Skip to comments.Nullification and Liberty
Posted on 12/10/2002 6:57:25 AM PST by billbears
Not long ago I wrote an article on nullification for a well-known libertarian publication. Nullification is the idea, pioneered by Thomas Jefferson and John C. Calhoun, that an American state has the right to "nullify" federal legislation that it believes violates the Constitution. As Virginian political thinker Abel Upshur put it, since no common umpire exists between the federal government and the states to render judgments on breaches of the Constitution, each state as a constituent part and co-creator of the Union has to make such determinations for itself. (The idea that the Supreme Court, itself a branch of the federal government, could function as this common umpire is rather like saying that we shouldnt feel apprehensive that a mafia family has taken over our town since, after all, if we have a dispute with them their cousins will be happy to adjudicate.)
Along came "libertarian" Timothy Sandefur, who (Im told) argues in a recent issue of Liberty magazine against the right of a state to secede and who, as a follower of Daniel Webster, denies to the states any authentic existence or any real sovereignty. Unable to get his reply published in the magazine in which my article appeared, he posted it to his website. His attack on my article showed him to be only very superficially acquainted with the issues at stake (he claimed, for instance, that nullification was intended to be carried out by state legislatures; why all this time did we think it was to be done in sovereign conventions?).
But his article was nevertheless useful in that it illustrated a standard blind spot in mainstream classical liberalism: having absorbed virtually all of the basic assumptions of modern political theory, the classical liberal cannot conceive of secession, devolution, competing or overlapping jurisdictions, or indeed any of the fabric that ultimately made Western liberty possible. They imagine a strong, large-scale state defending everyones natural rights. And theyre actually surprised when it never works!
A surprising number of my students, when nullification is explained to them, find it an intriguing idea. At the same time, I have plenty of students for whom Daniel Websters conception of an unbreakable union is so familiar, since theyve all learned what American history they know from an absurd Lincolnian point of view, that they cannot imagine any other way of organizing society. They honestly believe that voting guarantees that only good legislation will be enacted, and that to defy "majority rule" is to commit some kind of blasphemy. They cannot break out of the model of the single, irresistible sovereign voice; they believe it is this that makes a society wealthy and strong.
Yet it was in the context of a very different model of society, in the Middle Ages, that Western liberty took root. The modern idea of sovereignty simply did not exist. As Bertrand de Jouvenel observes of our day and theirs,
A landlord no longer feels surprised at being compelled to keep a tenant; an employer is no less used to having to raise the wages of his employees in virtue of the decrees of Power. Nowadays it is understood that our subjective rights are precarious and at the good pleasure of authority. But this was an idea which was still new and surprising to the men of the seventeenth century. What they witnessed were the first decisive steps of a revolutionary conception of Power; they saw before their eyes the successful assertion of the right of sovereignty as one which breaks other rights and will soon be regarded as the one foundation of all rights.
In such a society, where a multitude of legal jurisdictions abounded and no single sovereign voice could be found, the king did not make the law but was himself bound by it. Law was something to be discovered, not made (as with the absolute monarchs and parliaments of the modern age). In his classic study of Cardinal Wolsey, Alfred Pollard described the decentralization of power that characterized the Middle Ages, as well as the lack of reliance on legislation:
There were the liberties of the church, based on law superior to that of the King; there was the law of nature, graven in the hearts of men and not to be erased by royal writs; and there was the prescription of immemorial local and feudal custom stereotyping a variety of jurisdictions and impeding the operation of a single will. There was no sovereignty capable of eradicating bondage by royal edict or act of parliament, regulating borough franchises, reducing to uniformity the various uses of the church, or enacting a principle of succession to the throne. The laws which ruled mens lives were the customs of their trade, locality, or estate and not the positive law of a legislator; and the whole sum of English parliamentary legislation for the whole Middle Ages is less in bulk than that of the single reign of Henry VIII.
The great sociologist Robert Nisbet described medieval society as "one of the most loosely organized societies in history." Political leaders who desired centralization found themselves up against the historic liberties of towns, guilds, universities, the Church, and similar corporate bodies, all of whom guarded their (often hard-won) liberties with great vigilance, and all of whom would have been baffled at the modern idea that a single sovereign voice, whether of a king or of "the people," could on its own authority have redefined or overturned those rights, whether or not "majority rule" sanctioned it.
