I've given you quotations from those who wrote the Constitution, and those who taught the Constitution during that time frame. And yet, you'd prefer "case law". Says a ton right there.
It says that I understand that if I walk into a courtroom, I will get a lot further quoting Supreme Court precedent on the subject than I will quoting William Rawles (who gave the interpretation of the Constitution you quoted prior to its ratification and prior to the interpetation of the highest Court in the land who apparently chose not to agree with that interpetation).
It's the law according to Jefferson, Paine, Henry, Franklin, ect... That you continue to support an erroneous line of legal reasoning is coloring my perception of your supposed neutrality
Well, it isn't very surprising that Jefferson, Paine, or Henry would disagree with Marshall since they were all anti-Federalists and Marshall was a strong Federalist. Of the three you mention, only Jefferson supported ratification of the Constitution. If Jefferson, Paine, Henry and Franklin are sufficient to make something law, then what happens when Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and Adams disagree?
Paine wasn't even around for the Constitutional debates as he was in France promoting the French Revolution and living in Pas-De-Calais as a representative to the French national convention. Paine, for example, wrote of Washington "I don't know whether you've lost your principles or never had any" and took no part in the Constitutional convention as far as I know, though his writings would certainly support the view you expressed.
Henry was THE leading antifederalist for a time and urged against adopting the Constitution at all. It was his insistence that eventually got the Bill of Rights included; but he eventually joined the ranks of the Federalists, joining Washington, Adams, and Marshall.
Franklin thought the Constitution was doomed from the start; but urged delegates to adopt it because he didn't think any better document could be created by that process:
"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. "
My point being that you are citing selectively among the founding fathers to give an impression of unity on this issue when there was no such concensus. The people you do cite are consistently from the side that the people and states rejected when they ratified the Constitution. Personally, I think the anti-federalists have been proven mostly right by history. Almost all of their concerns have proved well-founded. However, I think that quoting solely from the losing side of the debate and pretending that this was the undisputed view of the Constitution at the time of its writing is a bit disingenuous.
