The Union is prior to the states in the sense that the states weren't states as such until there was a Union. Analogously, the marriage makes the family, even though the spouses both exist prior to the marriage, they aren't spouses or family until they say "I do."
What is a state "as such"? That they weren't states before the Union in the sense of political units as conceived of in the Constitution is a tautology. That they were states before the Union in the sense of sovereign actors (implied in the fact that the separate state legislatures had to ratify the Constitution or go their own way) is undeniable. The form of the whole precedes the parts of something like a biological organism, not an artifact like a corporation.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I don't see why the whole preceding the parts wouldn't apply to something artificial. There's also the historical case that none of the "states" would exist without them all banding together in a union under the Continental Army in the Revolution (the whole, "if we don't all hang together we will surely hang separately" line from Franklin). So in a formal sense (unless I am wrong), but also in a historical sense, Union precedes states. Also, the states are not sovereign under the Constitution--they were under the Articles, but it was ratifying conventions rather than state legislatures that adopted the Constitution, which represents that the People were adopting the Constitution rather than the states through the legislatures.
Interesting article. I do agree with Russell Kirk that there were conservatives among both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and thus it is cool that TAP publishes pieces with both positions, such as this and Mr. Veillon's.
So... which came first: the Union or the states? Republics are sovereign corporations. What corporation exists before its founding members?
The Union is prior to the states in the sense that the states weren't states as such until there was a Union. Analogously, the marriage makes the family, even though the spouses both exist prior to the marriage, they aren't spouses or family until they say "I do."
What is a state "as such"? That they weren't states before the Union in the sense of political units as conceived of in the Constitution is a tautology. That they were states before the Union in the sense of sovereign actors (implied in the fact that the separate state legislatures had to ratify the Constitution or go their own way) is undeniable. The form of the whole precedes the parts of something like a biological organism, not an artifact like a corporation.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I don't see why the whole preceding the parts wouldn't apply to something artificial. There's also the historical case that none of the "states" would exist without them all banding together in a union under the Continental Army in the Revolution (the whole, "if we don't all hang together we will surely hang separately" line from Franklin). So in a formal sense (unless I am wrong), but also in a historical sense, Union precedes states. Also, the states are not sovereign under the Constitution--they were under the Articles, but it was ratifying conventions rather than state legislatures that adopted the Constitution, which represents that the People were adopting the Constitution rather than the states through the legislatures.
What's the hang-up here?
Interesting article. I do agree with Russell Kirk that there were conservatives among both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and thus it is cool that TAP publishes pieces with both positions, such as this and Mr. Veillon's.