

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."

The Constitution was not referred to the State Legislatures, the servant of the people of the States. It was referred to the sovereigns, the people of the States, to exercise their sovereign authority at State conventions, acting State by State, and the People always have when exercising their sovereign authority.

Referral to the Legislatures would have resulted in an act of the servant of the people which holds no sovereign power.

Referral to the People of the States, for consideration by their special agents or delegates chosen for that purpose, was to result in an act of the sovereign, or the acts of 13 sovereign States. Upon aproval of 9 states, the government was to be implemented between the States so ratifying.

As I stated:

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.

You stated:

“Resolved unanimously, That the said report with the resolutions and letter accompanying the same be transmitted to the several legislatures in order to be submitted to a convention of delegates chosen in each state by the people thereof in conformity to the resolves of the Convention made and provided in that case.” Congress transmittal letter to the states for ratification of the constitution
It clearly says that it is to be submitted to a convention of delegates chosen by the people in convention for ratification in conformity with the method provided in the constitution. Notice it doesn’t say for the state or the people of the state but the people.

The people were the people of each State. Each State convention was comprised of delegates representing the people of the State for that special purpose. For the people, each State reported ONE result. The people of eleven states ratified, and the people of two states did not, before the new system of government was implemented.

When speaking of "the people" in this sense, the people of the state are the State. Or as Black's Law Dictionary puts in in defining people, "All the orginary residents of a country or state, as opposed to the government or ruling class." The distinction made was between the government of the people (the legislature of the State) and the people of the State (the State convention of delegates, special agents of the people for a specific purpose).

The consolidated mass of people never voted to ratify the Constitution. To the consternation of the hopes of Hillary Clinton's reelection campaign, the majority of all the people means nothing when the people elect a President. Amendments require approval of three fourths of the States, not three fourths of the people. Your ahistorical nonsense remains nonsense.

I will note that you did not quote a word I said, nor contest the veracity of anything I linked, cited, and quoted. Nor did you provide a single link to your quotes to aid verifying the veracity and context of your quotes.