No one can deny that the United States has got more than its share of problems now, with a serious debate at its core… The proper role and the scope of government. Over the years, the government has secured for itself a monopoly with respect to the meaning of the Constitution and the extent of its powers. And as many a policy from the President and as many a Supreme Court decision has shown, we the People are in the same situation the colonists were when they were forced to submit to the arbitrary designs of the King and Parliament.
In 1776 thirteen of the British colonies in America sent delegates to a general congress, who there, for the colonies they represented, made the declaration “that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.” They submitted their indictment of the King to the judgment of mankind to justify their Declaration of Independence. After a heavy sacrifice of life and treasure, the Treaty of Paris was negotiated in 1783, by which Great Britain recognized the independence of the States separately, not as one body politic, but severally, each one being named in the act of recognition.
He who denies that in 1783 each State was a sovereign, free, and independent community must have much hardihood or little historical knowledge. And to be clear, the word State is used, it means the people of an organized community. The founders of the American Republic never conferred or intended to confer sovereignty upon either State or Federal governments.
Thus the matter stood when the Constitution to form a more perfect union was adopted, not, as has been most unjustifiably asserted, by the people of the United States in mass, but by the people of the States, each acting in its own convention and ratifying at different dates, the first being December 7, 1787, the last May 29, 1790. In view of facts so generally known, or (if not so) accessible to every reader of American history, it is surprising that some have contended that the Union was formed by the people of the United States as one body politic.
Though the States by a voluntary compact created a general government and delegated to it enumerated powers, reserving all else to themselves, it has been attempted to deduce from these limited grants a supremacy for the agent over the States, and, consequently, to deny to the States of the Union the sovereignty they possessed as States of the confederation. No one has attempted to show by what grant of the Constitution it can be claimed that the States have surrendered their sovereignty, and it seems absurd to assume that by implication the great object for which our fathers staked all save honor could have been lost. But they were too watchful to leave the question open for argument. Therefore, though the body of the instrument was thought by its framers to be sufficiently explicit in its limitation of the powers of the general government to those expressly delegated, yet, in an abundance of caution, almost contemporaneously with the ratification of the compact, two amendments were proposed and adopted in the following words:
“Article IX. The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
“Article X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” [See Jefferson Davis, “Doctrine of States’ Rights, 1890].
The right to resume their powers was implicit in the delegation, because after all, resumption (reassumption) is the corollative to delegation.
Our Founders created the perfect of checks and balances in our system in order to counter the ambitious aims of the federal government. The established a dual sovereignty system, which is our federalist structure, by which sovereign power is divided up among two sovereigns – the States and the common government. Federalist No. 45 explains the division most clearly (Madison), but in short, it is stated in the 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”) This most vital check has been severely eroded, thanks mostly to the Supreme Court, who, as Thomas Jefferson explained, have been “working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one.” Time and time again, we see the States attempt to frustrate the government in an act of protest, but it ends up merely being a minor temper tantrum rather than something the government takes seriously. In vain, the people have asked by what clause of the Constitution have the States surrendered their sovereignty and, by consequence, a State lost its right to decide on the meaning and intent of the Constitution… the document THEY wrote and THEY ratified.
The fact that most Americans fail to see what has happened, or even worse, to surrender to the notion that the states have surrendered their sovereignty, marks either an evasion of the issue or extreme ignorance of the history of our country. Again, no one of ordinary information and intelligence can deny that the States were sovereign, free, and independent when they entered into the compact of Union. And no one of ordinary information and intelligence can deny that the states created the government for common purposes and indeed were united on the principle that the government be constrained by the powers enumerated in the constitution that they wrote, debated on, and ultimately ratified. They were NOT united on the principle of unlimited submission to that government.
The key to embracing the notion that the States have the right, the power, and the duty to push back against the federal government, to point out its violations and usurpations of powers, and to come up with solutions to put the balance of government power back in proper perspective is the understanding that the Constitution is a compact (or contract, if you will). At one point in our history, no one doubted that understanding. As Jefferson Davis commented over and over again in his 1890 article “Doctrine of States’ Rights,” people are not only forgetting or ignoring their history, but there are plenty of documents and (primary) authority for people to access in order for people to become informed and to become the responsible citizens they need to be. Being informed is a moral imperative. After all, whether we like it or not, each American has inherited a duty to be a faithful guardian of the liberty he or she has been blessed to live under.