Our "democracy" today feels itself bound by no such obligations, and routinely overturns settled ways of life in one community after another. The myths of democracy that it is necessary for economic prosperity, that it guarantees that government will not become abusive, that it ensures that the "will of the people" is expressed in law seem more absurd and ridiculous than ever. Today we have a two-party system that is so utterly corrupt, so totally dominated by crooks and ignoramuses, and so deliberately rigged against any outside challenger and with a media positively wedded to the current arrangement that it is beyond laughable to speak in any way of "the will of the people," if such a thing can be said to exist in any case. Im sure the same students who reject nullification as treason against the holy will of the majority would defend the upcoming Iraq war as a reflection of the will of the people, despite the fact that "the people" had virtually no antiwar candidates to vote for.
Earlier this year, 90 percent of the US Congress voted for a resolution supporting the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in a show of support much greater than his own government gives him. Was that a reflection of the will of the American people?
The vast majority of Americans know absolutely nothing about the US Constitution and what it authorizes, so the idea that their votes alone will prevent unconstitutional legislation is simply laughable, and completely contradicted by the evidence of everyday life and indeed of the entire twentieth century. Moreover, most Americans know absolutely nothing about, say, money and banking, so how can the Federal Reserve be described with a straight face as what "the people" demand? Do the people demand a million illegal immigrants a year?
Should there be a state in our day with enough courage and intelligence to resist the unconstitutional federal interference in their affairs that goes on as a matter of course just consider the popular referenda in Colorado and California alone that federal courts imperiously overturned in the 1990s then far from lamenting this descent into "anarchy," we should positively rejoice that at last the American people have come to understand their own tradition once again.
I dont want to romanticize the people too much: plenty of government expansion has taken place with their approval or connivance. The great John Randolph of Roanoke referred to unfettered democratic governance as rule by "King Numbers," but so many students have been raised on the religion of democracy that they cannot even conceive of how a state or community might be oppressed by the untrammeled "democracy" of the remainder. I sometimes ask: if majority rule is such a precious principle, and if I hold my property only at the sufferance of a majority of my fellows, then why not let India and China vote on how much American wealth theyd like to confiscate? That would be "majority rule" in action, so why exactly would it be wrong?
Hans Hoppe is right: no "limited government" can stay that way for long, and if anything the democratic system only accelerates the move away from governments original limitations. Once the right to tax is conceded to an institution said to possess a monopoly on the use of force, no feeble constitution can stand in the way of its expansion.
The genuine reactionary in our day should not be pining to take over the reins of the modern state, but should rather aim to dismantle this destructive institution that was absolutely foreign and unknown to medieval Europe. As Hoppe, Ralph Raico, and others have pointed out, it was precisely the decentralized nature of European political life that allowed capitalism to develop and the good things of civilization to flourish. According to David Landes, "Because of this crucial role as midwife and instrument of power in a context of multiple, competing polities (the contrast is with the all-encompassing empires of the Orient or the Ancient World), private enterprise in the West possessed a social and political vitality without precedent or counterpart" (emphasis in original). Likewise, Jean Baechler wrote that "the expansion of capitalism owes its origins and raison dêtre to political anarchy."
As radical as it doubtless sounds, the time has come to think very seriously about alternatives to the modern state. That the central state here in America is on the side of every degenerate aspect of culture and society goes without saying, and this is true regardless of which party is in power. (Bob Doles Viagra commercials just about sum up the Republican Party on cultural questions.) It has squandered everyones retirement money, slowed job creation, created the business cycle, debased the currency, all but nationalized education, dictated social policy to every community in America, confiscated money from ordinary Americans to pay farmers not to grow anything, made war on freedom of association I could go on for quite a while. And what its supposed to do protect us from criminals and from foreign attack it does appallingly badly. (Remember the visas our immigration service issued to the September 11 hijackers months after the fatal attacks?) Our legal system is a complete shambles, which is why private dispute resolution companies are flourishing.
As Donald Livingston has argued, the modern unitary state has a lot to answer for, having been responsible for terror and destruction without precedent in history:
Its wars and totalitarian revolutions have been without precedent in their barbarism and ferocity. But in addition to this, it has persistently subverted and continues to subvert those independent social authorities and moral communities on which eighteenth-century monarchs had not dared to lay their hands. Its subversion of these authorities, along with its success in providing material welfare, has produced an ever increasing number of rootless individuals whose characters are hedonistic, self-absorbed, and without spirit. We daily accept expropriations, both material and spiritual, from the central government which our ancestors in 1776 and 1861 would have considered non-negotiable.
Unworkable and utopian, some will say of the pure private-property order. But the more you think about it, the clearer it becomes that what is truly unworkable and utopian is the idea of "limited government," whose epitaph stands right before our very eyes.
so many students have been raised on the religion of democracy that they cannot even conceive of how a state or community might be oppressed by the untrammeled "democracy" of the remainder
By legal secession or by nullification of laws the seperate and sovereign states disagree with
What makes the STATE the repository of the right of nullification? The ratification process did not include the apparatus of state governments, but conventions of citizenry. Therefore final power must rest, in the view of any believer in nullification, in the individual.
