Rob Natelson: Understanding Federalism

Michael, right the sky is blue. In my original post, I said the people were sovereign.."He( to me) misinterprets “WE THE PEOPLE”, to mean all the people, as opposed to naming that source of power in contrast to the king or parliament or what have you." Source of power = sovereignty. OK, I am going to smile and be done, but you were the one misintrepeting my statement first.

Michael, right the sky is blue. In my original post, I said the people were sovereign.."He( to me) misinterprets “WE THE PEOPLE”, to mean all the people, as opposed to naming that source of power in contrast to the king or parliament or what have you." Source of power = sovereignty. OK, I am going to smile and be done, but you were the one misintrepeting my statement first.

Michael, jumping to #3, you ignore the actual historical references. It was a style committee that made the change. It was not represented to the ratifying conventions as "We the people", and as they were the ones approving the constitution it is not something to be inferred. As you're not likely to take my word or argument for it, why don't you go to someone you have had write here, Kevin Gutzman, who makes the argument that it was not "We the people" as one people.
You also ignored the words of James Madison, strangely enough, and Jefferson also considered it a compact. As they were closer to the action, so to speak, I think their words carry more authority.
As to the convention delegates, they were chosen to represent their states, not the people at large. States have rights in regards to other states as the collective representation of the people.
I think you're doing a good job here, but I do not see how an argument can be made for the US being one people without actual references from either the federal convention, or state ratifying conventions, saying such. If anything, beyond the virginia convention the point was also raised at other conventions, and every time the assurance was given that it was not all the people of all the states.
In regards to Article 1, Section 2, how does that help your argument? Are state lines crossed in voting? No. It merely is giving the people a vote, rather than the state legislatures, but this was done so that the people would have confidence in the new government, and that there would be justness in having representation, so that there was not a disproportionate weight by a state with less people.
As to point #1, no I'm not really misusing "rights". The people of a state have the right to determine the affairs of their own state, so that state being the creation of the people, has rights in regards to being infringed upon by other states. I am not saying that the state preexists the people, or that the people are subject to the state, but that the state is the extension of the people, and in that sense has rights against other states.
As to point #2, the government is chosen by the people to represent their interests, the delegates were chosen by the people to represent their interests. Both are still the representation OF THE PEOPLE OF THAT STATE. From Article 4 of the US constitution.."Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence." If we are all one people, why does a state need to be protected seperately from other states, and why is it guaranteed A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Only the people of that state, may have a say, not people from other states.

I listened to the interview, and appreciate the research this man has put into the subject, but, BUT, I think he misinterprets a couple of significant things.
1) The matter of the people vs. states rights. True, no state has a right, but a state is comprised of people who choose to put their sovereignty into a particular government, thus states do have rights as societies to be protected from infringements of other societies.
In regards to whether or not it was the actual elected government of a state or the people ratifying the constitution, what is the difference? A governor and state legislators are representatives of the people chosen for specific purposes. In this case representatives were chosen to represent the people of a state for this political task.
He( to me) misinterprets "WE THE PEOPLE", to mean all the people, as opposed to naming that source of power in contrast to the king or parliament or what have you. He also omits, the fact that it was only a style committee, not a committee of detail, that changed it to the United States from the original the State of Georgia, the State of Virginia, etc. This was due to the uncertainty of all the states ratifying the constitution.
Also neglected is that it was not represented as such. In the Virginia convention for example Patrick Henry questioned this wording and was assured that they were not attempting to speak for all the people in their entirety. James Madison in federalist 39 though I consider him somewhat uncertain just what this new creation would be says this.."Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution."
I also think he misinterprets or overstates the grant of power for regulating commerce. To say that it applies to anything beyond granting the federal government power IN REGARDS to the STATES to enable an even standard of regulation and enable an unhindered flow among the states so that no one state exerts an undue influence or discriminates between native business and alien (other states) is going too far. His example concerning child labor is in error as that would be an internal matter of that state.

Steve,

Thank you for the kudos on our podcast! It's been a pleasure bringing our guest interviews to you all and we look forward to a lot more to come!

Thanks for your response, Michael,

Reading over my comments, I sound much more belligerent than I felt. :) As one who hates pitting the best against the good, I generally refrain from viciously attacking all those who don't subscribe to my own idiosyncratic views.