And that is why David Brenner’s book, COMPACT OF THE REPUBLIC, is an indispensable addition to anyone’s reading list. He compiles an incredible amount of primary authority to explain how and why the Constitution is a compact, and hence, why it must be treated as such. “The government continues to be treated as a superlative entity that holds supremacy over the states and localities. Despite this mischaracterization, the history behind the union’s genesis is still an important discovery…..” He explains that the contention presented in his book is one that explains that the States (as parties) drafted and then signed a compact (the Constitution) with its terms debated and ultimately mutually agreeable to all, to create a government (the creature, or the agent) of limited powers. “The creature cannot control the creators.”
Alexander Hamilton wrote the very same thing in Federalist No. 78, an essay explaining the limitations of the government in order to assure the naysayers in the state ratifying conventions that the states will always be more powerful: "Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
COMPACT OF THE REPUBLIC is your one-stop shopping for a concise study of the Constitution, its conception, historical roots, intent, drafting, ratification, interpretation, and ultimately, its steady erosion. Understanding what the Constitution really is provides the key to reversing the consolidation of power in Washington. Benner did an outstanding job compiling information and bringing history to life. The book is a must-read.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
There is a newer edition of this item:
Customers who bought this item also bought
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
by which Great Britain recognized the independence of the States separately
Reviewed in the United States on July 11, 2015
No one can deny that the United States has got more than its share of problems now, with a serious debate at its core… The proper role and the scope of government. Over the years, the government has secured for itself a monopoly with respect to the meaning of the Constitution and the extent of its powers. And as many a policy from the President and as many a Supreme Court decision has shown, we the People are in the same situation the colonists were when they were forced to submit to the arbitrary designs of the King and Parliament.In 1776 thirteen of the British colonies in America sent delegates to a general congress, who there, for the colonies they represented, made the declaration “that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.” They submitted their indictment of the King to the judgment of mankind to justify their Declaration of Independence. After a heavy sacrifice of life and treasure, the Treaty of Paris was negotiated in 1783, by which Great Britain recognized the independence of the States separately, not as one body politic, but severally, each one being named in the act of recognition.He who denies that in 1783 each State was a sovereign, free, and independent community must have much hardihood or little historical knowledge. And to be clear, the word State is used, it means the people of an organized community. The founders of the American Republic never conferred or intended to confer sovereignty upon either State or Federal governments.Thus the matter stood when the Constitution to form a more perfect union was adopted, not, as has been most unjustifiably asserted, by the people of the United States in mass, but by the people of the States, each acting in its own convention and ratifying at different dates, the first being December 7, 1787, the last May 29, 1790. In view of facts so generally known, or (if not so) accessible to every reader of American history, it is surprising that some have contended that the Union was formed by the people of the United States as one body politic.Though the States by a voluntary compact created a general government and delegated to it enumerated powers, reserving all else to themselves, it has been attempted to deduce from these limited grants a supremacy for the agent over the States, and, consequently, to deny to the States of the Union the sovereignty they possessed as States of the confederation. No one has attempted to show by what grant of the Constitution it can be claimed that the States have surrendered their sovereignty, and it seems absurd to assume that by implication the great object for which our fathers staked all save honor could have been lost. But they were too watchful to leave the question open for argument. Therefore, though the body of the instrument was thought by its framers to be sufficiently explicit in its limitation of the powers of the general government to those expressly delegated, yet, in an abundance of caution, almost contemporaneously with the ratification of the compact, two amendments were proposed and adopted in the following words: “Article IX. The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” “Article X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” [See Jefferson Davis, “Doctrine of States’ Rights, 1890].The right to resume their powers was implicit in the delegation, because after all, resumption (reassumption) is the corollative to delegation.Our Founders created the perfect of checks and balances in our system in order to counter the ambitious aims of the federal government. The established a dual sovereignty system, which is our federalist structure, by which sovereign power is divided up among two sovereigns – the States and the common government. Federalist No. 45 explains the division most clearly (Madison), but in short, it is stated in the 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”) This most vital check has been severely eroded, thanks mostly to the Supreme Court, who, as Thomas Jefferson explained, have been “working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one.” Time and time again, we see the States attempt to frustrate the government in an act of protest, but it ends up merely being a minor temper tantrum rather than something the government takes seriously. In vain, the people have asked by what clause of the Constitution have the States surrendered their sovereignty and, by consequence, a State lost its right to decide on the meaning and intent of the Constitution… the