Quote:
|
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
|
Quote:
|
The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation.
|
How did you reach your interpretation from the emphasized portions of the quotes?
Simply stating that I am wrong, while resorting to fallacy, doesn't imply that you are correct. Only that you prefer to resort to the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Why was the same objection not reached under the Articles of Confederation, if the detractors of the Constitution were not simply resorting to fallacy, as well? There is no specific enumeration of powers in the Articles. Why would that constitutional precedent not be a valid precedent, and an example of Madison's view of presenting examples of specifics that concurs with my own?