State Sovereignty

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by yguy, Dec 28, 2016.

  1. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not a few professing constitutionalists - especially apologists for the Confederacy - imagine, though it appears nowhere in the Constitution, that state sovereignty was an elemental principle of America's founding. To be sure, they are not without excuse, given that the Founders seem to have fudged on the definition of "sovereignty", given in Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary as "supremacy; highest place; supreme power; highest degree of excellence[]" - a meaning which its use in the Articles of Confederation will not bear if the document is to be taken seriously, given that it guarantees individual state sovereignty even as it both declares the Union perpetual and enumerates, similarly to Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution, a list of actions no state could undertake "without the Consent of the united states in congress assembled".

    Clearly, then, what the framers of the AoC called sovereignty, I would call quasi-sovereignty, and Madison would presumably call "residuary" sovereignty. That, along with the absence of the term in the Constitution, should put the issue to bed, it seems to me; but I have a question for those who remain unconvinced: given the tenor of post-revolutionary times, what was the main advantage of declaring the Union perpetual?
     
  2. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    It matches the perpetual near proximity of the states of the union. Any other relationship would be hampered by non union status without structure to readily take advantage of the proximity.

    Article V shows supremacy/sovereignty by states adequate to hold the union in perpetuity with minimal effort.
     
  3. Bravo Duck

    Bravo Duck Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2016
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The Federal Government is a creation of the States, chartered for a specific purpose, the securing of the rights of individuals in each of the several States.
     
  4. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    OK, guess you guys need a heads up.

    See above.

    Indeed I have, and doing it again won't be a challenge, I assure you.

    And I never came within lightyears of saying it did, obviously.
     
  5. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then do it.
     
  6. juanvaldez

    juanvaldez Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,390
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Residuary sovereignty and quasi-sovereignty are equivalent to sorta pregnant or partially dead. The states unequivocabally we sovereign states after the revolution. They were sovereign states when the desolved the Articles of Confederation. Can you point out where they relinquished that sovereignty?
     
  7. Daggdag

    Daggdag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15,668
    Likes Received:
    1,957
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Under the Articles of Federation, the United States were in reality, as Confederation, consisting of several sovereign states united by a central government with limited authority.

    Under the constitution, we are a federal republic, with the central government having supreme authority over all things except where the constitution specifically gives authority to the states, or in cases where an issue has no constitutional precedent, in which case it goes to the states or to the people under the 10th amendment.

    However, under the supremacy clause, in any case where both the states and the federal government have shared authority, federal law is supreme. States laws are void of they contradict constitutional federal law, and state judges must hold federal policy and precendent above those of states.
     
  8. Frank

    Frank Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    7,391
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not crazy about the wording of your first sentence of the quoted passages, Dag, but essentially you have captured how I feel about this issue.

    Thanks.
     
  9. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That requires laying out the case, as I did in the OP, and then refuting patently reasonable objections, with which you have yet to grace this thread.

    Yes, according to the definition I cited in the OP - which is not the definition used by the framers of the AoC.

    Then perhaps you'd like to tell me whether, if one state had exercised its sovereignty by making a deal allowing the British to garrison their troops on its soil, the others would have been obligated to respect its sovereignty; and if not, why not.

    If you mean "dissolved", not so, since that dissolution and ratification of the Constitution occurred simultaneously, at which point only the four holdout states were legally sovereign, until they ratified.

    In the sixth Article of Confederation, which puts the lie to state sovereignty (per the dictionary definition) as surely as does A1S10 of the Constitution, as noted in the OP.

    No it did not.
     
  10. juanvaldez

    juanvaldez Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,390
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Musta missed it:

    "Article VI. No State, without the consent of the united States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the united States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

    No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the united States in congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.

    No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the united States in congress assembled, with any King, Prince or State, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by congress, to the courts of France and Spain.

    No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

    No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the united States in congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the united States in congress assembled can be consulted; nor shall any State grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the united States in congress assembled, and then only against the kingdom or State and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the united States in congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the united States in congress assembled shall determine otherwise."
     
  11. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure did.

    Perhaps you'd like to explain why a sovereign entity needs permission from anyone to do anything.
     
  12. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    cop-out. You wrote it would not be a challenge.


    Your OP claim is false. Article 1 Section 10 has nothing to do with making the Union perpetual, all it addresses is restricting states from infringing into very specific federal powers (such as signing a treaty with a foreign nation).

    You also fail to understand that all powers not specifically enumerated as being federal powers are reserved to the states and the people. Since the power to require states to remain in the union is not addressed in the Constitution, the federal government has no role in that decision by a state. States voluntarily joined, they can voluntarily leave - that was the common view up to the Civil War. The Civil War shelved the idea of leaving, but it did not abolish the right of a state to leave.
     
    Bravo Duck likes this.
  13. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The idea was that the AoC were more of a loose confederation of independent states than a unitary national government. Certain powers would be delegated to the Federal government by a sovereign act of each state. No change can be made without the unanimous approval of all states. A bit like the EU today, but pre-bureaucracy.

    This went out of fashion in 1788 and was conclusively and forever abandoned with Lincoln. The idea has been further trashed since then by a myriad of governments from both left and right: Roosevelt, Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, etc.

    Power likes to consolidate. One day it will consolidate into a single, unitary government. There is no stopping it, it's a physics thing. Enjoy your tattered shreds of independence while you still can.
     
  14. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Laying out the case and and refuting patently reasonable arguments is not a challenge. Happily, what is not required for proof is the refutation of such patently unreasonable claims as are inevitably employed by those with emotional investments in their misconceptions...

    ...such as this one. I never said it did, obviously.

    Not really correct, but that's beside the point, which is that in addressing whatever it addresses, that section imposes obligations by which a sovereign entity can hardly be bound.

    No, I don't.

    On the contrary, it is clearly addressed, by implication, in A1S10.

    Kinda like modern marriage, huh?

    Then surely it is passing strange that there is no trace of such a view in either the AoC or the Constitution.
     
  15. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113

    For all that writing, you wrote nothing of substance. But you did show that you have no idea what Article 1 Section 10 contains (didn't even take the time to google it), you do not understand the Constitution only provides the federal govt with specific, enumerated, limited powers, and you do not have any knowledge of American history.
     
    Bravo Duck likes this.
  16. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I suppose that's one way of looking at it. :yawn:

    Oh sure, I referred to it in the OP not having any idea of the content.

    Pretty sad when your determination to retain whatever passes for self-esteem compels you to imagine your opponent is a drooling imbecile.

    Indeed I did not, as I'm not in the habit of googling for stuff that's on my HD; but of course there was no need to review it at all, since the details (of which I have a better understanding than you do anyway) of what specifically states are prohibited from doing is of no moment in the present context, as the fact that there are any prohibitions at all dashes the illusion of state sovereignty to pieces.

    Then clearly your intellectual resources are at least as deficient as mine, seeing you haven't been able to find fault with anything I've said. Hell, even when you imagined you'd caught me in a trivial error on a side issue, it blew up in your face.
     
  17. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I double dog dare you to try to square that with A1S10.
     

Share This Page