document THEY wrote and THEY ratified.The fact that most Americans fail to see what has happened, or even worse, to surrender to the notion that the states have surrendered their sovereignty, marks either an evasion of the issue or extreme ignorance of the history of our country. Again, no one of ordinary information and intelligence can deny that the States were sovereign, free, and independent when they entered into the compact of Union. And no one of ordinary information and intelligence can deny that the states created the government for common purposes and indeed were united on the principle that the government be constrained by the powers enumerated in the constitution that they wrote, debated on, and ultimately ratified. They were NOT united on the principle of unlimited submission to that government.The key to embracing the notion that the States have the right, the power, and the duty to push back against the federal government, to point out its violations and usurpations of powers, and to come up with solutions to put the balance of government power back in proper perspective is the understanding that the Constitution is a compact (or contract, if you will). At one point in our history, no one doubted that understanding. As Jefferson Davis commented over and over again in his 1890 article “Doctrine of States’ Rights,” people are not only forgetting or ignoring their history, but there are plenty of documents and (primary) authority for people to access in order for people to become informed and to become the responsible citizens they need to be. Being informed is a moral imperative. After all, whether we like it or not, each American has inherited a duty to be a faithful guardian of the liberty he or she has been blessed to live under.And that is why David Brenner’s book, COMPACT OF THE REPUBLIC, is an indispensable addition to anyone’s reading list. He compiles an incredible amount of primary authority to explain how and why the Constitution is a compact, and hence, why it must be treated as such. “The government continues to be treated as a superlative entity that holds supremacy over the states and localities. Despite this mischaracterization, the history behind the union’s genesis is still an important discovery…..” He explains that the contention presented in his book is one that explains that the States (as parties) drafted and then signed a compact (the Constitution) with its terms debated and ultimately mutually agreeable to all, to create a government (the creature, or the agent) of limited powers. “The creature cannot control the creators.”Alexander Hamilton wrote the very same thing in Federalist No. 78, an essay explaining the limitations of the government in order to assure the naysayers in the state ratifying conventions that the states will always be more powerful: "Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."COMPACT OF THE REPUBLIC is your one-stop shopping for a concise study of the Constitution, its conception, historical roots, intent, drafting, ratification, interpretation, and ultimately, its steady erosion. Understanding what the Constitution really is provides the key to reversing the consolidation of power in Washington. Benner did an outstanding job compiling information and bringing history to life. The book is a must-read.
Reviewed in the United States on July 11, 2015
Images in this review
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on July 11, 2015
In 1776 thirteen of the British colonies in America sent delegates to a general congress, who there, for the colonies they represented, made the declaration “that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.” They submitted their indictment of the King to the judgment of mankind to justify their Declaration of Independence. After a heavy sacrifice of life and treasure, the Treaty of Paris was negotiated in 1783, by which Great Britain recognized the independence of the States separately, not as one body politic, but severally, each one being named in the act of recognition.
He who denies that in 1783 each State was a sovereign, free, and independent community must have much hardihood or little historical knowledge. And to be clear, the word State is used, it means the people of an organized community. The founders of the American Republic never conferred or intended to confer sovereignty upon either State or Federal governments.
Thus the matter stood when the Constitution to form a more perfect union was adopted, not, as has been most unjustifiably asserted, by the people of the United States in mass, but by the people of the States, each acting in its own convention and ratifying at different dates, the first being December 7, 1787, the last May 29, 1790. In view of facts so generally known, or (if not so) accessible to every reader of American history, it is surprising that some have contended that the Union was formed by the people of the United States as one body politic.
Though the States by a voluntary compact created a general government and delegated to it enumerated powers, reserving all else to themselves, it has been attempted to deduce from these limited grants a supremacy for the agent over the States, and, consequently, to deny to the States of the Union the sovereignty they possessed as States of the confederation. No one has attempted to show by what grant of the Constitution it can be claimed that the States have surrendered their sovereignty, and it seems absurd to assume that by implication the great object for which our fathers staked all save honor could have been lost. But they were too watchful to leave the question open for argument. Therefore, though the body of the instrument was thought by its framers to be sufficiently explicit in its limitation of the powers of the general government to those expressly delegated, yet, in an abundance of caution, almost contemporaneously with the ratification of the compact, two amendments were proposed and adopted in the following words:
“Article IX. The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
“Article X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” [See Jefferson Davis, “Doctrine of States’ Rights, 1890].
The right to resume their powers was implicit in the delegation, because after all, resumption (reassumption) is the corollative to delegation.
