“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.”

As a stand alone statement, it is too broad. Both a Republican form of Government and a Democracy will claim the same "legitimate authority" while the end results are diametrically opposed. A Republican form of government recognizes a natural law that exists eternally (gravity, science, fiscal law, etc.) with tools such as codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. that each and every individual as sovereign authorizes the legitimate administration(s) of inalienable rights related thereto. A Democracy claims a "national power" as a representative of the whole "of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE" - a god like authority with ability to create law (codes, statutes, etc. exist as law) - recognizing no rights of individuals or personal sovereignty (the forest does not recognize singularly, each tree but rather, only the whole thereof).

The only fabric on which the American Republic can rightly rest is the illumined CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE.

American empire? Hamilton already showing the signs of nationalism/collectivism claiming the consent of the people. A republican form of government in its truest sense is a government by consent of the people.

How does this quote reflect the concept of popular sovereignty? Please help :)