[4CJ]

I cite lots of cases ;o) But an attempt to skew the "record"? I think not. Neo-reb? Again, I think not.

The point made is that the people of every existing state did not - in unison - ratify the Constiutution. The people of EACH state individually (unilaterlly) assembled in convention to vote up or down. Given that 9 of 13 states' ratifications would give life to the new union (via secession from the old one) if my math is correct there would be 715 possible combinations of ratifications that would produce that result. The people of New York could not - and did NOT - vote for the people of Georgia.

[WhiskeyPapa]

The point made is that the people of every existing state did not - in unison - ratify the Constiutution. The people of EACH state individually (unilaterlly) assembled in convention to vote up or down.

For convenience only, as the Chief Justice indicated.

It's "We the people", not "we the states."

"But the measures they adopt do not, on that account cease to be the measures of the people themselves..."

Walt

[B4Ranch]

Back then there was "Free and Independant States", even the people knew that. Not anymore.

[WhiskeyPapa]

But an attempt to skew the "record"? I think not.

You cited a portion of McCullough that was contradicted by the very next sentence in the ruling.

That is an attempt to skew the record, or if you like, the perception, of these events.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

The people of New York could not - and did NOT - vote for the people of Georgia.

No one said they did or could.

But the statement you made in #21 is false.

And you knew it was false based on McCullough

Walt