The Constitution was not fully supported by the people

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you, Navy1960, for your explanation.

The "failure" of the Confederation was not a failure in that it collapsed. The Confederation Congress passed on the results of the Convention to the states for their approval or disapproval of the Constitution. That is a government functioning as a government. I do agree that it was a very ineffective government and needed to be replaced.

In reply to Proletarian above. Daniel Webster answered as well as anyone about the indivisibility of the country based on the We the People. The states were not sovereign once they entered the union; they bound themselves perpetually to the union. As Lincoln said, the war tested whether such a people and its binding could endure. To the great fortune of all humanity, the USA survived and the CSA died.

 

[Navy1960]

I don't think my post, in the Texas v. White matter was an endorsement of the decision, and personally, I was always under the impression that the Supreme Court rendered it's decisions on constitutional matters, but over the years we have all seen that not to be the case both pro and con. Still, the Texas v. White decision stands as the basis by which at least by force of law that a state cannot just up an leave the Union and it was formed using " The Articles of Confederation" rather than the constitution. I would like to believe that the consititution was written in such a way as provide for the will of the people in the states to decide upon the matter of being in Union or not rather the above mentioned case. We all no doubt know the results of just leaving the Union and devestation that resulted in. I do think it interesting that even this argument breaks down between the Federalists, and the anti-Federalists. It would seem to me when one needs to have a true understanding of a book or of how something is supposed to function they would look to the principle author for clues and one only need look so far as James Madison on our constitution on the matter...

JAMES MADISON: There are a number of opinions, but the principal question is whether it be a federal or a consolidated government.... I conceive myself that it is of a mixed nature; it is in a manner unprecedented; we cannot find one express example in the experience of the world. It stands by itself. In some respects it is a government of a federal nature; in others, it is of a consolidated nature. Even if we attend to the manner in which the Constitution is investigated, ratified, and made the act of the people of America, I can say, notwithstanding what the honorable gentleman has alleged, that this government is not completely consolidated, nor is it entirely federal. Who are the parties to it? The people - but not the people as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.
PATRICK HENRY AND JAMES MADISON DEBATE STATES