How do American 87, welcome to the Forum.
If you’re using those terms the way people at the time did, e.g. Madison, your statement is contradictory. Prior to the Constitution, federal meant all sovereignty was local (a confederation), and national meant all sovereignty was central (a consolidated state). Mix the two, and you get some sovereignty in the states, and some in the Union.
By definition, colonies have no sovereignty, and the Founders knew this. The sticking point was not split sovereignty, it was the violation of constitutional rights (British Constitution); particularly no taxation without representation.
“
I think the Parliament of Britain hath no more right to put their hands into my pocket, without my consent, than I have to put my hands into yours...” – George Washington to Bryan Fairfax, July 20, 1774
“
The acts of Parliament are not only repugnant to natural right, but subversive of the laws and constitution of Great Britain itself, . . . Satisfied, then, that the acts of a British Parliament are no longer governed by the principles of justice, that it is trampling on upon the valuable rights of Americans, confirmed to them by charter and constitution...” – George Washington to Bryan Fairfax, August 24, 1774
The colonists rejected the notion that that Parliament held any sovereignty over them, but they recognized that the king was their sovereign. By failing to protect them from attempts by Parliament to establish arbitrary authority over them, in violation of their constitutional rights, and by eventually directly supporting those attempts, the king had violated the loyalty-protection relationship of sovereign-subject. This is why the DoI criticizes the king, not Parliament.
So "sharing sovereignty" was the American proposal, not "a sticking point?"
You’ve misinterpreted Hamilton, he is clearly saying the Constitution will not
entirely consolidate the Union (all sovereignty in the Union), but it WILL
partially consolidate the Union (some sovereignty in the Union). Without specifying the full vs. partial aspect, the Framers similarly described the Constitution as consolidating the Union:
“
In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union,…” – Official Letter of the Federal Convention of 1787, September 17, 1787
Clearly the Framers are saying the Constitution will consolidate the Union. You decide, is it a partial consolidation (split sovereignty) or full consolidation (all sovereignty went to the Union)?
I'm not sure what you mean by "sharing absolute sovereignty," but the states and the Union do not share full sovereignty, if that's what you mean. The full sovereignty of the US (as a whole nation) is split between the two, with each operating under a separate portion or sphere of full sovereignty. Once again, the Framers noted this in their letter; specifically, they noted the difficulty in defining each sphere in complete detail:
"
It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was encreased by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests."
In addition, in The Federalist No. 32 (your source), Hamilton is specifically addressing one part of sovereignty, the authority to raise revenue/tax, which he is explaining is concurrent. Here’s how Madison (Federalist No. 39) explained the division of sovereignty when speaking specifically to the question of sovereignty (aka “authority,” aka “supremacy”; also note
spheres of sovereignty):
“…the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.”
Dictionary.com: residual - "
pertaining to or constituting a residue or remainder; remaining; leftover."
As in the sovereignty remaining/leftover after the states gave a portion of their sovereignty to the Union.
Alienate has a specific legal definition:
2: to convey or transfer (something, such as property or a right) usually by a specific act rather than the due course of law
The states
were “
at least” delegating powers, in fact they were doing much more than that; they were surrendering all claim to those powers, by giving up (alienating) the sovereignty associated with those powers:
“It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society,
must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.” – Official Letter of the Federal Convention of 1787, September 17, 1787
And the Fed is not an “administrative body,” it is a national government, and a supreme one at that:
“
a Union of the States merely federal will not accomplish the objects proposed by the articles of Confederation, . . . no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the States, as individual Sovereignties, would be sufficient. . . . a national Government ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive & Judiciary. . . . Morris explained the distinction between a federal and national, supreme, Govt.; the former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter having a compleat and compulsive operation. He contended that in all Communities there must be one supreme power, and one only.” The Convention then adopted Morris’s “national, supreme, Govt” proposal, by a vote of 6 to 1, with 1 state divided.
Your theory would mean they then created exactly what they had agreed would not work, and...
“
It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each....”
...it would mean that the Framers drafted a Constitution that represented exactly what they said was “impracticable” in the very cover letter they sent out with that draft Constitution.
Who here, or anywhere, described
the Fed as a co-sovereign? The Fed is no more sovereign than the state governments were/are. The Union is a republic, just like each state was a republic (and remains republican). The people of the US hold national sovereignty, just like the people of the respective states hold state sovereignty. However, the sovereign people of the respective states did establish the sovereign people of the US as a “co-sovereign,” by giving the latter a share of their sovereignty.
Regarding the paragraph I bolded, source please? This sounds like the kind of disinformation that comes out of the Tenth Amendment Center.
Both versions refer to the people, not simply the states (as the AoCs had). That suggests a social contract (the making of a fundamental law), not a compact among sovereign states (a treaty). True, but it also eliminates any confusion with the prior system. It was actually
Gouveneur Morris who reworded the Preamble, the same Morris who said “
no treaty . . . among the . . . States, as individual Sovereignties, would be sufficient. . . . a national, supreme, Govt. . . . ought to be established . . . in all Communities there must be one supreme power, and one only.” And as such, the revision accurately reflects the sovereignty of the people as a whole. At any rate, the notion that the original draft means the people of the respective states remained fully sovereign conflicts with the very fact that the Constitution is a fundamental law ("the supreme Law of the Land"). It is inherent in the establishment of a fundamental law that the people who do so become the collective sovereigns over the territory to which such a law applies. All fundamental law constitutions work this way:
“ ‘We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.’ Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country, and, in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will that the State governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner, and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects in a certain manner.” – Chisholm v Georgia, 1793
This is basic John Locke/social compact theory, put in action by the Founders, first state-by-state, and then across the whole country. As SCOTUS noted, it works the same for the Constitution as it does for the state constitutions (except the former is supreme to the latter). Ratification means consent. The respective states may have ratified the Constitution, but only the collective states (any 9 to 13 that chose to ratify) could establish the Constitution. And by consenting, as shown above, the people of each state agreed to give up a share of full state sovereignty to the people of the Union ("
We the People of the United States").
The sovereignty of the people of the US as a whole over the Constitution is further borne out by Art. V. A compact among sovereign states, which remain fully sovereign, is a treaty. Treaties (like the AoCs) cannot be altered without the consent of ALL of the treaty members (otherwise such would violate the individual sovereignty of the member states, forcing them to agree to a treay that was not, however slightly or significantly, the one originally agreed to). The Constitution can be amended without unanimous consent. That a supermajority of the states was selected (for stability) does not matter, it is still less than unanimous.
I disagree with their description as "administrative bodies," however, the point is trivial. The main point is, as indicated above, the people of the US are the sovereigns of the Constitution, and therefore of the whole US. The people of each state are only sovereign over their respective states, and then only within their residuary sphere.