Retaining their entire liberty in your quote did not mean retaining their entire liberty. Of course the liberty of the various states was restricted by the Constitution.
One provision of that restriction was the duty to submit certain classes of controversies to, and to submit to the result of decisions by the Supreme Court.
The people of the states retained their ‘right of revolution’ but the Federal government had a ‘duty to suppress insurrection’ that counterbalanced the right of revolution.
And so it proved.
That's a rather ridiculous statement. 'It really didn't mean what it said it did?' LOL!
Tucker was quite clear on his opinion of the sovereign States.
-----
One provision of that restriction was the duty to submit certain classes of controversies to, and to submit to the result of decisions by the Supreme Court.
this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact,
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
[emphasis mine]
The other department of the federal government, NOT the parties to the compact...the States.
The federal government never had the authority to judge whether a State has a right to do anything unless it was specifically forbidden by the Constitution....like coining money.
-----
but the Federal government had a ‘duty to suppress insurrection’ that counterbalanced the right of revolution.
There was no 'insurrection'. States, in their sovereign capacity, notified the federal government that they were withdrawing from the Constitutional Compact.
They were not attempting to overthrow the lawful authority.... they ARE the lawful authority.
-----
Oh... and before you start jumping on this:
Article 6, Clause 2
........under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
or Laws of any State to the Contrary
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 24 - MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY
The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority
***
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
***
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART THE FIRST A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
***
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ARTICLE. 1. Declaration of Rights
Sec. 11. Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.
2. The military shall be subordinate to the civil power; No standing army shall be maintained by this State in time of peace, and in time of War, no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.
This is one of the oldest provisions and it appears in every State Constitution. The military is subordinate to the civil power.
Therefore, it is an unconstitutional act for the federal power to use military force and usurp the civil authority of a State by attacking ANY one of the States that created it. Always has been, always will be.
------
This has all been quite entertaining, but you obviously have no interest in historical truth or the concept of Original Intent.
That being the case, I have no interest in you.
Sovereigns don't retain the 'right of revolution' - since that is their basic natural right - they retain their sovereign right to 'alter or revoke its commission'..without asking 'Mother May I?' ...
John Taylor of Caroline:
Sovereignty is the highest degree of political power, and the establishment of a form of government, the highest proof which can be given of its existence. The states could not have reserved any rights by the articles of their union, if they had not been sovereign, because they could have no rights, unless they flowed from that source. In the creation of the federal government, the states exercised the highest act of sovereignty, and they may, if they please, repeat the proof of their sovereignty, by its annihilation.
And so it proved.
Augh...And any government that may exercise to do whatever it professes to be necessary and proper to promote whatever it professes to be the general welfare is, by definition, a government of unlimited powers.
"Nullification and Secession are both rights; and the difference between them is simply this: Nullification proposes to preserve the Constitution, by annulling every act of the Federal Government, which the Constitution does not authorize; it proposes to preserve the Union, by annulling those usurpations in some mode which shall not withdraw the State from the Union, nor embarrass the regular action of the Government within the Constitution. Secession withdraws the State out of the reach of the usurped powers, when all other means of redress have failed. Nullification, therefore, is the primary right and the primary duty of the State; Secession is the ultimate right, when Nullification has failed.----Abel P. Upshur
Sic semper tyrannis!!