The context of his statement is that the states should obey the orders of this "reasonable majority". The problem that existed at the time was that each state was setting its own trade policy, and that diminished the effectiveness of any trade policy. He wanted there to be a national policy, that all the states would be bound to go along with. He was not saying that it should require a unanimous vote of the states in order to adopt such a policy.
" --- How is this harmony to be obtained? only by an acquiescence of all the States in the opinion of a reasonable majority. -- -- or lastly let no regulation of trade adopted by Congress be in force untill it shall have been ratified by a certain proportion of the States. -- "
The context of his statement is that the states should obey the orders of this "reasonable majority".
Read further.. Its obvious he wants States to have a say in commerce 'regulation'. - And doesn't believe that the commerce clause allows Congress to issue prohibitory 'Acts'.
The problem that existed at the time was that each state was setting its own trade policy, and that diminished the effectiveness of any trade policy. He wanted there to be a national policy, that all the states would be bound to go along with. He was not saying that it should require a unanimous vote of the states in order to adopt such a policy.
Amendments require a three fourths majority.
Why is it you want to believe a majority can issue prohibitions on objects using the guise of the commerce clause?