I happen to think that this dual sovereignty, which Madison tried all his life to explain, is far to subtle and complex for most people to understand. I guess that doesn't make it wrong, but it does seem to make it unworkable.
It's simply too opaque. The author of your post definitely gets it right, as far as explaining the intent and how it was supposed to work, where sovereignty resides, etc. I'm still not sure I agree with his conclusion that it was good. I think they came very close, but made some obvious errors.
Thanks for the reply. When reading your critique this old anecdote came to mind:
When Benjamin Franklin exited the Constitutional convention, he was asked by a woman, “Sir, what did you give us?”
Franklin replied, “A Republic ma’am, if you can keep it.”
In other words, Franklin, Madison, and all the others knew full well that what they created could be ruined. That if they wanted to build a nation based on freedom, they couldn’t avoid giving the people the freedom to screw it up. We also have the freedom, actually the duty, to always endeavor to set things right again. As it happens there is an interesting article today in the WaPo titled “The Case for a Federalism Amendment” by constitutional scholar RANDY E. BARNETT
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html Its ideas like this that need to be considered. Let me know what you think.