[SCDogPapa]

Also, the phrase "states (i.e. the people)" doesn't make any sense. But making sense is not very important to neo-rebs.

It makes plenty of sense to the people, of the States, who understand what "State's Rights" mean.

James Madison suggested in Federalist 39 that each state was “a sovereign body” only “bound by its voluntary act” of ratification. Other Federalists, including James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, and John Marshall at the Virginia ratifying convention, held that such a proposal was already present in the Constitution and that the new government would only have the powers delegated to it. Opposition to and suspicion of the proposed Constitution on the grounds that it would infringe upon the privileged status of the states was widespread.

[WhiskeyPapa]

It makes plenty of sense to the people, of the States, who understand what "State's Rights" mean.

There are a lot more that understand "E Pluribus Unum".

Walt

[4CJ]

What the dim doesn't understand is the founders explicitly rejected a union of all states & people into one aggregate mass of people. Furthermore, with the reduction of consent reduced from 13 to 9, it would have required enumeration of 715 different combinations of ratifying states to be listed, thus the change by the Committee of Style: "We the states of ..." was changed to "We the people".

[Colt .45]

Wlat is merely obtuse. He fails to grasp the significance of the Framing and Ratification Conventions, what each State had reserved unto itself prior to any ratification, and how the Founders viewed things. He believes in an all powerful Central Government where everyone is subservient to it. Thank God my Missouri ancestors had the guts to stand up to a tyrannical government. In Wlat's eyes, Lincoln's repudiation of the American fundamentals expressed in the Declaration of Independence was "just good to go", and Lincoln's usurpation of his Constitutionally limited powers was just. In the days of the War for American Independence Wlat would've been known as a Tory.