Our Founders created the perfect of checks and balances in our system in order to counter the ambitious aims of the federal government. The established a dual sovereignty system, which is our federalist structure, by which sovereign power is divided up among two sovereigns – the States and the common government. Federalist No. 45 explains the division most clearly (Madison), but in short, it is stated in the 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”) This most vital check has been severely eroded, thanks mostly to the Supreme Court, who, as Thomas Jefferson explained, have been “working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one.” Time and time again, we see the States attempt to frustrate the government in an act of protest, but it ends up merely being a minor temper tantrum rather than something the government takes seriously. In vain, the people have asked by what clause of the Constitution have the States surrendered their sovereignty and, by consequence, a State lost its right to decide on the meaning and intent of the Constitution… the document THEY wrote and THEY ratified.
The fact that most Americans fail to see what has happened, or even worse, to surrender to the notion that the states have surrendered their sovereignty, marks either an evasion of the issue or extreme ignorance of the history of our country. Again, no one of ordinary information and intelligence can deny that the States were sovereign, free, and independent when they entered into the compact of Union. And no one of ordinary information and intelligence can deny that the states created the government for common purposes and indeed were united on the principle that the government be constrained by the powers enumerated in the constitution that they wrote, debated on, and ultimately ratified. They were NOT united on the principle of unlimited submission to that government.
The key to embracing the notion that the States have the right, the power, and the duty to push back against the federal government, to point out its violations and usurpations of powers, and to come up with solutions to put the balance of government power back in proper perspective is the understanding that the Constitution is a compact (or contract, if you will). At one point in our history, no one doubted that understanding. As Jefferson Davis commented over and over again in his 1890 article “Doctrine of States’ Rights,” people are not only forgetting or ignoring their history, but there are plenty of documents and (primary) authority for people to access in order for people to become informed and to become the responsible citizens they need to be. Being informed is a moral imperative. After all, whether we like it or not, each American has inherited a duty to be a faithful guardian of the liberty he or she has been blessed to live under.
And that is why David Brenner’s book, COMPACT OF THE REPUBLIC, is an indispensable addition to anyone’s reading list. He compiles an incredible amount of primary authority to explain how and why the Constitution is a compact, and hence, why it must be treated as such. “The government continues to be treated as a superlative entity that holds supremacy over the states and localities. Despite this mischaracterization, the history behind the union’s genesis is still an important discovery…..” He explains that the contention presented in his book is one that explains that the States (as parties) drafted and then signed a compact (the Constitution) with its terms debated and ultimately mutually agreeable to all, to create a government (the creature, or the agent) of limited powers. “The creature cannot control the creators.”
Alexander Hamilton wrote the very same thing in Federalist No. 78, an essay explaining the limitations of the government in order to assure the naysayers in the state ratifying conventions that the states will always be more powerful: "Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
COMPACT OF THE REPUBLIC is your one-stop shopping for a concise study of the Constitution, its conception, historical roots, intent, drafting, ratification, interpretation, and ultimately, its steady erosion. Understanding what the Constitution really is provides the key to reversing the consolidation of power in Washington. Benner did an outstanding job compiling information and bringing history to life. The book is a must-read.
by which Great Britain recognized the independence of the States separately
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on July 11, 2015
No one can deny that the United States has got more than its share of problems now, with a serious debate at its core… The proper role and the scope of government. Over the years, the government has secured for itself a monopoly with respect to the meaning of the Constitution and the extent of its powers. And as many a policy from the President and as many a Supreme Court decision has shown, we the People are in the same situation the colonists were when they were forced to submit to the arbitrary designs of the King and Parliament.Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on July 11, 2015
In 1776 thirteen of the British colonies in America sent delegates to a general congress, who there, for the colonies they represented, made the declaration “that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.” They submitted their indictment of the King to the judgment of mankind to justify their Declaration of Independence. After a heavy sacrifice of life and treasure, the Treaty of Paris was negotiated in 1783, by which Great Britain recognized the independence of the States separately, not as one body politic, but severally, each one being named in the act of recognition.
He who denies that in 1783 each State was a sovereign, free, and independent community must have much hardihood or little historical knowledge. And to be clear, the word State is used, it means the people of an organized community. The founders of the American Republic never conferred or intended to confer sovereignty upon either State or Federal governments.
