I was openly critical of Maier in the original conclusion to my “Founding Fathers Guide to the Constiutiton,” for the same reasons Kevin outlined, but that was omitted through editing. I intended the FFGTC to be a brief primer on the Constitution as ratified taking into account the way the Constitution was argued it would be interpreted in the ratifying conventions. I think the historical “profession” has willfully ignored these debates because it contradicts the Hamilton/Marshall/Webster/Lincoln paradigm.
