Tenth Amendment Center: We the People vs We the States

 

We the People vs We the States Intentionally designed to BYPASS the states (article | podcast)

"This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity." With that one sentence, future Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth revealed the single most radical change from the system under the Articles of Confederation - and what’s possibly the least understood feature of it today. Here's what they don't teach in the government-run “education” system: The Constitution wasn't merely a stronger version of the Articles. It was a completely different system. This was a fundamental re-engineering of power - not just in the new powers delegated, but in whom those powers acted upon. The framers replaced a government that legislated for states with one that legislated for individuals. It was intentionally designed, from its core, to bypass the states almost completely. The shift was right there in the opening words. "We the People" rather than "We the States." And that was no accident - it was the whole point. REQUISITIONS This shift was a direct answer to what leading federalists like James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Charles Pinckney, Rufus King, William Davie all considered the "great and radical vice" of the Articles of Confederation: the principle of making laws for states in their collective capacities. Under that "requisition" system, Congress could only request compliance from the states; it could not compel it. This fatal flaw resulted in a government that was, as James Madison argued, no government at all. Instead, it was a "mere nullity in practice." But not everyone agreed. Leading the Anti-Federalists, Patrick Henry saw the requisition system as a feature, not a flaw. A critical safeguard against centralized power. He argued that on this very system "depends our political prosperity," because it kept for the states the power to keep Congress in check if it asked for too much money. The debate raged on, not just about money, but about the fundamental nature of government power. The Federalists framed the choice in the starkest possible terms: Change the system or it will eventually devolve into a total tyranny. Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist 16, argued that any system relying on states would require "a large army continually on foot to execute the ordinary requisitions or decrees of the government." Was this a prediction or a thinly veiled threat? For Hamilton, there was no middle ground. He called it the "plain alternative." Denying government the power to act on individuals - by keeping the system under the Articles - was a "scheme," he claimed, that "if practicable at all, would instantly degenerate into a military despotism." To the Federalists, the choice was clear: a government of laws acting on people, or a government of force acting on states. Patrick Henry smelled a rat. To him, the very first three words proved the whole point was to create a consolidated government. “Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states.” We the People vs We the States: The Constitution’s Real Purpose Article Here: 👉  https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2025/09/12/the-great-bypass-how-the-constitution-was-built-to-sideline-the-states/ Video podcast with reference links to read and share: 👉  https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2025/09/we-the-states-vs-we-the-people-the-constitutions-real-design-to-sideline-the-states/ In this podcast and article you will learn: Federal vs National Government: The Founders’ Understanding of the Difference in how each system operates Alexander Hamilton’s big reveal in 1783: he wanted federal tax collectors not just for revenue, but to create a payroll of officials interested in supporting the power of Congress - essentially building central-government loyalty networks How the Requisition system played out in practice. It wasn’t just taxes. It was troops too - with a prominent example explained in a letter to Thomas Jefferson - by Elbridge Gerry. A Key Battle Was for Control of the Militia: The nationalist push to give the federal government primary control over the state militias was a major flashpoint. Two major amendment attempts failed: 1783 tariff and 1784 commerce regulation both passed through Congress, but failed approval in the states - because they required unanimous consent George Mason's three reasons for requisition failures: States refused not just from "wilful design of procrastinating" but also from "impossibility of complying" and "that great variety of circumstances which retards the collection of moneys" The “Fire or Sword” Dilemma: North Carolina’s William Davie articulated the core Federalist fear, diagnosing that any system that legislates for states instead of for individuals can ultimately only be enforced through military force, not by a civil magistrate. Patrick Henry’s Choice: Drawing on the spirit of the Revolution - he warned that the choice was liberty OR empire. Not both. Oliver Ellsworth Boils It All Down: He framed the entire debate into one unforgettable choice - coercion by law vs. coercion by war. As he put it, you can take a delinquent individual to court, but you can only take a delinquent state to war. The Big Takeaway: The Constitution was specifically designed so states are NOT agents of the federal government The framers didn't just tinker with the Articles - they demolished the entire foundation and built something completely different. They replaced a system where sovereign states could check federal power with one designed to bypass them almost entirely. The federal government would no longer ask states for compliance - it would compel individuals directly, through its own agents, with its own force. JOIN TAC, SUPPORT LIBERTY! Let’s keep building the foundation! For as little as $2/month, help us take a stand for the Constitution and liberty - whether the government likes it, or not. (they don’t!) 👉 details here Make a one-time donation here: 👉 https://donate.stripe.com/fZecNzggUaDG3LydR0 This is the Constitution's most foundational feature - and it's almost never taught today. Why? Because understanding this principle would fundamentally change how Americans view federal power. It would expose the constitutional fraud behind federal mandates that force states to implement and enforce federal programs. It would reveal that it's not just bad policy - it's the exact opposite of what the Constitution was designed to do. The framers built the Constitution to sideline the states. But they never intended to turn them into federal puppets. That distinction? It's the difference between the Constitution as written and the government we have today. 📖 Read the Article → HERE 🎙️ Watch or listen to the podcast → HERE It’s no surprise that the government-run and government-approved “education” system never teaches us any of this truth. This is a big part of the reason we work so hard - day in and day out, year in and year out - to reach and teach more people about this essential history - and these essential foundational principles behind the Constitution. But we can’t do it alone. Your membership support is crucial - and we use every penny of that manipulated, quickly-devaluing government fiat they call “money” to good use in support of the Constitution and Liberty. 👉 JOIN US TODAY! Here’s the link, you know what to do: 👉 https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/ Prefer to make a one-time donation? Go directly to our processor to pitch in here: 👉 https://donate.stripe.com/fZecNzggUaDG3LydR0 You can also mail a check to: Tenth Amendment Center 16755 Von Karman Avenue Suite 200 PMB 705 Irvine, CA 92606 Brick-by-brick. Person-by-person. Building a strong foundation for liberty – whether the government happens to like it, or not. (they definitely do not) Thank you so much for reading - and your support! Concordia res parvae crescunt (small things grow great by concord) Michael Boldin, TAC