Such a simple world. In the real world, men of good will can disagree about the powers granted by the Constitution. They did so disagree from the beginning, and they continue to so disagree. Self-government involves the question of what to do when men of good will disagree.
Yes, sovereignty is vested in people by our Creator. Unfortunately for your theory of legislative democracy, our form of government includes the sovereign states acting as the first level of government to whom the peoples' sovereignty is delegated. In our form of government, the states are the agents of the people and the federal government is given its limited sovereign powers by the states, not by the people. The United States as established in our Constitution was created by action of the states, not by a homogenous mass of people.
It is simply not clear that the people granted sovereignty entire to the states, who then pass on a portion to the government of the Union. The process of ratification did eschew treating the people as a "homogenous mass," but this does not demonstrate that what the people "consolidated into states" did was other than the delegation of a portion of their sovereignty directly to their national instrument.
For that reason, a state, or several states can reverse Roe v Wade by simple legislative action. That is how our system is designed.
That's the nullifying account of things, no doubt. And when the State of California exceeds the powers I delegated to it, I can simply inform it of this, and ignore the law, I presume. It's a simple enough doctrine on paper. It's called anarchy.
There is no process in the Constitution whereby the people may act independently of their states to effect change in the federal government.
True enough, as I recall. And far short of a demonstration that there is not federal authority established and modified by such procedures which exercises its sovereign authority directly on the people.
So, you're admitting that we don't agree at all. That makes your aggrieved tone in the earlier post simple histrionics. I'm in the habit of speaking plainly. That you call my manner of response a personal attack doesn't make it so. Let's be men, shall we? This boohooing over who slung snot is silly.
I was trying to acknowledge agreement at least with your most recent post, abstracting from the insults. But braced by your manly virtue, I resolve to sling no more snot, nor cry over it once spilt.
The Constitution is the list of rules for government, regardless of what the mutable will of the majority of the people may be at any given time. Our heritage as Americans is to automatically assume that there are no "men of goodwill" in government. Those who serve in government must prove daily that they are of good will by strictly following the rules to which they swore obedience on taking office. If there is any need for amendment at all, it would be a need for appropriate enforcement of the Bill of Rights and of the oaths of office on the politicians who take those oaths of office. Violations should be punishable by death or imprisonment.
Nobody ever said that the people granted sovereignty "to the states entire". The states were formed first. Every single state signatory to the US Constitution was already a sovereign state with its own constitution before the US Constitution was written. That cannot be changed, nor can the nature of the government created in the articles of the Constitution, without such extensive amendment as to change everything in our form of government. The states have original sovereignty in all areas not specifically delegated to the federal government by the states in the Constitution.
Pretending that sovereignty flows in the other direction, from the federal government, through the states to the people is what officials in our government are doing now. Lincoln pretended that the people created the union first and that the states were created later, as an afterthought to set up political subdivisions. That's every bit as wrong as the idea our government pushes these days.
Seeing the way law is being formulated, passed and enforced at the federal level, one would think that the Constitution wasn't extremely sparing of the areas in which the federal government was granted authority to be exercised directly upon the people. The federal government simply has no proper authority to pass or enforce criminal law except in a few clearly defined cases. The states are the buffer between the people and the federal government. To say otherwise is to ignore the way our form of government is contructed.
Nullification of unconstitutional federal laws is a perfectly legitimate state power. To assert that the judicial branch is designed to be our only defense against usurpation of power by the legislature and executive short of armed rebellion is a guarantee that only armed rebellion will protect us, and that armed rebellion is to be the only remedy rather than the remedy of final resort. That is not at all what the framers intended as evidenced by the very design of the government they established within the articles of the Constitution.