Thus the matter stood when the Constitution to form a more perfect union was adopted, not, as has been most unjustifiably asserted, by the people of the United States in mass, but by the people of the States, each acting in its own convention and ratifying at different dates, the first being December 7, 1787, the last May 29, 1790. In view of facts so generally known, or (if not so) accessible to every reader of American history, it is surprising that some have contended that the Union was formed by the people of the United States as one body politic.
Though the States by a voluntary compact created a general government and delegated to it enumerated powers, reserving all else to themselves, it has been attempted to deduce from these limited grants a supremacy for the agent over the States, and, consequently, to deny to the States of the Union the sovereignty they possessed as States of the confederation. No one has attempted to show by what grant of the Constitution it can be claimed that the States have surrendered their sovereignty, and it seems absurd to assume that by implication the great object for which our fathers staked all save honor could have been lost. But they were too watchful to leave the question open for argument. Therefore, though the body of the instrument was thought by its framers to be sufficiently explicit in its limitation of the powers of the general government to those expressly delegated, yet, in an abundance of caution, almost contemporaneously with the ratification of the compact, two amendments were proposed and adopted in the following words:
“Article IX. The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
“Article X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” [See Jefferson Davis, “Doctrine of States’ Rights, 1890].
The right to resume their powers was implicit in the delegation, because after all, resumption (reassumption) is the corollative to delegation.
Our Founders created the perfect of checks and balances in our system in order to counter the ambitious aims of the federal government. The established a dual sovereignty system, which is our federalist structure, by which sovereign power is divided up among two sovereigns – the States and the common government. Federalist No. 45 explains the division most clearly (Madison), but in short, it is stated in the 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”) This most vital check has been severely eroded, thanks mostly to the Supreme Court, who, as Thomas Jefferson explained, have been “working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one.” Time and time again, we see the States attempt to frustrate the government in an act of protest, but it ends up merely being a minor temper tantrum rather than something the government takes seriously. In vain, the people have asked by what clause of the Constitution have the States surrendered their sovereignty and, by consequence, a State lost its right to decide on the meaning and intent of the Constitution… the document THEY wrote and THEY ratified.
The fact that most Americans fail to see what has happened, or even worse, to surrender to the notion that the states have surrendered their sovereignty, marks either an evasion of the issue or extreme ignorance of the history of our country. Again, no one of ordinary information and intelligence can deny that the States were sovereign, free, and independent when they entered into the compact of Union. And no one of ordinary information and intelligence can deny that the states created the government for common purposes and indeed were united on the principle that the government be constrained by the powers enumerated in the constitution that they wrote, debated on, and ultimately ratified. They were NOT united on the principle of unlimited submission to that government.
The key to embracing the notion that the States have the right, the power, and the duty to push back against the federal government, to point out its violations and usurpations of powers, and to come up with solutions to put the balance of government power back in proper perspective is the understanding that the Constitution is a compact (or contract, if you will). At one point in our history, no one doubted that understanding. As Jefferson Davis commented over and over again in his 1890 article “Doctrine of States’ Rights,” people are not only forgetting or ignoring their history, but there are plenty of documents and (primary) authority for people to access in order for people to become informed and to become the responsible citizens they need to be. Being informed is a moral imperative. After all, whether we like it or not, each American has inherited a duty to be a faithful guardian of the liberty he or she has been blessed to live under.
And that is why David Brenner’s book, COMPACT OF THE REPUBLIC, is an indispensable addition to anyone’s reading list. He compiles an incredible amount of primary authority to explain how and why the Constitution is a compact, and hence, why it must be treated as such. “The government continues to be treated as a superlative entity that holds supremacy over the states and localities. Despite this mischaracterization, the history behind the union’s genesis is still an important discovery…..” He explains that the contention presented in his book is one that explains that the States (as parties) drafted and then signed a compact (the Constitution) with its terms debated and ultimately mutually agreeable to all, to create a government (the creature, or the agent) of limited powers. “The creature cannot control the creators.”
Alexander Hamilton wrote the very same thing in Federalist No. 78, an essay explaining the limitations of the government in order to assure the naysayers in the state ratifying conventions that the states will always be more powerful: "Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
COMPACT OF THE REPUBLIC is your one-stop shopping for a concise study of the Constitution, its conception, historical roots, intent, drafting, ratification, interpretation, and ultimately, its steady erosion. Understanding what the Constitution really is provides the key to reversing the consolidation of power in Washington. Benner did an outstanding job compiling information and bringing history to life. The book is a must-read.
Images in this review
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on July 6, 2022
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on December 9, 2014
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on June 24, 2019
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on September 10, 2016
