Mr. Madison’s words are clear. And given that I quoted Mr. Madison’s words, and not my own, it would appear that Mr. Madison ‘dragooned’ himself into supporting 'his own interpretation.' If you consider that interpretation “false,” your disagreement is with him.
”Neither of them can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, then the other or others have to hold them to it...[a single one] of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created...."
I believe I have addressed these comments previously. Mr. Madison appears to speak of equal rights, not superior rights. And please note: the rights he describes are those of the parties to the compact, not the rights of any entity created by it. In other words, the federal government is not even mentioned here – apart from the following: “by an intolerable abuse of the power created...” And, as we know from Mr. Madison’s Report, the States were to judge regarding the ‘tolerability’ (or lack thereof ;>) of abuse by the federal government. Your argument that only the federal government (via the high court) may determine whether it’s own abusive acts are ‘tolerable’ is literally laughable – and directly contradicted by Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson as well.
“The advice nearest to my heart and deepest in my convictions is that the Union of the States be cherished and perpetuated. Let the open enemy to it be regarded as a Pandora with her box opened; and the disguised one, as the Serpent creeping with his deadly wiles into Paradise."
-James Madison, Advice to my Country, 1834
Since I have disabused you of the notion that an act of Congress can supercede the Constitution, are you now suggesting that mere “advice” may do so? Or are you only pointing out that Mr. Madison’s views changed as he aged – something noted by many historians? In either case, I will observe that Mr. Madison’s “advice,” expressed over four decades after the Constitution was ratified, is somewhat less relevant than the statements he made prior to and immediately following ratification.
He means you.
Oh – now you’ve hurt my feelings. And I was just getting over Ditto’s statement regarding my constant resort to the words of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison: “Great role models you have --- nothing honorable about them or their cause.”
While I’m moping, perhaps you would you care to discuss the secession of the ratifying States from the so-called ‘perpetual union’ formed under the Articles of Confederation? No? How about the palpably unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts – which were enforced by federal judges? I thought not. What was it, again, that you were saying about "the whole record?" And what were you saying about “cherry picking?”
;>)
"That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, 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. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and in many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects it is competent. The people have declared that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects, it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory. The constitution and laws of a state, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of of the United States are absolutely void. These states are constituent parts of the United States; they are members of one great empiure--for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate."
--Chief Justice John Marshall, writing the majority opinion, Cohens v. Virginia 1821
You've quoted Justice Story on occasion.
From a newsgroup:
"Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, 1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.
2 ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?'' 3
Footnotes
1 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905).
2 E.g., the Court has read the preamble as bearing witness to the fact that the Constitution emanated from the people and was not the act of sovereign and independent States,
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 403 (1819) Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 471 (1793); Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 324 (1816), and that it was made for, and is binding only in, the United States of America. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 251 (1901); In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 (1891).
Yes, cherry picking.
Will you condemn Jefferson Davis for saying the same things as Justice Story?
The Confederate Constitution, he [Davis] pointed out to [Governor] Brown, gave Congress the power "to raise and support armies" and to "provide for the common defense." It also contained another clause (likewise copied from the U.S. Constitution) empowering Congress to make all laws "necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Brown had denied the constitutionality of conscription because the Constitution did not specifically authorize it. This was good Jeffersonian doctrine, sanctified by generations of southern strict constructionists. But in Hamiltonian language, Davis insisted that the "necessary and proper" clause legitimized conscription. No one could doubt the necessity "when our very existence is threatened by armies vastly superior in numbers." Therefore "the true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended and calculated to carry out the object...if the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional."
--Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson P.433
You've seen this before; I don't recall a single word of condemnation of Davis by you. I don't expect one now. After all, Davis was a slave holder. That gives him a free pass among confederate apologists.
Walt