Who knows how our constitution is supposed to really work?

Does #RobNatelson who wrote an #Opinion article for #TheEpochTimes August 8 know "How Our Constitution Was Supposed to Work"?

Natleson wrote, after a list of mostly accurate powers: "This list alsoincluded authority to hold the union together."

I would like to see how Natleson gets that idea; aside from the obvious - that if our nation's government officers truly remained honorable, there would be no need for States to secede from the union; thus -- keeping the union together.

However; The Constitution for the United States of America, in Amendment 10 makes it clear that if the constitution does not prohibit to the State a specific power, the States may exercise that power. But that is only true, if the people of that state authorizes their State to exercise that power.

The US Constitution, then in 1787, as now in 2019, does not prohibit to the States the power to leave the union.

Natleson wrote: "But advocates of the Constitution adopted another course of action less known today. They gave speeches and wrote articles explaining to the people how the Constitution limited federal power. Sensing the need to be specific, they listed government functions that would be outside the federal sphere. These would be the exclusive province of state governments and the private sector."

Later in the article, Natelson wrote: "Until the 1930's, the courts voided any measure exceeding the federal government's enumerated powers. During the New Deal, this began to change. Although many believe that the change occurred because President Franklin Roosevelt threatened the Supreme Court, modern research suggests there were other reasons.

"In any event, the Constitutions' plan of federalism stopped operating as Coxe and other founders designed it, But reading Coxe's essays enables us to recapture how federalism was supposed to work."

The problems I have with this are:

• When introducing any external writings about the constitution to try to explain the meanings, one must then include all conflicting and supporting writings. This then, continues to muddy the already numerous misconceived notions about original meaning.
• The Supreme Court began destroying the Rule of Law as early as 1805 with Marbury v. Madison; where the Courts appeared to have stolen the power to interpret the US Constitution -- to #interpret the very law that governs their powers.
• So far, and I will have to get a copy of Natleson's book before going much further. So far; I am not impressed. One needs a full working knowledge of The unanimous Declaration of the united States of America before trying to properly comprehend the US Constitution.