Federalism: Separation of State & State - The Unknown Cause Clause

Howdy peeps,

I just thought I'd take this time to remind any of you that might have forgotten about federalism and its mandate of not only Separation of Church & State but also Separation of State & State.

Do any of you know about Separation of State & State?

Separation of State & State, in federalism, is where you can talk bad about your state representatives but not the ones of other states, you can only talk bad about the state representatives from your state and as federalism further defines, you may talk bad about any national representative 24/7/52, whether they be from your state or another, they are fair game at all times and can be had by anyone. Also, on the flipside of federalism, while you may not talk bad about a representative from another state, only your state, other than federal representatives, you may defend anyone in any state or country from getting a bad rap, for at the core of Republicanism is the simple philosophy of what's good for the Republic is good for the Republic. A bad rap is good for no one!

With that said, by a show of hands, who all is from New Jersey?

I'm from Arkansas, temporarily stuck in California for what appears to be indefinitely, so I can talk bad about my Gov, who calls himself Mike BeeBee and I can even talk bad about the guy that ran against him in the last election, although I missed it, and he calls himself Jim Keet, but I cannot talk bad about Gov Christie and call myself a Patriot to my National Constitution. However, I can defend the little asshole from getting a bad rap, like you guys have been give'n him.

What'up with that?

Are there any other patriotic federalists here that truly understand Republicanism?

"A Patriot to the politics of government is a Traitor to the People of the World." - Old Toad Proverb

Ribbit

Ps: I don't know if anyone knows it or kNot but federalism is the only constitutionally recognized national political party, if you haven't noticed that?

 

There's was once a time when a man would not tolerate being called a Traitor. They'd stand-up and scream foul, faster than a Baptist Preacher leading the Sunday Sermon. But today, someone can simply explain the truth about our Constitution and clearly state that the common thinking that the 1st Amendment gives you the right to open your mouth and be wrong, that doctrine is not absolute, there are limits to the wrong you may speak and to knowingly speak wrong against another, is anti-republican in nature and anything that goes against the Republic, which is anything that is clearly anti-republican in nature, such anti-republican action is not allowed, but I see how the courts have been allowing the Hatfields & McCoys to spill out of the hills and onto Capital Hill, then judicial gravity has flowed it directly into our state legislatures.

Federalism dictates you fight your fights and keep your nose out of other peeps fights, unless their fight protrudes unto you and/or your rights, privileges, and immunities. But the old saying about Ownership is 9/10th's of the Law, that old saying applies when it comes to elected members of our Corporate Body Politic structure of government, aka: state government, those individuals belong to their people and only their people and no one has a right to speak ill of them, otherwise. Which simply says the politics of your state belong in your state and keep it there, because politics cannot Rule the Republic, for it to call itself a Republic, politics can only Rule the Hen House, not the Chicken Yard and the Hen House is within the realm of the Chicken Yard as well, so the politics of the Hen House is to never spill over into the Chicken Yard, but dissension in the ranks is always a great ploy to keep the masses mad at each other instead of realizing what's really going on?

Why are you all playing in someone else's sandbox, when your sandbox is probably dirtier?

Ribbit

 

I'm trying to pick an honest constitutional/political fight with you guys but I can't seem to get any takers?

By what I can tell, you all think the 1st Amendment gives you the right to open your mouth and to be wrong absolute, when that's not true. To allow anyone that right, the constitutional right to knowingly mislead others with outright lies, that violates the very core of Republicanism, thus, that thinking is unconstitutional. But that doesn't mean you have to run around in fear of being wrong, no! What the 1st Amendment guarantees is that when you are wrong and the wrong is not intentional and speech is all that's involved, your only punishment is public scrutiny, you cannot be imprisoned for your words. But what about the John Birch Society and their outright lies? Why are they not punished but people like Howard Stern are punished? Why is it Howard's use of the F-werd did not meet the FCC's loose definition of "heartfelt"?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/21/us/massachusetts-fcc-ortiz/

"While the FCC has pursued others for broadcast profanity -- most notably, FOX Television Stations for expletives dropped during live awards shows in 2002 and 2003 -- FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski gave Ortiz a free pass Saturday.

