You’ll note Madison uses the phrase “residuary sovereignty.” I’m pretty sure Madison did not intend for - as you suggest - the states to be the primary governmental authority with power then delegated from them to the federal government.
You ignore the supremacy clause for one thing. More importantly, the Constitution did not establish a confederation of states but a single nation. You’ll recall that it was a remedy for the failure of the Articles of Confederation.
I would argue that in fact what the Constitution originally established was something closer to a power-sharing between states and federal government. Certain powers reside in each. But you are correct that the states are given wider latitude originally whereas the Constitution circumscribed federal power. Local governments obviously are secondary to the state government, but the federal government is not.
One key is shown in the distinction between House and Senate. Madison set up a “mixed system” if you will: it merged elements of liberalism with republicanism. The Senate is the chamber which functioned exactly as you suggested: it was to represent the interests of the state governments, which delegated power to it by choosing the Senators. The House, though, was always popularly elected. Indicating that it was meant to be the direct link between the people and the federal government.
What you end up with is a system that balances power and sovereignty rather than concentrating it. The House derives its power directly from the people. The Senate from the states. I’d prefer a return to that system (by eliminating the direct election of Senators). But we are not citizens of our state first. We are citizens of America first and our state second (there is freedom of movement between the states).
You’ll note Madison uses the phrase “residuary sovereignty.” I’m pretty sure Madison did not intend for - as you suggest - the states to be the primary governmental authority with power then delegated from them to the federal government.
You ignore the supremacy clause for one thing. More importantly, the Constitution did not establish a confederation of states but a single nation. You’ll recall that it was a remedy for the failure of the Articles of Confederation.
I would argue that in fact what the Constitution originally established was something closer to a power-sharing between states and federal government. Certain powers reside in each. But you are correct that the states are given wider latitude originally whereas the Constitution circumscribed federal power. Local governments obviously are secondary to the state government, but the federal government is not.
One key is shown in the distinction between House and Senate. Madison set up a “mixed system” if you will: it merged elements of liberalism with republicanism. The Senate is the chamber which functioned exactly as you suggested: it was to represent the interests of the state governments, which delegated power to it by choosing the Senators. The House, though, was always popularly elected. Indicating that it was meant to be the direct link between the people and the federal government.
What you end up with is a system that balances power and sovereignty rather than concentrating it. The House derives its power directly from the people. The Senate from the states. I’d prefer a return to that system (by eliminating the direct election of Senators). But we are not citizens of our state first. We are citizens of America first and our state second (there is freedom of movement between the states).