The Constitution was not a compact or a federation among sovereign states. It was "ordained and established" by "We, the people of the United States."
To which I responded:
How silly can you get. What are the United States, but the States that are united. For your theory to have any meaning, or make any sense, the entities would be an entity, and it would not have a plural name. It might be a United State of something, but it would not be the United States. However, one need not even point out the obvious use of words. There is compelling legal authority to absolutely refute this nonsense:
1. The Declaration of Independence declared the independence of the original 13 States, and clearly defined them in unmistakable terms.
2. The Treaty Of Paris, which ended the War and obtained international recognition, specifically defined the term "the United States of America," as precisely what we have contended it to mean. That term having been clearly defined legally, 4 years before, obviously meant exactly the same thing, when it was used in the Constitution.
3. You quote the preamble of the Constitution, but ignore every thing about it. Note 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." Pretty clear, isn't it that they are talking about a union of States.
4. The signatory clause is equally unequivocal: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present this Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America, the Twelfth."
5. Suffrage for Federal elections was to be determined by each State, for itself. Thus Article I, Sec. 2. merely provided: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." What that meant as a practical matter was that who could vote in Federal elections varied very considerably from State to State--the Union was hardly the Nazi style monolith that you try to suggest--with some States soon extending the suffrage to a broad spectrum, and others such as South Carolina, which continued to have a very restricted suffrage at least into the 1840s, very restricted.
6. The basic actions of a sovereign with respect to the daily affairs of a people are taken under what are called the "Police Power," the right to act to protect the Safety, Health & Morals of the body politic. These powers are not conferred by the Constitution to the Federal Government, they were left entirely to the States.
I could go on, with many other proivisions of the Constitution, which are wholly inconsistent with your absurd claim. Had what you claim been intended, however, the Constitution would not have employed the terminology of the independent States, but would have created an entity called "America" or perhaps "Columbia," as in "Columbia the Gem Of The Ocean," (since there was no nation known as Columbia in those days).
To the extent that the Founding Fathers recognized a common nationality, they were "Americans." When they talked about the sovereign States, they were Virginians, or Carolinians, or Pennsylvanians, etc.. Practically everyone, had a dual identity. They were, as Booker T. Washington was later to define it, in terms of race relations--one as the hand in all things common (American) but separate as the fingers in other matters.
But enough. Your claim flies in the face of the documents. I do not know what your motivation may be for insisting upon it so beligerantly, but it is not sustainable among people who have read the basic documents of American history.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site