That said, I wholeheartedly agree with your reasons for rejecting the man’s proposition. In my post I set out to enumerate some of the immediately practical problems with his suggestion, and objected to the idea that federal convenience should trump existing state governments. That is, you will note, both recognition and appreciation of state sovereignty. However the states came into being, they are unique historical and political entities now whose sovereignty with their geographical territory is enshrined in our dear Constitution.

But it is a fictive sovereignty, as the only occasion on which that principle was tested has shown us, and to forestall the minds of those for whom the only principles are ‘might makes right’ and ‘the needs of the collective precede the needs of its individual members,’ one must present objections grounded in praxis. For even if we believe state sovereignty to be actionable fact, they don’t, and will not be swayed by the strength of our conviction, no matter how much we think they ought.