[4CJ]

The Constitution says absolutely nothing regarding interpretation of the Constitution.

'In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which DIRECTLY empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.'
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 81, 'The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority'

Hamilton also penned this gem in the same letter:

'It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual WITHOUT ITS CONSENT. This is the general sense, and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union. Unless, therefore, there is a surrender of this immunity in the plan of the convention, it will remain with the States, and the danger intimated must be merely ideal.'

[Who is John Galt?]

Thank you for the post!

;>)

[nolu chan]

"I repeat here what I have observed in substance in another place that all observations founded upon the danger of usurpation, ought to be referred to the composition and structure of the government, not to the nature or extent of its powers. The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty."
Hamilton, Federalist 31