[mosel-saar-ruwer]

Comments? Thoughts?

We are not a Hamiltonian nation so much as our federal government is precisely the tyranny that Hamilton predicted it would be when he opposed the Bill of Rights.

Hamilton [alone, as far as I know, among the founders] understood that any explicit list of rights granted to citizens would quickly degenerate from a minimal list of their rights [the rights they possess at a bare minimum] to a maximal list of their rights [beyond which they possess no further rights].

So, for instance, when the slave states sought to exercise their clear and unequivocal tenth amendment right to secede from the union, the anti-constitutionalists [led by Lincoln] were able to argue that no such right existed in the constitution precisely because no such right had been explicitly listed among the rights possessed by the states and the people.

[Deliberator]

Hamilton [alone, as far as I know, among the founders] understood that any explicit list of rights granted to citizens would quickly degenerate from a minimal list of their rights [the rights they possess at a bare minimum] to a maximal list of their rights [beyond which they possess no further rights].

I thought this point had been most forcefully advanced by Madison.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Madison also agreed with Hamilton that no Bill of Rights was needed but they had to concede it to get the constitution ratified.

Any "right to secession" meant that the Constitution was meaningless. That specific argument was specifically refuted during the ratification by no less than Madison who stated that the states joining the Union were forever part of the Union. Unless a constitutional amendment allowing separation was ratified. The 10th amendment merely referred to local and state law not in conflict with the Constitution and police powers, public health concerns etc., issues which would affect ONLY states and localities.

Under the Constitution there can be NO action by any one state or group of states which affects the Union as a whole.
Any belief to the contrary must throw logic out the window since it is tantamount to denying that the document is the Law of the Land. It leads to such absurdities as claiming that though no state has the right to print money it has the right to do something far more drastic, secede. Secession was the nightmare of ALL the founders and Jefferson as well.
Recall his comments in his first inaugural address and Washington's (Hamilton's) in the Farewell Address which is directed at secession.

[Ditto]

So, for instance, when the slave states sought to exercise their clear and unequivocal tenth amendment right to secede from the union, the anti-constitutionalists [led by Lincoln] were able to argue that no such right existed in the constitution precisely because no such right had been explicitly listed among the rights possessed by the states and the people.

Where does the 10th amendment grant any rights whatsoever?