I had the same thought as Julie. While I don't agree with Calhoun's position, I think he does lay out an interesting case with respect to the republicanism over the democratic element. With respect to all 27 Amendments, they were ratified by Congress as opposed to state convention. To me, when combined with the supremacy clause, really voids many of Calhoun's arguments

I find this statement to be very thought provoking as Lincoln argues the case step by step...they were first dependent colonies, followed by a collective group seeking independence, followed by a collective group as a Confederacy, finally as a collective group submitting to the Constitution...he lays out the case as such, pledging themselves to a perpetual union, followed by a more perfect union and then he declares they have no other legal status other than members of the Union and that states rights suggest sovereignty, which is not stated in the Constitution.

I think Rousseaus argument makes sense in the context of his era, but as Julie suggested, modern transportation and communication may have shrunk our nation to some degree. I also think Rousseau fails to address the other component that our Founders incorporated--Federalism. Some of Rousseaus issues are addressed through Federalism. We maintain smaller republics within a whole republic.

I find this passage interesting as it seems that our current society reflects the opposite in many ways....we have an opioid epidemic and social media seems to encourage less politeness and less civility with respect to politics. Frugality is generally not a trait of our people, nor our government...Is republicanism the problem or is it something else?