Topic: Events
Are States Sovereign in America? There have been many articles the last two weeks concerning the moves of several states to introduce legislation claiming certain rights under the 10th Amendment. When these articles are posted or socially bookmarked discussions seem to rise as to whether states are sovereign or not, in many people's stated views they are not.by Gary Wood
(conservative libertarian)
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Reading through many postings I kept seeing recurring themes of disobedience, division, and a movement bent on secession and civil war. It became obvious that despite many Internet political readers being more rooted in our history there is a representative voice echoing the belief of a large number of citizens. Sparking the discussion were legislatures in Arizona, New Hampshire, Washington, and Oklahoma introducing a general warning the 10th Amendment still applies. (In June of 2008 Oklahoma actually passed the legislation by a 92 to 3 margin while most of us slept.) Montana and Missouri are two examples of specific claims under the 10th Amendment with their focus on firearms and abortion.
There should be no surprise by those who believe this is a good movement others see it as a bad movement. In our lifetime states have not appeared to be sovereign nations unto themselves but merely a sub-category of government between the federal and city levels. Just as many believe we are a democracy the way history is taught combined with the changes we've instituted through Constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings it is easy to understand why opponents to this movement are confused.
The 16th Amendment created a system where the federal powers took money directly from the people and a funneling back to states began to occur. The 17th Amendment stripped the Legislative Branch from a true bicameral system of a Senate representing the states and a House representing the people to the facade of bicameralism as both chambers now represented the people. Even further back were the 14th Amendment alterations weakening the states sovereignty. Supreme Court cases over the past 60 years have given little credence to the 10th Amendment. However, we must remember the Supreme Court has given little credence to any of the founding principles since the 1930s. (For an analysis of SCOTUS assault read "The Constitution in Exile" or "Who Killed the Constitution.") When we consider Constitutional Law classes in our country focus more on modern events than any attempt to first embrace the original intent of those founding the United States of America it is easier to understand the confusion over the sovereignty question.
Combine this with what many mayors across the country asked President Obama to do this past week and we cannot blame any citizen for believing we are one nation and states are merely a sub-category. Articulated during news appearances by Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa, the mayors traveling to Washington D.C. did so to encourage the Stimulus Bill's quick passage and funds for cities are sent directly to the city without being filtered through the states. When mayors bypass governors while citizen watch without batting an eye who is to believe states are sovereign?
We've had this debate before when Federalist supporters (those actually wanting one nation) clashed ideologically with Anti-Federalists (those wanting recognition of states as sovereign nations). Would it surprise you to learn states, in the language of the day, were considered nations rather than a sub-category within a nation? In the Treaty of Paris King George III did not recognize one independent nation but 13 sovereign nations. According to Dr. Kevin Gutzman, "[b]ut sovereignty lay in the states. That was the first principle of American government." (Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, p. 16) When this was last debated the words of the 10th Amendment were crafted to protect the power and sovereignty in the states as the Anti-Federalist clearly understood the tyrannical nature of a single, federal level control.
Are we to clearly abandon, once and for all, the key principles that helped in making us a great United States of America? Many of us have grown to accept two very dangerous ideas already. As this recent movement points out too many believe states are not now, nor should they be, sovereign. Also, as we will discuss in another article, too many believe we are a democracy. As keystones for securing our grand experiment are abandoned we crumble. Pause long enough to study our history and attempt to clearly understand your beliefs so you more clearly understand the direction you support.
Remember our history, not our modern traditions that are moving us toward representative democracy. Here is some recommended reading to help begin the stirring of our memory. Study these with friends and family as if you were studying the scriptures of your religion or the stats of your favorite sports team.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Gary Wood only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gary Wood is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: 2009-02-10 13:10:02
Seems to be that sovereignty is only as real as enties make it; over a long time the states have not protected, proclaimed and pushed their sovereignty the way they should have, mainly because they wanted too much from the federal government. Indian tribes have done a little better. What we really need is an Article V convention so that constitutional amendments could be discussed to strengthen state sovereignty.
I wrote about the 16th & 17th amendments in a series of articles for Scragged. http://www.scragged.com/articles/1913-americas-worst-year---introduction.aspx. These talk about the same principles discussed above.
Joel, you're on-target with why the states have weakened. Did you see where Michelle Obama stated there is going to be a new cabinet position (yep, another) to deal nation to nation with tribes? I have to look into that more deeply. We've had Bill Walker on our radio show a couple of times over the past year and will be doing it again this coming year to promote http://foavc.org andhelp people learn about the pros and cons of an Article V Convention (Different from the Continental Congress 2009).
Thanks for the links Fennoman, will check them out.