He tweeted: "David Ortiz spoke from the heart at today's Red Sox game. I stand with Big Papi and the people of Boston - Julius.""

But then, if you cannot be imprisoned for your peaceable words under Republicanism, when they are just words and not advocating the physical harm of another, then why did George Carlin go to jail for performing his 7 words you can't say on television skit on a public stage? That wasn't even television, it was a stage, yet George couldn't say those words there either. So the correct title of George's skit is The 7 words you can't say publicly to too many people, for fear of going to jail.

But then, if you cannot be imprisoned for your peaceable words under Republicanism, when they are just words and not advocating the physical harm of another, then why did someone go to jail for hanging an American Flag in their window at home with a Peace Symbol attached to it?

Look at the Food Not Bombs Groups nationwide and how city councils are re-writing city park ordinances to keep that group out of their city parks, because those city councils do not approve of that group's speech, and the courts are upholding the city ordinances and the city ordinances are clearly in violation of the National Constitution but an attorney for the government blew just enough smoke up the judge's ass to keep them from seeing the truth, that, and many judges would prefer going to their city park and not being visibly molested by that group speaking their unwanted message.

What was it the high court said in Citizens United?

"When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

When you allow your government to decide what you can think and/or say with personal limits governing and not law, you limit yourselves and a limited society is a closed society and doomed to fail and a government that is bound by contract to not do what our government is doing, how they get away with it is they allow the People to violate the constitution in ways you aren't suppose to act towards other in a Republic, then the government's actions fall inline with the people's actions and government gets away with violating constitutional rights, and all under the guise of good government.

You all seem to love opening your mouths to violate others with your werds, others you disagree with, and your legislative bodies enjoy that privilege as well and they want to thank you for your support.

"A Patriot to the politics of government is a Traitor to the People of the World." - Old Toad Proverb

When a person cannot speak their mind freely, when their words do not advocate the harm of another, that person is not free. They are bound by your truths and when your truths are lies, they are bound by your lies. That's why werds cannot be bound by opinion, they can only be bound by logic and logic knows no bounds, so werds should be no different.

Does anyone here truly understand Republicanism under Federalism?

Ribbit

 

You lay out some interesting points but you are kind of all over the board.

 

I'm kNot even a surfer!

I'm a scuba diver.

Let's talk federalism under republicanism mandates, or FURM.

Is there not a Republican form of government clause that mandates this Republic to conform to republicanism mandates, via federalism?

Answer: Yup!

I have a suggestion Joe, how's 'bout you and I playing a game of U.S. Constitutional History & Knowledge?

If you accept, here's the first challenge:

1) What clause dictates all forms of government to be of a Republican form and exactly what does it say?

2) When has Congress ever exercised that mandate?

A. When approving a proposed constitution by a People for local self government (aka: State Constitution proposed)
B. When they approved the Constitutions of the Original 13 Colonies
C. When approving an Amendment to a State Constitution
D. When approving a newly ratified State Constitution to replace an existing constitution (see: Hans vs State of Louisiana, 1890)

If you know your Constitutional History, you'll know that the correct answer to #2 is A. Answers B thru D never went down, as the Clause dictates it must. Furthermore, the State of Louisiana ratified an entirely new State Constitution and never submitted it to Congress for approval. NEVER!

Congress MUST approve all State Constitutions and Amendments made thereto, as per the Republicanism mandate.

Wanna play Constitutional Law?

Ribbit

Ps: Can you guess what would have happened if Congress would have abided by the Constitution and the very first order of business would have been to Approve all State Constitutions?

What if Congress would have had a problem with any provisions or amendments?

How long do you think Congress would have lasted?

Ever read the Federalist?

Pps: Guess whut? The State of Louisiana isn't really a sovereign state anymore. They fell out of grace with the Republicanism mandate and declared themselves above that clause and in doing so, they have ceded from the Union.

I find that to be an interesting subject to talk about but it seems Gov. Christie's personal political ordeal must be more important.

