Actually, no, what I am saying isn't like the signing statement at all. By means of his unprecedentedly broad use of signing statements (topic of a chapter in my forthcoming book, by the way), President Bush claims authority for himself beyond that contemplated by the Constitution. (That is, unless one reads the Constitution in a Hamiltonian way.) On the other hand, the Federalists' explanation of their handiwork that I have described is perfectly consistent with what had come before -- in the recognition of states' sovereignty by calling them "states" and by explicit retention of that sovereignty in the Articles of Confederation, for example. And unlike Bush, the Federalists were claiming that their new-fangled government would have less, not more, power through their explanation. Never did the states concede their sovereignty between the ratification of the Articles and 1788. The Federalists insisted, over strong objections, that it would remain even after ratification -- as indeed it did, since there was nothing in the Constitution surrendering it. Paul wants to build an argument for unlimited central government on the idea that Federalist advocacy of the Constitution was at root a tissue of lies, because they were going to do what they wanted with their new power despite the limitations of the people's consent. His point, it seems, is that consent was really a sham, that the aristocrats -- Nicholas, Randolph, Pinckney, Wilson -- were just gulling the masses in telling them it was a limited government, a federal republic, and not a national government. Paul sounds exactly like Patrick Henry and George Mason, "Ritt" Lee and William Grayson, who warned their fellow Virginians that that was what the Federalists were up to. Perhaps he's right, but I don't think so; I think that the dishonesty came later. I guess we'll have to leave it there. Kevin Gutzman I love having someone else characterize me and say whose side I am on. I would ask Kevin, since he seems so tied to text and originalism, to point to the part of the US Constitution that says a state may unilaterally withdraw after ratification. If he can find that part then we are on the same page; if not, then it seems to me that he is the one who wants to avoid the text to come up with some extraneous, non-constitutional argument of some politicians explaining that what they are doing is not what they really are doing. It is very much like President Bush's latest innovation in Constitutional law, the "signing statement." But, I will with draw from this discussion now and get back to work. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, New York 12208-3494 ______________________________________ To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html