Would make for an interesting society, don't you think?
Perhaps, but federalism is far more insidious and destructive.
Concert among the States for redress against the alien and sedition laws, as acts of usurped powers, was a leading sentiment; and the attainment of a concert was the immediate object of the course adopted by the [Virginia] Legislature; which was that of inviting the other States "to concur in declaring the acts to be unconstitutional, and to co-operate by the necessary and proper measures in maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties reserved to the States respectively and to the people."* . . . [B]y the necessary and proper measures to be concurrently and co-operatively taken, were meant measures known to the Constitution, particularly the ordinary control of the people and Legislatures of the States over the Government of the United States . . .Madison in letter to Edward Everett, 1830Virginia Resolution of 1798 nullifying Alien and Sedition Acts
I think the author would agree. The difference is in whether one thinks that is a good thing or a bad thing.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Does that or does that not support nullification in your view? In my view, that does not support the idea that people of a state enter a UNION with the intent to suffer forever as if in a miserable marriage that cannot be dissolved. If that were the case, no matter how unhappy we were with Great Britian, we would be required to suffer in silence and never have moved for separation from the mother country.
Also, in this country, we cherish the right to free association. That also implies the right not to associate. Is it consistent that individuals have the right to free association, but that those same people are subject to compelled association at the state level with a Union that may have changed into an entity that damages the rights of the citizens?
This thing: UNION---has become as an idol, in the biblical sense, a god above and before God, worshipped by the statists, who are willing to spill the blood of free citizens to maintain it. Hence the attitude of some that once the Union is formed, that is it.
If the Union were to dissolve or lose some of its constituent components, that would mean nothing else than the resumption to the states or to the people powers that they chose not to any longer delegate to a body they created. The statists (aka the ruling elite) don't want to lose the power, the tax revenue, the control, and become extremely ugly when their position is threatened. The statists forgot that the people gave them a job to do. Now the statists, absolutely corrupted and filled with arrogance, believe that they have a divine right to their position, that they will wage war to defend.
The ability of a state to leave the Union is an important check against the tendency of the Union to usurp excessive powers, disregard the principles of federalism, and abuse the people. If a state wants to leave, the Union should ask itself why. If a state cannot leave, the Union has no reason to act in a just manner toward the states.
Communist USSR had to disintegrate in order to release European states that had been absorbed by force at the end of WWII. Otherwise, those states would still, by force, and against their will, be part of the USSR. Are you suggesting that we should follow the communist example and keep the states that desire secession in the Union by force? That might be legitimate for the communist tyrrany, but it is not legitimate for a republic of free people, who are trying to maintain this ongoing concern of self-government.
There is always an either/or about sovereignty, and indeed, about government itself. Someone always has the final say. Nullification changes who has that say -- it doesn't resolve or do away with the basic problem.
Premodern monarchies of the sort that Hoppe celebrates -- and it has to be recognized that many despotisms didn't fit this pattern -- were distinguished by the fact that government didn't have control over large areas of public life. Unfortunately, it's not likely that state's rights movements would really do anything to restore this condition.
State's rights activists did not renounce far-reaching powers for state governments. State's rights was largely about protecting large-scale state exercises in social control and engineering. State sovereignty, nullification and secession wouldn't get government out of our lives, they'd simply shift the locus of power to different units.
Properly understood and applied, federalism doesn't include reckless ideas of unilateral nullification and secession, but it does apportion powers between the larger and smaller political units and balance power against power. Federalism draws disputants into the political sphere and brings them towards resolution there. It makes compromise more possible because the different units may follow different policies on important questions. Woods condemns political life entirely and promotes radical expedients that do more harm than good, leading not towards compromise but towards revolt, separation and, eventually, war.
Much of the current interest in secession and nullification can be traced back to Murray Rothbard,. Some samples:
" there is another important reason for hailing the principle of secession per se: if one part of a country is allowed to secede, and this principle is established, then a sub-part of that must be allowed to secede, and a sub-part of that, breaking the government into ever smaller and less powerful fragments until at last the principle is established that the individual may secedeand then we will have true freedom at last." -- "The Principle of Secession Defined" (1967)
"Secession is a crucial part of the libertarian philosophy: that every state be allowed to secede from the nation, every sub-state from the state, every neighborhood from the city, and, logically, every individual or group from the neighborhood." -- "Mailer for Mayor" (1969)
Rothbard reads like a logical lunatic. How exactly is the secession of the individual from the rest of society to happen? What will it lead to? How would society function?