 

The Federalist moved the country more towards a centralize government when they wrote the Constitution. The Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation was a loose collection of 13 individual sovereigns states operating under mutual agreement. John Hancock was actually the first President while George Washington was off running the army. Under the Articles of Confederation, no one state could tell another state what to do. This didn't work out to well. If Virginia and Maryland built a road from Williamsburg to Baltimore, Virginia may want it end at Maryland's border at point A, whereas Maryland may insist that their section is to start at point B. Neither had jurisdiction. This is why things like interstate commerce are a big part of the Constitution. Under the Federalist Constitution, congress could vote and tell Virginia and Maryland where the road is to meet.

The Anti-Federalist (Thomas Jefferson and friends), being sorely pissed of about not even given an invite to help write the Constitution, tacked on 10 Amendments before they would let it pass. The Federalist body of the Constitution focuses on the interaction between the states, as in, interstate commerce, providing a common defense, and international treaties, while the Anti-Federalist 10 Amendments deals with "keeping the monster at bay" guarantying freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and arming yourself to the teeth should things run amuck.

Moving ahead 80 years, a bunch of idiots down south, thought they could dust off the Articles of the Confederation and declare themselves individual sovereigns. To add insult to injury, some bigger idiots in Charleston thought they could attack a Federal Installation and get away with it, having declared war on an industrialized nation without owning one munitions factory of their own. This did not work out too well for them and the power of the Federal Government increased in the collective conciseness and the concept of a group of individual sovereigns became a distant memory.

So what I think you talking about is the Article of the Confederation where one state couldn't tell another state what to do where the Federalist were all about having binding agreements between the states.

 

I'm going to have to answer that with one answer/post per paragraph. Your misconceptions are obvious but it takes getting people to open up and explain their personal take on all of this, before the problem can be found.

Like for instance, how did you ever git it in your mind that Jefferson was an Anti-federalist? He was a Democratic-Republican, the other party was called Federalist. Only Federalist call Democratic-Republican party members, Anti-federalist, so anywhere you see that description of them used, it's guaranteed to be biased and thus, unworthy of taking with a grain of salt, but rather, to be digested carefully and be sure to toss on lots of pepper to disguise the blatant pointedfingernism that runs rampant in politics. Even the Federalist Papers are full of politics. I see that not one author accused of being an author of a Federalist Paper, has ever admitted writing a single article in the Federalist, but they've been accused of writing them and apparently that's enough for the high court. Quoting Hans vs. Louisiana:

"Hamilton, speaking to the people of New York"

That wasn't Hamilton speaking to the People of New York, that was an anonymous political advertisement in a New York newspaper and the author was not known, they all used an alias to hide their involvement but for some reason, those in charge think they can accuse the dead of saying something and it's the gospel from then on? It's amazing how all it takes is to declare Hamilton wrote the portions he's been accused of authoring, for the high court to then see Hamilton speaking the words himself, when that is not the case. Hamilton hid behind an alias, just like everyone else hid and that factor is KEY, but that factor is being ignored instead and it's that ignorance that's costing you your freedom today.

I will elaborate more ... .. .

You said a lot and almost all of it is wrong, if not all.

Wow! Who's doing the teaching these days?

Answer: Opinion!

Ribbit

 

Hey C Jay, you opened a can of worms, now I have to go fishing.

I am writing a reply, it's just going to take a little time.

Did you know the high court has refused to rule on anti-republican form of government cases/claims, claiming it's a political matter, not judicial, and the high court has ruled that only Congress can determine that political matter?

Ribbit

 

And the United States Supreme Court has rewritten that Constitution and have perverted it beyond all recognition of what that document once stood for.

Have you ever read Luther vs. Borden from 1849? If you haven't it would help to read the summary on Wiki then brief-read the actual decision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_v._Borden

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=48&page=1

"The Supreme Court found that it was up to the President and Congress to enforce this clause and that, as an inherently political question, it was outside the purview of the Court."

Guess what happens when you go to Congress concerning that matter? They speak the Unspoken Constituent Rule to you.

I will talk more about the Luther case later. I just wanted to toss that out now, in case you don't know about it.

I'm still writing my reply to your earlier post.

