[tckinkead]

I have yet to start the Constitutional History lectures. Very much looking forward to it. Sort of in preparation, I finally picked up Rob Natelson’s “The Original Constitution”. Since he is a frequent contributor to the Tenth Amendment Center website, I was quite surprised at Natelson’s view on the Compact Theory.

I have read and listened to Dr.’s Woods, Gutzman, and McClanahan convincing arguments in favor of the Compact Theory. Unfortunately I missed the recent Live Q&A., but I’m curious to the reaction, etc. of Natelson’s view that the “One American People” view has a more compelling argument. Especially in light of his obvious deep knowledge of Constitutional history and belief in limited federal government.

[gutzmank]

Article VII says that ratification will be by the states, not by one American people acting in 13 separate locations.

When the First Congress convened, there were no representatives from North Carolina or Rhode Island because North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution. Had they never ratified, they would never have been represented in Congress.

In the Virginia Ratification Convention, Federalist speakers were at great pains to say that Virginia was one of thirteen parties to a compact. For full details of these assurances, and of the significance that Federalists attributed to them, see JAMES MADISON AND THE MAKING OF AMERICA and/or VIRGINIA’S AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

In sum, John Marshall’s position in McCulloch v. Maryland is completely at odds with the original understanding.

[tckinkead]

Natelson’s entire selling point of his book is to present the Constitution “with the original understanding”. Any comments on his book on whole?

[gutzmank]

I think what we’ve said above is pretty clear.

[Author]

Posts