“What does Madison’s letter concerning a yet to be Ratified Constitution have to do with what Madison said about the State’s obligation to the federal authority over a decade later”?
Like a lot of cons I am all about original intent. That letter was Madison’s very thinking at the very moment that the constitution was written. We are talking about the very two people you claim to use to support your argument. You can not dismiss it. Maybe Madison experienced buyers remorse in later years but this document has to be the one that Madison opinion’s regarding states rights has to turn on due to its timeliness regarding the constitution.
Written, not Ratified.
-----
We are talking about the very two people you claim to use to support your argument.
No, you pinged me to a post that you had previously made on this thread where it stated:
nor did I know that in 1798, Madison had tried to explain to Jefferson that this was wrong. [my first post concerning Jefferson was in #1064]
You brought Jefferson in, I did not.
Speaking of Jefferson, though, here's his Resolutions Relative to the Alien and Sedition Acts
That they will concur with this commonwealth in considering the said acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, (not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories.
Sounds to me as if Madison and Jefferson agree on the issue that the federal government cannot authorize anything that is not IN the Constitution.
Now please point out the word permanent, perpetual, continual or any other synonym for eternity in the Constitution that shows that the ability of the federal government to prevent a State from leaving the Union at will is not one of the powers reserved to the States respectively, or to the people by the 10th Amendment.
If it is so obvious in its Original Intent, it shouldn't be hard to find.