Ribbit

 

Toad, have you ever had that sinking feeling that you just stepped into a boxing ring with Mike Tyson and you are definitely going to get your but kicked. OK, you managed to condense everything I wrote into one word: Opinion! Yep. And you know what they say about opinions. Opinions are like A_holes, everybody need theirs rigorously scrutinized, thoroughly examined, and occasionally cleansed. I did some checking on Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican and now have to remove the little fairly tail implanted in my brain by my AP history teacher who told us all that the Constitution was done somewhat in secret far way from Jefferson and his allies. What can I say, the public schools in my state ranked 47 out of 50.

Thanks for the link to Luther v. Borden. Will go back and read the source document from caselaw later. Sound to me like the Supreme Court dodged it's responsibilities and left a big gaping hole in the Constitution. Decisions like representation and what constitutes a Republic is exactly what the Supreme Court is suppose to decide and the last place you want these "political questions" is in congress.

Please enlighten me on the alias Hamilton in the Federalist Papers since much is attributed in his name. The one thing I believe I know is that New York was pivotal to the ratification of the Constitution since it held a high degree of resistance and was one of the two key states based on population. I read that New York and Virginia were required for it to pass.

 

John Hancock John Hanson

 

Actually Peyton Randolph (1774) was the first President of the Continental Congress. John Hancock was the 4th President at the time the Declaration of Independence was signed.

 

I do not feel like I'm being outboxed by anyone, you were trained by someone else, I'm self trained so you don't know my moves but I know all of your moves.

Ever read Hans vs. State of Louisana from 1890? It's the case that gets into the KNOWN history of the 11th Amendment.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=134&invol=1

What portions of the history of what became the Eleventh Amendment do you not know, as per the Hans decision and subsequent rulings concerning the 11th Amendment?

How many authors do you know? Etc...

Answer: 3 of 5 authors but there are actually 6 total authors involved: 1 federalist newspaper advertisement (authored by Congressman Sedgwick from Massachusetts), 1 Original Proposer in the Senate (authored by Senator Caleb Strong from Massachusetts), 2 Senate floor proposals (authored by Senators Gallatin & Rutherfurd), 1 House floor proposal (authored by Congressman Boudinot), and 1 House Committee proposal (author unknown - I forgot to get that while I was at the LOC), for a total of 6 authors.

You don't know the first proposal never went down as written, it was only a political advertisement in the local federalist newspaper, that's all. It wasn't ever proposed on the House Floor, as the newspaper article contends it did.

What about the House Committee the proposed amendment went to? What happened on Committee? What was said? What proposed amendments were made that you don't know about?

Etc...

The Justices of the United States Supreme Court constantly say they can only rule on the facts, never speculation, supposition, or imagination but in Hans, they used all three tactics and notice how they ended Hans?

How dare them!

Ribbit

Ps: You are chump-change, when it comes to arguing the Constitution. Where you went wrong is you accused Thomas Jefferson of being an Anti-federalist and that's the worst thing you could have done, it's clear biasedness and the mark of a fool. When I finish writing the explanation of just how far off into left field you are, then you will know you shouldn't have stepped into the Constitutional Ring with me. But you don't even know the true history of the 11th Amendment so what are you doing in the ring with me? You also don't know the author of the 11th Amendment, which he happens to be the #1 contributor to that document but he didn't get to sign the document, his wife got sick and he had to leave before they all signed it so he got to sign it with the first true amendment but not a single one of you know that he's the author of the 11th Amendment, Senator Caleb Strong, from Massachusetts and that his cohort from the House is the one that placed that advertisement in the local federalist newspaper the day before. You all have also missed the author of the 2nd proposal to amend in the Senate, which was Senator John Rutherfurd from New Jersey. You can figure it out on your own by reading the Anals:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwaclink.html

Look at the 3rd Congress 1st Session of the Senate and page 31:

"Nays - Messrs Gallatin and Rutherfurd"

Senator Gallatin is known to have authored the 1st proposal to amend, he had to vote No in the end because of his proposal, so why did Senator Rutherfurd vote No too?

