Federal Government only exists because the STATES say it can

Feds have got way to big for its britches.

I think it's time for States, Governors and the People to remind the Federal Government it only exists because the STATES say it can!

We are not to bow down and lick the boot of the Feds just because they demand we do, they exist to serve us

Texas in particular has been making steps to basically tell the Feds to kick rocks. More States and Governors need to step up and flex their power.

Power to "the people"....not "the almighty Feds"

 

True.
The states can disband the federal government any time they choose; the reverse is not true.
Thus; sovereignty ultimately resides with the states.

 

The only thing that stands in the way is the Constitution (Article VI). Didn't they have this argument about 150 years ago?

 

Hardly.
The states can amend the constitution w/o any action from or by the federal government
Amendment 28: 90 days after the ratification of this amendment, the constitution of the united states, as amended, shall be null and void.

 

By the same type of people...."states' rights".....so the State would have the right to keep slavery legal...or 100 years later, keeping Jim Crow legal.

They got their asses kicked....both times.

 

Yup but certain types never learn from history, don,t know their own history, and deny what they do not like.

 

I love how unembarrassed you are at completely missing the point.

 

and you need to read article five

 

You are wrong in that the states, the rights of the states, the duties of the federal government and the states was all created at the time. Therefore the states exist only because the federal government exists and the federal government exists because the states exist. Just think if there was no federal government and one or more powerful states decided to take over a smaller and/or less powerful state and you lived in that smaller les powerful state you would whine and cry that there us no powerful authority to protect the rights of your state. .

 

As a non-American I get the impression that advocating for the greater rights of individual states is a bit like advocating for greater 'national sovereignty' here in Europe (in opposition to the European Union.) I think nothing good can come from such a direction.

 

if two thirds of the states got together and decided that yes we will continue to have slavery and amended the constitution to allow it with a two thirds state vote then yes

 

Um..... No.
The states pre-exist the Constitution; representatives from the states created the Constitution, and the people of the states ratified it.

 

You are welcome to try this if you like. You lost big time the last time you tried that, and it's even less likely now.

 

This has never been tried.
Further if it were tried, there's no legal way for the federal government to stop it.
Never mind the fact that I do not recall saying I wanted to do it.

 

Yep.

If you can get two-thirds of the states to agree to dissolve the union, go for it. The fact that there are not two-thirds of states wanting to do that (or even one third, or frankly even one) suggests that the federal government is not as tyrannical as some people would like to think.

 

It wasn,t that simple. The "states" we're in a transition state ( no pun intended) between former colonies to sort of semi independent country like entities. They debated what type of federation they would have. Remember that some talked about confederation others federation and there were some minority in some firmer colonies that wanted to be countries. The movement towards some "perfect union" which implied some form of federalization was stated in the Declation of Independence. They did say United. What developed was that until the Rev War ended and the Constitution was adopted the Continental Congress "ruled" fir lack of a better word. The process of what form of union and how strong that union is to be evolved over time up to the point that the Constitution was created. I will grant you this and that is when the federal government was created it was not as powerful as it is today and there were different opinions as how powerful it should be as there are today.

When the term sovereign states is used I think that most of the states were thinking sovereignty of them plural them vs the Crown. I will agree that there were people in some states maybe in all states who wanted to be sovereign as in independent countries. I also believe that reality prevailed and those who wanted a real union prevailed.

 

Primary source material - Treat of Paris, 1783,

...Acknowledging the United States (namely the thirteen states, listed[13]) to be free, sovereign, and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof...

Free, sovereign, independent states, listed individually, that pre-existed the Constitution (and Articles of Confederation).

 

No. The US is a federation, not a confederation. I.e. states are under the authority of the federal government. The states are not sovereign. They are not free to leave. They can not overthrow the federal government. flex your power too much and you'll get the army on your butts, as the csa did.

 

The states can amend the constitution w/o any action from or by the federal government

Amendment 28: 90 days after the ratification of this amendment, the constitution of the united states, as amended, shall be null and void.

The federal government has no legal power to stop this.

 

28th amendment? I thought there was only 27... all I can find on google about the 28th is that it's some myth.

 

You aren't paying attention.
The states can create and ratify an amendment to that effect w/o any action from or by the federal government
The federal government has no legal power to stop them from doing so.

 

yes, according to the 28th amendment which hasn't been ratified?

 

You aren't paying attention.
The states can create and ratify such an amendment; as such, the states can dissolve the federal government.
This demonstrates the locus of sovereignty.

 

At that point they were still in their transition from being rebellious colonies to a union of states. The union did just happen over night. It went from a Congress of rebellious colonies to a union with a central government. In the course of forming this more perfect union it became apparent to them that if they wanted to stat independent from an empire e.g. The British that they would have to have some form of government strong enough to protect them all together or one alone from the other. It was a dichotomy that in order for them to have a degree of sovereignty they needed to cede a certain degree of sovereignty to a central government.

 

With the point being that they were individual sovereign states prior to the unification under the Constitution.
This nullifies your statement that "...the states exist only because the federal government exists and the federal government exists because the states exist...."