“But as the plan of the [Constitutional] convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.”

Cherry picking at its best... and those who harvest have their own baskets.

When the Constitution was framed, some of the states had official state religions that were referred to as establishments of religion, and some states did not. The first Amendment satisfied both sides of the religious issue. Religion, including an establishment thereof, was in toto, under the jurisdiction of the State. The federal government had no authority to address in any way, under any topic, by way of executive, legislation, or judiciary, the subject of religion. OOOOPS!!! the Supreme Court legislated right over that part of Hamilton's statement. What ever happened to the Constitution that Hamilton was involved with?

Two questions: Mike in Norwalk: Did any of the states retain established religions after the first amendment? If so, which ones, till when? Did Marshall override this? Can you recommend any good books on this topic? Webmaster: can you please cite source for this one? Did Hamilton latter (or simultaneously!) "hedge his bets" by hinting at broader powers for the federal gvt?

What is so hard to understand about "Congress shall make NO LAW ..."?

Connecticut (Congregational Church), New Hampshire (Protestant faith), Delaware (Christian faith) New Jersey (Protestant faith), Maryland (Christian fait), South Carolina (Protestant faith), Massachusetts (Congregational Church), all had establishment of religions at the time of the signing of the Constitution and for years after. The Southern States, other than North Carolina and Virginia, from before 1776 until at least 1798, that I can find, unsuccessfully attempted to broaden their establishment of religions to acceptance of multiple faiths. The last attempts to reconcile an establishment of religion with the many faiths within states such as Massachusetts and South Carolina ended in the early 1800's Though I don’t agree with many of Joseph Story’s ((1779-1845), an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) centralizing authority in the federal government, he did write a good start for understanding the federal governments exclusion from religion. 'Commentaries on the Constitution'. Story was a contemorry of Marshal's so no, Marshal did not overide this.

The reason that the Fed's Supreme cult keeps carping about church and state is to keep us believing that we still have a Constitution. The Constitution is moribund. It's most vital section is ignored and that is Art.1, Sec.10. This section not only bars paper money, it bars license, laws, zoning laws, rent control laws and legal tender laws. The sole function of legal tender is to tasle property without payment. Legal tender is legal slavery! Roussas John Rushdoony wrote a page titled: God, The Devil and Legal Tender that will be emailed if you ask: neatmail@gmail.com

It would be interesting to know when Hamilton made this statement. Obviously (or is it) it was before final ratification. Was not one of the main thrusts of the new Constitution to end the "errors" of the Articles of "Con" federation in favor of a "federation" in which states lost all of their soverignity, "In order to form a more perfect union". At least they lost the ultimate right of soverignity; once in the union they were stuck in the union. In the light of history this construction was brilliant if one is interested in preserving the union. Compare it to the legal fraud of the "Union of Soviet (Soverign) Socialist Republics" These states were held together not by law, since even in their name they had soverignity, but by the dictatorship of the Communist Party. When the party fell so did the so called union.

Seems to me that the Constitution gave the federal government sole authority as to making treaties, agreements and tending to any and all affairs between other nations and the individual States.

The forgotten philosophy of the founding fathers.

Quite simply, the sovereignty rests with We The People BEFORE government. Unlike any other country in the world at the time, the American People were sovereign in their individual capacity. The bulwark of that sovereignty was private property, in particular, land. Even now, the Crown of England holds title to all the land in Britain and all the British Commonwealths like Canada, Australia, and a host of others -- any country with the Queen still emblazoned on their coinage is still wholly owned by the Crown. However, after the American Revolution, the Crown released all claims to the land in the USA and transferred ownership forever via 'land patent'. The president signed those land patents over when each 'state' joined the union. Land could not be taxed nor sold -- it could only be granted. The owners of the land were kings on their own property. It was what qualified them to vote as 'electors.' As a result in the American Republic, each town was made up of free land owners, and each State made up of small county 'republics' with their own local governments. The sovereign State republics voluntarily and unanimously formed the government association called the United States with the charter known as the Constitution for the Unites States of America. The sovereign States still maintained their sovereignty as well as the sovereignty of the citizens in those States. The system however has become corrupted as David Wilbur describes above. The use of fiat currency, i.e. promissory notes, cannot actually pay off real debts, and the commercial law that regulates the use of such paper bonds has stretched its jurisdiction beyond its intended bounds. Only the use of real money (gold and silver) can be used to transfer ownership of property -- the rest is merely IOU's of equitable interest in property. As a result, the common law courts were disposed of as most of the legal cases were based on commercial law. Few people even realize that if they secured their land patents today, no one could tax it or even come onto the property without trespassing. Since today's lawyers learn only the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) based on the use of negotiable instruments as 'money', almost none know about the real law that makes up the American Republic. Since we use this fake money for everything now, federal commercial law now applies to all sovereign citizens in all the bankrupted states of America. Instead of confining the Feds to Washington DC, they have usurped the power of the States through the use of this fiat currency. The price has been every gold dollar in Fort Knox, every square inch of land in America (except for a few 'patriots' who still hold on to the land patents and know what they are) and the labors of every worker in America. Look it up -- it is a most interesting devolution. America has been taken over from within enslaving the citizens and forcing them to enslave everyone else into this system all so that we can have our credit cards and phony 'loans' to the point that every single dollar in circulation is owed back to the Fed -- and we owe even more! When the people wake up to this tyranny, then and only then, will we have a chance to send those bankers to hell. Of course, unless we can temper our own desires, we will have enslaved ourselves because we have conned ourselves into thinking there is a free lunch. You cannot be sovereign and in debt -- plain and simple.

Yep, in England when opening a bussiness you have on your sign by Apointment of the Crown if my memory serves.

You lose me Archer. The states are not soverign because they cannot leave. The question of state soverignity was debated for the first 84 years of the union. Have you ever heard of the Civil War? It was about whether or not a state was soverign and thus could come or go at will. What that war settled was that the states are not soverign. As I stated above the Soviet (re: soverign) Socialist Republics were soverign and thus they could leave their union and did.

The sole function of legal tender is to take labor and or property without paying for them. Legal tender is lergal slavery. Lincoln could not conclude his aggression against the south because of lack of funds so he passed his God-forbidden and uncon-stitutional legal tender acts and issued his infamous 'greenbacks" to get labor and materi'el without paying for them and his contemporary, Horace Greeley said Lincoln's money system "was no less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery." More: www.morpix.biz/god One of Merrill Jenkins' 7 books free: www.morpix.biz/tread His first was: "Money", The Greatest Hoax On Earth. Find it om: amazon.com

If the state and the church were not married, the state would collapse as it depends on intimidated preachers to stay afloat. Preachers fear loss of tax exemption if they told these facts; very few are subject to income tax, It is not possible to file a truthful return without having definitions for dollar and income and it is impossible to pay taxes with dollar bills that the IRS said "are not dollars" or with credit and the Federal Reserve said their system of unjust weights "works (us) only with credit."
America's intimidated preachers are the world's greatest problem.

The State and Individual retain their sovereignty, regardless of the dictates of man. Even today, the fight to maintain independence, is a Natural force, of which a corrupt governing body such as today, seeks to nullify.

The thirteen state religions in their constitutions listed here:
http://amerisearch.net/index.php?date=06-21&view=View

This is all of nothing. This "social" arrangement is just a primitive creature fighting for territorial supremacy. There's no legislation, no official rights, no ethical agreements. Just plain ole, everyday, low life bullying violence. Humans, on the other hand, are responsible, respectful, and fair. We need a human administration.