I find it amazing that over 200 years after the 11th Amendment was proposed, not a single one of you know the true history surrounding it and all the players involved, both on the record and off the record. That's pathetic!

So do not think you are something special. You are an educated idiot and you don't stand a chance!

 

Ps: Here's more on the known history of the 11th Amendment and it comes out of Atascadero vs Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (1985):

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=473&invol=234

"The decision in Chisholm was handed down on February 18, 1793. On February 19, a resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives stating:

"[N]o State shall be liable to be made a party defendant in any of the Judicial Courts established or to be established under the authority of the United States, at the suit of any person or persons, citizens or foreigners, or of any body politic or corporate whether within or without the United States." 1 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 101 (rev. ed. 1937).

Another resolution was introduced in the Senate on February 20. That resolution provided:

"The Judicial power of the United States shall not extend to any suits in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State." 3 Annals of Cong. 651-652 (1793).

Congress then recessed on March 4, 1793, without taking any action on the proposed Amendment.

By the time Congress reconvened in December 1793, a suit had been brought against Massachusetts in the Supreme Court by a British Loyalist whose properties had been confiscated. Vassal v. Massachusetts. 36 Georgia had responded angrily to the decision in Chisholm, and the Massachusetts Legislature reacted to the suit against it by enacting a resolution calling for "the most speedy and effectual measures" to obtain a constitutional amendment, including a constitutional convention. Resolves of Massachusetts 28 (1793) (No. 45). Virginia followed with a similar resolution. Acts of Virginia 52 (1793). The issue had thus come to a head, and the Federalists who controlled Congress no doubt felt considerable pressure to act to avoid an open-ended constitutional convention.

On January 2, 1794, a resolution was introduced, by a Senator whose identity is not now known, with the text of the Eleventh Amendment as it was ultimately enacted:

"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State." 4 Annals of Cong. 25 (1794) (emphasis added)

This differed from the original February 20 resolution only in the addition of the three italicized words. Senator Gallatin moved to amend the resolution to add the words "except in cases arising under treaties made under the authority of the United States" after "The Judicial power of the United States." Id., at 30. After rejecting Gallatin's proposal, the Senate then rejected an amendment offered by an unknown Senator that would have forbidden suits against States only "where the cause of action shall have arisen before the ratification of this amendment." Ibid. 38 The Senate ultimately voted 23-2 in favor of the Amendment. Ibid.

In the House of Representatives, there was only one attempt to amend the resolution. The amendment would have added at the end of the Senate version the following language: "[w]here such State shall have previously made provision in their own Courts, whereby such suit may be prosecuted to effect." Id., at 476. This resolution, of course, would have ratified the Chisholm result that States could be sued under the state-citizen diversity clause, but would have given the States an opportunity to shift the litigation into [473 U.S. 234, 286] their own courts. It was rejected, 77-8, and the House proceeded to ratify the Amendment by a vote of 81-9 on March 4, 1794. Id., at 476-478. Although the chronology of ratification is somewhat unclear, 39 President Adams certified that it had been ratified four years later on January 8, 1798."

Besides Senator Rutherfurd's proposal not being identified as his handiwork, what else is missing from that is the author of the proposal in the House was Congressman Boudinot from Tennessee, who also happened to be the Chairman of the House Committee the proposed amendment was reviewed by, that none of you even know that committee went down and all because not one of you ever looked in the House Committee Report book but I did. From that, I am the only person on this planet, at this time, that knows what the proposed amendment on committee says but that's because not a single one of you educated idiots even know the House Committee even went down, even though the congressional record says it did.

Ribbit

Ps: Note what is said in the beginning of my quote from Atascadero:

"The decision in Chisholm was handed down on February 18, 1793. On February 19, a resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives stating"

That resolution was not introduced in the House, it was introduced as a paid advertisement in the local Philadelphia Gazette, the federalist newspaper of Philadelphia. ​

​

​

Then look what else was said:​

​

​

"On January 2, 1794, a resolution was introduced, by a Senator whose identity is not now known, with the text of the Eleventh Amendment as it was ultimately enacted:"​

​

​

​

​

And the high court thinks it has rules on the facts, in Hans? ​

 

Here's a link so you can go read where it's been recorded that Senator Caleb Strong is the Author of the 11th Amendment:

http://books.google.com/books?id=K7jhBkyoKSUC&pg=PA605&lpg=PA605&dq=sedgwick philadelphia gazette February 19 1793&source=bl&ots=4yDOB0aUL_&sig=X6eqD7sXFsQGl0m_hUT4A1BEbTU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PuzVUoqmNcy9oQSAp4LwCw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=In the hand of Caleb Strong&f=false

And you think you know more than me, when it comes to Constitutional history?