So while I did disagree on those points, I hope people don't construe my comments as overly critical of Prof. Natelson as a scholar. I am sure he would find legitimate ways of cogently arguing against all of my points. As I did say in closing, I appreciate the work of the Tenth Amendment Center and your podcast (really enjoyed the last two the best) very much.

Here's to more dialogue!

Wow...my comments are way out of order! Besides this one (who knows where it'll end up!), the order of my comments as you scroll down is 2, 3, 1.

Finally, his advocacy of a "reasonable" approach to interpreting the Commerce clause, etc. is hopelessly naive about the power-hungry nature of government, and moreover is precisely the sort of open-ended view responsible for the mess we're in now. He seems to view "regulate" in the modern sense of the word ("make laws about"), when in fact its meaning contemporary to the Constitution was "keep regular", with the specific application of making sure states can't arbitarily boycott one another or restrict trade as a power play. You either side with Jefferson and the Republicans in favor of explicit enumeration of powers, or Hamiltonian "implied powers" ("reasonable" or otherwise).

Otherwise...a very good podcast. :) I enjoyed it and your site very much.

Natelson's comments about the sovereignty of the people vis-a-vis the states flies in the face of such important early works as Abel Upshur's "A Brief Enquiry Into the True Nature and Character of Our Federal Government" found at http://is.gd/1aNzA (a wonderful book you should certainly have here on the site).

Next, he places far too much emphasis on the Federalist Papers. Gutzman, in his P.I.G. to the U.S. Constitution (which this site does sell), argues convincingly that the Federalist Papers were basically an afterthought and not even influential on the ratifiers, whose interpretation of the document matters over and above those of Publius (who left the Constitutional Convention in a huff) and the others.

(continued...)

I've got to disagree pretty strongly with Natelson on a couple points.

For one, his views on Compact Theory are much too simplistic. The idea that the Framers and ratifiers even agreed among themselves about this point is laughable, especially given Madison's own waffling *with himself* over the "national" vs. "federal" government he was proposing. The fact is that Madison and especially Hamilton wanted a wholly national government, and the state legislatures wanted a basically confederated government.

(continued...)

Thanks for all the feedback on our first audio podcast! Please keep the comments coming...your voices are important to us as we seek to provide you all with an informative & educational listen each week. Please also feel free to email me with questions and comments:

bryce@tenthamendmentcenter.com

I think you both did a good job.

Of course, Natelson is careful to suggest that the amount of support necessary to restore the Constitution is probably about the same as it would take to amend it, unless we see some action toward that direction from the SCt.

I think a good program for the future would be to cover historical landmarks where states used various means to reject federal usurpation, citing what specifically was done, what occurred while it was being done, how successful it was, how long it lasted, and what caused it to ultimately give way.

Thanks for the feedback on this first podcast. Working on getting some great guests for the show, which should run about weekly. Prof Natelson was, in my opinion, a perfect first guest - as he's able to lay out not only the historical basis of the tenth and the form of government that it stipulates, but also the reasons why it's better than others...

Very interesting! Thank you.

A very interesting, informative, well conducted interview Michael. I highly recommend that everyone take the time to listen in. Looking forward to the next edition. Thanks for posting, and again, well done.

It is a pleasure to read Mr. Natelson. I have also been browsing some of our historical documents and read Washingtons's farewell address of 1796. Its a difficult read simply from the language of that era but it seems that Washington had a crystal ball when he gave that address. He warned of all the things that gave come to pass and are still in effect today. He warned of politcal parties and how they can divide a people and the false patriotism that arises from career politicans. He warned of a policy of befriending some nations and not showing the same regard to all nations. He admitted the ocassional need to join forces with some nations but admonished us not to commit to that nation after the benefits of our alliance had passed as this would cause unrest with other nations. We are to be neutral concerning all nations and a friend to everyone and only an enemy when our liberties are threatened by that nation. He warned of the many being controled by the few and the need to remember our morals come from our religion and not from Govt. and not to forsake those morals. We have done everything he warned against over 200 years ago. We have troops in every major country in the world. We are making laws that are unnatural to the morals of any religion. We will not exist much longer as a free people because we have forsaken all the principles that gave us freedom to begin with. We will either submit meekly to tranny of we will again be a bloodied nation from within ourselves. He would surely grieve if he could see us now.