Quote Originally Posted by Omnis Dei View Post
Perhaps you didn't read it all? I don't see what doesn't make sense. Federal government would be elected by state government which is elected by district government which is elected by municipal government which is elected by community government. Thus when the Federal Government meets to debate legislation, they are held to the constituency of the states, which are held by the constituency of their districts. If the federal government makes a law, it must be agreeable by the constituency and the constituency of the constituency and so on.

Furthermore lower government cannot nullify higher government but it can build upon higher government. What this means is if the federal government creates a skeleton of the basic model of government and basic rights, this makes the foundation of national law. From there, national law is enhanced by state law, district law and municipal law. The only difference between this and the government our constitution lays out is that all forms of government are elected by lower forms of government and all decisions require consensus while in its current form we put all votes directly in the hands of the people (but remove the people's power of nomination) and rest all decisions on majority rule/which mob yells loudest.
I get the federalism you are trying to implement (states come together in a mutual contract). I get that and to the degree that it promotes liberty (which is to say, some but not all) I agree with it. However, the incoherence I see is you retracting the ability of the state governments to disregard federal law. If the states come together to create a federal system then by that very action the powers that are given TO the federal government are FROM the states yet you make it impossible for the states to take back those powers thus leaving them in a perpetual system they cannot break free from yet they went through the process of creating.