"Under the existing Confederacy, Congress represents the States, not the people of the States: their acts operate on the States, not on the individuals.  The case will be changed in the new plan of Government."

"National" implied a Government which should "directly operate on individuals and possess compulsive power on the people of the United States"---"Federal" implying a Government of compact, resting for enforcement of its acts "on the good faith of the parties."  (Notice there was so much misunderstanding that the terms had to be defined, so they understood what kind of government they were to form), "The Making of the Constitution" by Charles Warren (around page 147).

The controlling idea of this NWO position is to do away with the Federative feature in the Constitution, and to merge the separate sovereignties of the several States into one Incorporate Union; and thus to form, of all the States, one single National Republic, instead of a Federal Republic of distinct States.
The great vice or evil to the NWO under the Constitution as it then existed, which was generally admitted, was, that many of the laws of the Union applied only to States, in their corporate capacity, and did not act directly upon the people on the subjects constitutionally embraced in them.  As the Constitution then stood, many of the Acts of the Congress were binding primarily only on the States, and required the subsequent action of the State Legislatures to carry them into effect.  Thus, when all the States" in Congress assembled" enacted that certain quotas of money should be raised by the States respectively, the collection of the amount required of each depended upon the subsequent action of its Legislature.  This was a very serious evil, as some of the States were slow in raising their quotas.
Alexander H. Stephens' "History of the United States"
Black's Law Dictionary further clarifies the distinction between a nation and a society by clarifying the the differences between a national government and a federal government, and keep in mind that our government is called "federal government":
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  The government of a whole nation, as distinguished form that of a local or territorial division of the nation, and also as distinguished form that of a league or confederation.

“A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the “social compact,’ and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government.  A federal government is distinguished from a national government by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact.  Piqua Branch Bank v. Knoup, 6 Ohio St. 393.  [Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, 1968, p. 1176]
Patrick Henry in Debates in the 1788 Virginia debates, stated on June 4, 1788:

" I have the highest veneration of those Gentleman,--- but, Sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, We, the People?   My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask who authorized them to speak the language of , We, the People, instead of We, the States? States are the characteristics, and the soul of the confederation.  If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one of great consolidated National Government of the people of all the States."

In order to understand this issue, it is necessary to begin with the basics. Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution did not consolidate the several States or their people into a single nation. The Constitution simply modified the federal system of government that had been established by the Articles of Confederation. The word federal has a very important meaning. Shortly after his death in 1850, John C. Calhoun's essay entitled A Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States was published in book form. The following excerpt is a concise definition of the word federal as it relates to the federal system of government established by the Constitution:
It is federal, because it is the government of States united in a political union, in contradistinction to a government of individuals, that is, by what is usually called, a social compact. To express it more concisely, it is federal and not national because it is the government of a community of States, and not the government of a single State or Nation.
As stated by Mr. Calhoun, the federal government is the States' government. When the States adopted the Constitution, they created a common agent called the federal government. They empowered their agent, via the Constitution, with the authority to perform limited functions that would be difficult or impossible for the States to perform individually. If the federal judiciary had the power to interpret the Constitution, then the agent would be superior to the principals because it could circumvent its grant of power and nullify the Constitution through its rulings.
Thomas Jefferson discussed this principle in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These Resolutions were written in response to an attempt by Congress to expand the criminal jurisdiction of the federal government through a set of laws entitled the "Alien and Sedition Laws." Jefferson wrote:
The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but.by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes [and] delegated to that government certain definite powers.and.whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.To this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party.The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution the measure of its powers.
The State of Virginia also adopted a set of resolutions in response to the "Alien and Sedition Laws." These resolutions defined the nature of the Constitution and the character of the federal government. The Virginia Legislature also defined the Constitution as a compact between the several States. These resolutions paralleled Jefferson's overview of the Constitution and re-affirmed the principle that the States, not the federal judiciary, had the power, in the last resort, to define the extent of the powers delegated to their federal government. The Virginia Resolutions stated in part:
[T]his Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto, have the right, and are duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
As stated above, federal courts are not the final arbitrator of the Constitution or the extent of the powers delegated to the federal government. Since the Constitution is a compact between the several States, and the federal government is not a party, but the result of that compact, it lacks the authority to define the extent of the powers delegated to it by the States. Only the individual States, as the exclusive parties to the compact between themselves, possess that power. If the federal judiciary had the power to interpret the Constitution, then it would be meaningless as a written document, because, as stated by Jefferson, judicial discretion, not the Constitution, would determine the measure of the federal power.
In his book, The Federal Government, Its True Nature and Character, Able Upshur, who had been Secretary of State and Secretary of the Navy, devoted a large portion of his commentary to this subject. Published in 1868, this might be the finest book ever written on the Constitution and system of government created by that document.
The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge the extent of its own powers, without reference to his constituent? To a certain extent, he is compelled to do this, in the very act of exercising them, but always in subordination to the authority by whom his powers were conferred. If this were not so, the result would be, that the agent would possess every power which the agent could confer, notwithstanding the plainest and most express terms of the grant. This would be against all principle and all reason. If such a rule would prevail in regard to government, a written constitution would be the idlest thing imaginable. It would afford no barrier against the usurpations of the government, and no security for the rights and liberties of the people. If then the Federal Government has no authority to judge, in the last resort, of the extent of its own powers, with what propriety can it be said that a single department of that government may do so? Nay. It is said that this department may not only judge for itself, but for the other departments also. This is an absurdity as pernicious as it is gross and palpable. If the judiciary may determine the powers of the Federal Government, it may pronounce them either less or more than they really are. 
If the States did not grant the federal judiciary the power to interpret the Constitution, then what is the proper role of the federal courts in questions involving federal legislation and the Constitution? When an act of Congress is appropriately challenged as not conforming to the Constitution, the federal judiciary has only one duty-to lay the article of the Constitution that is invoked beside the statute that is challenged and decide whether the latter squares with the former. The judiciary does not have the power to interpret the Constitution?it has the power to scrutinize the statute being challenged to make sure it falls within the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government by the States via the Constitution.
In any contractual agreement involving the creation of an agent, the final word on the extent of the powers granted to the agent rests with the principals not the agent.