Anarchism was the idea behind Rothbard's enthusiasm. It was not an ideal of the nullifiers and secessionists, though it is what unionists saw behind such concepts. And anarchism is a notoriously unworkable and destructive idea.
Moreover Rothbard's answer isn't likely to remove government and politics from our lives. Breakaway movements demanding their sovereignty and rights are more likely to bring politics, government, violence and war to the forefront than to promote free and peaceful development.
Identity politics and moral collectivism are more likely to be the result of secessionist ideas as liberty. Sandefur is aware of this. Rothbard and Woods are not.
The states didn't make the Union. The people did.
That's why this blithering idiot thinks he can write this crap and get away with it.
The states collectively and severally created the FEDERAL government - not the other way around. Their decisions were unilateral - devoid of coercion.
As parties to the compact that created the federal government, the states are the final arbiter of decisions with respect to federal relations - NOT the federal Supreme Court, Legislature or Executive.
The legislature and executive have had laws and orders overturned by the courts, and decisions of the Supreme Court have been overturned by the people of the several states via Constitutional amendment 4 times in our history.
There is no process of legal secession under U.S. law except for the conflict resolution -in- the Constitution -- that is the amendment process.
The states are not completely sovereign under the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation had failed. When enough people realized that, something stronger was adopted. THAT was the Constitution with, as George Washington called it, "a coercive power". It was strong -enough- so that the government set up by the framers has existed from 1790 until today.
Nullification is the idea, pioneered by Thomas Jefferson and John C. Calhoun, that an American state has the right to "nullify" federal legislation that it believes violates the Constitution. As Virginian political thinker Abel Upshur put it, since no common umpire exists between the federal government and the states to render judgments on breaches of the Constitution, each state as a constituent part and co-creator of the Union has to make such determinations for itself.
Why stop at the federation? Apply the same to counties and states: since there is no common arbitration (allegedly) between the two, each county has to have the nullification power.
Don't stop at counties either: continue on to the cities and townships, individual school boards --- until you finally reached the individual. Since there is no common arbiter between you and the state, YOU should be able to nullify whatever state has decided --- whenever YOU deem something unconstitutional.
The problem arises, of course, because of the false premise, that the Supreme Court will not act on behalf of a state.
Judging by some of the responses, a few of them are here and posting.
And these idiots believe that the Tenth Amendment was thrown in there just cuz the quill had extra ink in it...
That is not true.
The Constitution was ratified in special conventions called for the purpose -- the states were bypassed.
Chief Justice Marshall said as much.
Now, one of you neo-rebs has --quoted-- Chief Justice Marshall's majority opinion in McCullough v. Maryland from 1819 in an attempt to skew perception of these events -- (I think it was you. If not, please deny.)
So you --know-- better and yet you persist in an interpretation that is ahistorical.
"The convention which framed the constitution was, indeed, elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States, with a request that it might "be submitted to a convention of Delegates, chosen in each State, by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification." This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the Convention, by Congress, and by the State Legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it, in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in Convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States; and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the state governments."
The people ratified the Constitution, not the states.
The point made is that the people of every existing state did not - in unison - ratify the Constiutution. The people of EACH state individually (unilaterlly) assembled in convention to vote up or down. Given that 9 of 13 states' ratifications would give life to the new union (via secession from the old one) if my math is correct there would be 715 possible combinations of ratifications that would produce that result. The people of New York could not - and did NOT - vote for the people of Georgia.
For convenience only, as the Chief Justice indicated.
It's "We the people", not "we the states."
"But the measures they adopt do not, on that account cease to be the measures of the people themselves..."
You cited a portion of McCullough that was contradicted by the very next sentence in the ruling.
That is an attempt to skew the record, or if you like, the perception, of these events.
No one said they did or could.
But the statement you made in #21 is false.
And you knew it was false based on McCullough
I suppose you mean President Lincoln. I don't worship at his feet.
But care to expound on the reasons he might be called a "butcher"?
Your actions indicate otherwise, Walt.
In the meantime on this question of the union and its nature, I'll happily yield to Alexis de Tocqueville:
"If the Union were to undertake to enforce by arms the allegiance of the federated states, it would be in a position very analogous to that of England at the time of the War of Independence.
However strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of its constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their sovereignty, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right. In order to enable the Federal government easily to conquer the resistance that may be offered to it by any of its subjects, it would be necessary that one or more of them should be specially interested in the existence of the Union, as has frequently been the case in the history of confederations.
