Thanks for taking the time to respond to all of my questions.
I think I’m still missing something though. Are we to understand that there’s a difference between a Constitution, a compact, and a league, as Madison and Daniel Webster said?
It seems to me almost that those things had different meanings to the people discussing them.
How are we to interpret the Convention’s support for Madison’s position favoring a constitution over Ellsworth favoring a league in the conversation about leagues v. constitutions when he said that, in your words, “the law of nations said that any breach of a league freed the other parties of their obligation, but the same was not true of breach of a constitution.”
This seems incompatible with the idea that a. It’s a compact and b. A breach of the compact authorizes rescission of one or more of the parties.
How am I misinterpreting this?
Thanks again for all your time!