Understood. Note that I'm not saying that it trumps those concepts, merely that it impacts their application.Suffice to say, I disagree completely and utterly with your viewpoint. I reject that the willing Union can never be unjoined, reject that the free will of the people can never freely choose to leave, including the lands they own and govern, the contract their forbearers entered, and reject the idea that the Constitution somehow trumps the greater concepts of human self-determination and liberty that allows peopel to freely choose their Government.
Understood - I'm just not sure what historical facts support that view. I'd be interested in anything you can provide (I know you're a history buff, so that's not a dig - I'm assuming you have something in mind, which would be interesting reading for me).I also reject the idea that the Constitution was designed to be an eternal document holding the States in against their will in the future, as many a founding fathers writing would support. It is my view they fully expected it not to last forever, or all the States to stay within it forever.
Because States operate as individual laboratories and engines of competition, with local governments more responsive to local concerns than the federal government ever could be. And because the constitutional limits of federal power don't define the limits wisdom might place on it.Under your system, I continue to wonder why, other than "original intent" and a phantasm of State Sovreignty we bother with having States at all, or State Governments. Clearly teh Federal, in your view, reigns utterly supreme, so why bother if in truth, the State, and the people within, are truly powerless vs. the Federal Govt. outside their Constitutionally mandated few reps as their only real recourse. /shrug.