If it be supposed that among the states that are united by the federal tie there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of union, or whose prosperity entirely depends on the duration of that union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the central government in enforcing the obedience of the others. But the government would then be exerting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. States form confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union; and in the case just alluded to, the Federal government would derive its power from the unequal distribution of those benefits among the states.
If one of the federated states acquires a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject provinces and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union. Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal government, but in reality that government will have ceased to exist." - Democracy in America
Who I am sure would be glad to yield to Chief Justice Marhall:
"...there is certainly nothing in the circumstances under which our constitution was formed; nothing in the history of the times, which justify the opinion that the confidence reposed in the states was so implicit as to leave in them and their tribunals the power of resisting or defeating, in the form of law, the legislative measures of the Union."
You really do need some help. After you take your medicine, and before you put your sheet on, look in the yellow pages under mental hospitals and make the call.
It is interesting you hold John Marshall in such high esteem with this matter, considering your dismissal of him when he contradicts you and The Lincoln on habeas corpus. That being noted, I'll permit him to yield to Thomas Jefferson:
"The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better." - Letter to John C. Breckinridge, August 12, 1803
Trust me - he'd be better served by a vetrinarian.
It is interesting you hold John Marshall in such high esteem with this matter, considering your dismissal of him when he contradicts you and The Lincoln on habeas corpus.
Been doing some work on that. Lincoln's attorney general wrote an opinion based on the precept then current at the time that each of the three branches of government had the right to interpret the Constitution for itself. It was not current at the time to accept Supreme Court rulings as precedent, but only applying to the particular case.
That may be why Chief Justice Rehnquist, as you know, says the issue has never been decided.
Of course any --case-- brought before the Supreme Court that posited legal secession would have been decided against the secessionists.
They knew that, which is why they resorted to violence instead of the courts.
I have some Jefferson quotes too.
"It is hoped that by a due poise and partition of powers between the General and particular governments, we have found the secret of extending the benign blessings of republicanism over still greater tracts of country than we possess, and that a subdivision may be avoided for ages, if not forever." --Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1791
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801.
"The preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.
"It is of immense consequence that the States retain as complete authority as possible over their own citizens. The withdrawing themselves under the shelter of a foreign jurisdiction is so subversive of order and so pregnant of abuse, that it may not be amiss to consider how far a law of praemunire [a punishable offense against government] should be revised and modified, against all citizens who attempt to carry their causes before any other than the State courts, in cases where those other courts have no right to their cognizance." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797. ME 9:424
It is a fatal heresy to suppose that either our State governments are superior to the Federal or the Federal to the States. The people, to whom all authority belongs, have divided the powers of government into two distinct departments, the leading characters of which are foreign and domestic; and they have appointed for each a distinct set of functionaries. These they have made coordinate, checking and balancing each other like the three cardinal departments in the individual States; each equally supreme as to the powers delegated to itself, and neither authorized ultimately to decide what belongs to itself or to its coparcener in government. As independent, in fact, as different nations." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821. ME 15:328
"The spirit of concord [amongst] sister States... alone carried us successfully through the revolutionary war, and finally placed us under that national government, which constitutes the safety of every part, by uniting for its protection the powers of the whole." --Thomas Jefferson to William Eustis, 1809. ME 12:227
"The interests of the States... ought to be made joint in every possible instance in order to cultivate the idea of our being one nation, and to multiply the instances in which the people shall look up to Congress as their head." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1785. ME 5:14, Papers 8:229
"By [the] operations [of public improvement] new channels of communication will be opened between the States; the lines of separation will disappear, their interests will be identified, and their union cemented by new and indissoluble ties." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.
And in which life was nasty, brutish and short.
Ah, but Marshall's precedent WAS applied to the particular case in Merryman. The Lincoln failed to appeal Merryman as was the constitutional procedure if he disagreed with it. Try again.
Post all you want. It is not a matter of dispute that Jefferson believed division of the union should be avoided and, as his on belief, strongly favored retention of the nation as a whole. He did however acknowledge its possibility, hence his statement "God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."
"No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments."
Chief Justice Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, (1819)
"When the American people created a national legislature, with certain enumerated powers, it was neither necessary nor proper to define the powers retained by the States. These powers proceed, not from the people of America, but from the people of the several States; and remain, after the adoption of the constitution, what they were before, except so far as they may be abridged by that instrument."
Chief Justice Marshall, Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, (1819)
"At the first presidential election, the appointment of electors was made by the Legislatures of Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, New Jersey, and South Carolina. ... Fifteen states participated in the second presidential election, in nine of which electors were chosen by the legislatures. ..."We are not a democray. We are a Constitional Republic. The "people" of the US are not lumped into one common mass.
Justice Fuller, McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, (1892)