Replies

To whom was Chief Justice Jay being compliant when he wrote:
"Here we see the people acting as the sovereigns of the whole country...the Constitution of the United States is liekwise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner."

It can safely be said that Mr. Justice Jay was not being “compliant” to historical fact, at least in so far as he suggested that “the people” acted as a “-whole-“ (as you describe it) when they ratified the Constitution. As James Madison (whom many consider the primary author of the Constitution) noted, "...(T)his assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong...[an] act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation..."

You may also wish to read Article VII of the Constitution sometime: it nowhere mentions ratification by the people of the “-whole-“ country: quite the opposite, in fact.

Finally, in so far as Mr. Justice Jay’s “general objects, in a certain manner” comment suggests the delegation of specifically limited powers to the new federal government (contrary, BTW, to your “almost unlimited” federal power claims), he may have been “compliant” to the truth of the matter.

Or Chief Justice Marshall:
"That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single natiion, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one; and the government which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects, is the government of the Union. It is their government and in that character, they have no other."

You really must enjoy posting judicial opinion – this one appears to be entirely irrelevant, apart from any pleasure you may have taken in wasting our time with it. “For most important purposes,” Mr. Justice Marshall states. “In many other respects,” he says. “They have no other [government],” he declares. How nice – you take ‘First Prize’ for pointless generalities.

Or Justice Story:
The constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the constitution declares, by "the people of the United States."

Ah, the ‘Preamble canard’ – yet again. I’ve shot this ridiculous argument to pieces so often that it’s becoming boring. Nevertheless, as one historian and legal scholar has noted:

Neither did the Constitution "emanate from the whole people." Leaving aside the preamble for the moment, the actual language of the text is to the contrary:

"Article VII. The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. . . Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present. . . " "Article V. [The Constitution may be amended] when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths, thereof. . . "

Since the Constitution was proposed by a convention called by the states, was ratified by the states, and can only be amended by the states, the notion that it "emanates from the whole people" or that "the government proceeds directly from the people," or that it is "of the people" and "by the people" can only be described as "metaphysical" nonsense invented by those who view the states as a mere inconvenience on the path to creating an all-powerful central government.

Much has been made by unionists of the preamble to 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 defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."

This reliance is understandable. If one lacks support for one's view in the text of the constitution, one seeks it in the preamble. The underscored phrase, however, has no unambiguous meaning. Its meaning depends on whether the word "United", an adjective, or "States", a noun, is given greater emphasis.

There is no need to resolve this issue, however, because the very presence of the phrase, "We, the People of the United States," in the preamble, is an accident! It originally read:

”That the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 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 of ourselves and our posterity."

Judge Eugene Gary explains:

"[I]t was amended, not for the purpose of submitting the constitution to the people in the aggregate, but because the convention could not tell, in advance, which States would ratify it."

It appears that Mr. Justice Story was not being “compliant” to historical fact – any more than are you...

;>)