Yes, thanks. Upshur hammers home the point that, to me, has always been obvious: The Constitution is a compact among the States on behalf of the citizens of each State and is not a document of one mass of people known as Americans.

Sadly, with people like Marshall, Story, Jay, et al, this point has to be reiterated ad nauseum even though it is abundantly clear from the text of the Constitution itself.

These moronic arguments just won't go away. People who want a certain result will grasp at any straw (such as the wording of the Preamble, general welfare clause, necessary and proper clause) to make their point while, at the same time, ignoring critical language that CLEARLY settles the matter simply because it goes against their bias for a given result.

I call myself a textualist because I believe the language of the document itself controls. It's not necessary or proper to refer to other documents to interpret the Constitution if the language of the Constitution is clear.

On this point (and many others), the Constitution is clear that the States RETAINED their independent sovereignty. Frankly, no one of intellect and honest can claim otherwise after reading the Constitution itself.

His analysis is awesome. It is one of the finest books ever written on the nature of the federal government. This book is required reading for anyone interested in this subject.

Abel Upshur, The Federal Government: It’s True Nature and Character, (1868, New York, Van Evire, Horton & Co.) Upshur was a Judge of the General Court of Virginia and entered President Tyler’s Cabinet as Secretary of the Navy. He became Secretary of State in the spring of 1843.

Interesting idea… It sounds as if you'd end up with 2 state legislatures: one in your state's capital passing laws for the citizens of that state and a much smaller one in Washington DC doing the same thing.

If I've got that right, it seems redundant for the most part although it might result in some diversity of ideas that would be lacking at the purely local level.

I'm guessing the sentiment is that you don't want to be stuck with crap that people from a wildly different area think is a great idea. For me, a good example is that the size of my shower head is determined by some bureaucrat in Washington DC even though I live in rural Oregon on a well and recycle rain water!

To me, that is the core of the idea of federalism and is the core of the idea underlying the original intent of the US Constitution: local control is better than centralized control from afar. (Think: King of England telling Colonists how to live.)

With the exception of the few, defined powers listed in the Constitution, governance should be left to the States and the People in those States who are closest to their problems and best able to decide how to resolve them. (The downside is you don't get the federal treasury's help and people have to start dealing with that issue and stop relying on OPM to live on.)

People who read this site regularly, should consider studying their State's constitution as carefully as they read the US Constitution so they can see more clearly how their State was intended to be the main locus of governmental power in their lives. At that level, you have a much better chance of controlling the outcome and, even if you don't get your way, at least you can feel you had SOME chance. With the national approach we have now, the "little people" have NO CHANCE. This will result in violence some day as the gap between power and no-power widens ever greater.