Ribbit

 

Here's more to read, that also backs up that Senator Strong authored the 11th Amendment:

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=wmlr

So it's known that Senator Strong authored the 11th Amendment but not by many, whereas everyone should know that.

Caleb Strong was instrumental in the drafting of our national constitution and its content, yet he's never received the credit he's earned and deserves.

Ribbit

 

FYI: If you knew what the House Committee proposal to amend said, then you'd know that the high court's interpretation of the 11th Amendment is Wrong. The proposed amendment, during House Committee, made it clear that everyone in Congress, on that day, knew that what was about to become the 11th Amendment was VERBATIM and there was no reading into it that could be had.

But lawyers have been doing a great job of bamboozling the court and at that court's behest.

This is not a Democracy, it's a Lawyer-ocracy.

May the Better Attorney Win, is the Law today, thanks to the Rules of Justice laid down by Congress, if you didn't catch that in the movie, The Firm.

So there are others that know who authored the 11th Amendment but not a single Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court knows who authored it and not a single Justice on the high court knows about the proposed amendment on House Committee and what it said, yet that court somehow thinks We the People are not living UNDER that court's PERSONAL OPINION?

Jefferson warned you about what they were doing, in his letter to Jarvis from 1820, but you think ill of Thomas for some reason.

Ribbit

 

Here's another case out of the high court that went way off the mark:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=517&invol=44

That's the landmark 11th Amendment case known as Seminole, from 1996.

In it they say that a state is free from suit unless the state agrees to be sued but what the high court missed is once a state accepted the federal law to begin with, the state agreed to be sued, because the states are forbidden from amending federal law to read how they want it to read and it was the Indian Gaming Act which gave the states the right to interfer in the matter to begin with, which the states are forbidden from interfering with the Indians unless Congress allows it and Congress allowed the interference in the federal law, so the state of Florida had to accept the jurisdiction of the federal bar because it consented to suit by utilizing the federal law to begin with in order to stop the Seminole Tribe from building its Casinos.

Seminole wasn't even an 11th Amendment case, it was a Federal Area case. The Indian Gaming Act only applied on Territory belonging to the United States and it did not apply on any state land, thus, the state of Florida was accountable before the federal bar.

You can read up on Federal Area cases in the 1950's 2-part Report on Federal Areas:

Part 1:

http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj1-3.htm
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj4-6.htm
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj7-8.htm

Part 2:

http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/fedjurisreport.pdf

The high court also screwed-up Utah vs. United States, 482 U.S. 193 (1987):

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=482&invol=193

The high court seems to have forgotten that in pre-statehood reservations, there is only One Sovereign, the United States, the Territory involved is not sovereign, like the territory of Utah was not sovereign when it agreed to the pre-statehood reservation. What the high court was referring to in that case is situations where two sovereigns are dealing with one another, like the Treaty of Paris from 1898, where Queen Isabella of Spain made a Sovereign Reservation between another sovereign, the United States.

Ribbit

Ps: What the high court did in Hans was to render Congress near powerless to enforce its laws and so We the People don't have the guaranteed protection that Hamilton promised us so eloquently in the 28th Federalist, but for some reason, the high court thinks Hamilton said something else in the 81st Federalist, as quoted in Hans, but that's because the high court misinterpreted Hamilton's comments in the 81st.

The high court clearly missed that Louisiana ratified a whole new state constitution without having Congress approve it, which Article IV is clear, Congress must approve all Constitutions and Amendments made thereto, and approve all State Laws, and approve all needful Rules & Regulations, but Congress hasn't been doing any of that.