Your quotations do not address the point of my post.
States were not sovereign even theoretically after the Constitution was ratified. Then never were in reality though perhaps in theory under the Articles. Nor could they get out of the Union after ratification as Madison made clear to Hamilton in letters written during the NY ratification debates. The Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the argument that the document allowed only specific powers to be exercised by the feds as well. Hamilton defined constitutionality in his argument on the constitutionality of the National Bank.
State “governments” NEVER ratified the Constitution as you claim. State governments were deliberately by-passed for conventions called of the People IN states. Congress understood that the State governments were dominated by petty politicians concerned only about themselves and opposed to a government strong enough to bring our nation together and make it strong. It also understood that any state legislative act could be unilaterally undone which made a perpetual Union impossible.
In addition your comment about what the Framers believed is complete fantasy certainly nothing either Madison (who was ready to get rid of the states entirely early in the convention) or Hamilton (who despised the corrupt state governments) believed.
The quote from Madison actually shows why the federal government has grown at the expense of the state. The requirements of war and foreign relations has grown far more important than it had when we were a out-of-the-way backwater on the world stage. Now we occupy the center.
Jefferson is the last person one should quote when concerned about the Constitution and what it means. He didn’t even believe the Louisiana Purchase constitutional nor the Bank which made it possible.
Madison’s belief that the states would resist a federal government stepping out of bounds can be said to show that states do NOT believe it has happened or that they don’t care.
Sherman myth goes marching on. People hundreds of miles away from the March claim his soldiers burned out “Ole Grandpappy and raped the Missus.” When idiots are followed into political suicide things are tough for lots of innocent people along with plenty of the guilty. Those who perpetrated the RAT Rebellion were traitors.
You claim:
“State “governments” NEVER ratified the Constitution as you claim. State governments were deliberately by-passed for conventions called of the People IN states.”
Yet the Constitution itself says in Article VII:
“The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”
The ratifying documents of the various states can be seen here: www.usconstitution.net/otherdocs.html#rats
You also seem to suffer from some strange notion that Congress had something to do with the constitutional convention. In fact, as far as the Congress of the old confederation knew, the convention was negotiating an amendment to the then current Articles of Confederation, the actual nature of the convention being a tightly held secret.
On the up-side, your handle is accurate.
As a point of fact, the term “union” is the only term used in the text of the Constitution to refer to the United States, while the word “nation” never appears a single time.
Thus, the force and effectiveness of this sovereignty which was thus “retained” from the Declaration of Independence, was equivalent to that of any other nation; this was made clear in the Declaration, via the statement:
“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do”
Note that the term “state” used here in the Declaration, is clearly used synonymously with the term “nation” for the purposes of this document; as such, the United States had no more claim in binding South Carolina or Virginia, than it had in binding England or France, and the term “United States” literally meant “United Nations.”
You then, must believe that the states somehow “surrendered” their status as sovereign nations, in the act of ratifying the Constitution
However this is negated by the 10th Amendment specification that powers were merely delegated,
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”
In this context, therefore, powers were delegated to the federal government via the Constitution by the states ratifying it, not out in the interest of any sort of collectivism, but merely for the purposes of practical harmony in co-existence – with both union and non-union nations – solely for advancing the individual benefit of the respective delegating state.
Meanwhile, the 9th amendment likewise states that:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Since the term “others” as used here, clearly refers to rights not enumerated in the text of the Constitution, then it thus implicitly preserves those rights enumerated via prior documents – such as the Articles of Confederation, which specifically retains the “sovereignty, freedom and independence” of every state – which the Constitution does not exclude anywhere (but rather preserves, since states would have to retain their sovereign powers in order to delegate them.
Articles of Confederation, which under Article II states that:
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
To claim otherwise, i.e., that every state committed itself to the supreme and final binding arbitration (and mercy) of the Federal government in settling disputes – under force of law wielded by such – would not only be nonsensical for the purposes of protecting the states from possible abuses by this same Federal government, but moreover is nowhere expressed – or even implied – in the Constitution or any other document.
I cannot imagine why anyone would imagine that separate nations, would knowingly and willingly surrender their individual sovereignty – particularly, as in the case of the United States, after their having just won it via bloodshed from centralized and consolidated tyranny firsthand.