1) Yes, we are a Republic. The form that republic takes is that of a Representative Democracy. Republic and Democracy are not two different things, rather, the second is a type of the first.
2) The USA USED to be a collection of small countries bound together in a loose federation. However, since the North won the American Civil War, states are today more like provences than true "states" in the international sense of the word. Now we are a single country.
Sorry to burst bubbles, but there is no way a few thousand citizens with deer rifles can stand up against the US Army with nukes, Harrier jets, and all the other armaments of the national military forces.
The sates now have whatever rights they can convince Congress to pass and the President to sign.
Actually, Richard, the form our government is suppose to maintain is a Constitutional Democratic Republic. A pure democracy is completely different in terms of representation and was castegated by the Founders of this Republic as the one of the most despicable forms of government. While it is largely ignored, particularly by our government, the fact is that the United States was founded as a union of Independent and Sovereign States while only delegated a limited degree of authority to the federal government as an agent of the States. As Justice Marshall once said, the creator of a thing is greater then the thing created, referring to the States being the creator of the federal government.
The War for Southern Independence, although lost, did not alter the principles upon which this country was founded, it only allowed the federal government to usurp authority and, as we see, the results of such usurpation has been disastrous.
Jeff Davis had some very enlightening words:
"The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristic. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only its external or confederate relations that are altered. To term this action of a Sovereign a 'rebellion' is a gross abuse of language."
"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever."
"The contest is not over, the strife is not ended. It has only entered upon a new and enlarged arena."
This last quote is, I believe, particularly pertinent to the articles that Mr. Wood has posted of late:
"The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form."
Now, in terms of the possibility of yet another revolution, we must understand that men are not naturally inclined toward such rebellion, but are driven to that point by circumstances they find intolerable. There are an estimated million to a million and a half arms in private hands in this country, and I can assure you that they are not all mere deer rifles. Additionally, as with any rebellion there is a real tendency for portions of the military and law enforcement to come to the aid of the People, this of course, is of the utmost importance when the forces allied against the People are so superior. Also, in such conflicts, it is not uncommon at all for weapons to fall into the hands of the opposition, particularly when there are those within the military who are sympathetic with the opposition’s cause. However, it should also be understood that if there ever came a time when such events became necessary, I can assure you that the War of the Flea would be intense. Guerilla warfare is extremely effective against superior forces, particularly if that superior force is economically crippled and politically divided.
Republicae, thanks for the links to your articles, I hope everyone follows them. I don't have time this morning to absorb each one so will revisit them as I can. However, there is a quote from an 1880s editorial in the second article which would fit well into one chapter of my book during the illness stage of our Federalist Republic prior to the 1913 death blow. Do you have a link to it or a reference for it?
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-02-23 23:02:50
When I wrote the article "Were the States Sovereign Nations?", i intended to inspect the issue for the first time from a perspective of international law. This grew into a full-time effort, and more nd recently, I've exposed the "men behind the curtain" to be entirely mistaken in their claims that the USA is a single sovereign nation, rather than a union of sovereign nations. For example, Prof. Akhil Reed Amar claims that Article V of the Constitution formed the states into a signle nation, since he claims this is "inconsistent with state soveriegnty--" which is pure nonsense, being entirely consistent with a voluntary union of states. Likewise, there's nothing in the Constitution or any other document, which expressly states that the union of states isn't voluntary, or that they surrendered their sovereignty. Furthermore, sovereignty can only be surrendered by express statement, since otherwise any nation could simply claim that some obscure langauge or agreement made them into a single sovereign nation-- just like Hussein did with Kuwait, or Hitler did with Austria etc-- and then conquer it by force when it refused, then simply saying that "it was settled on the highest tribunal of the battlefield" (like LINCOLN did to the states).
Likewise, all evidence specifically supports the retention of state soveriegnty, as with Federalist 46, where Madison expressly states that state militias can defend liberty by being loyal to their state governments over, the federal government.
The US government has managed to keep the truth buried for 140 years through "soft censorship" of trained-lapdog academia and media, however the internet is toppling their propoganda as as writers and bloggers strike at the root of the great LIE, that the USA is a single sovereign state. It simply ISN'T, and never was.
Academics and media-people may fear for their jobs, and-- at most-- beat around the bush on the issue of "states rights," in order to pretend their breaking some big story, but without risking their careers or reputations; these include Gutzman, DiLorenzo, and Napolitano, who talk about "killing the Constitution" and "The Real Lincoln" etc, but who ignore the glaring elephant in the room that is The American Empire illegally occuping the sovereign nations that are the states.
In doing so, I seek to challenge the "half-way heroes" and "libertopians" like Ron Paul and others, as well as the obvious "royal historians" like Akhil Amar-- as long as the Great Lie is told regarding American history, I'll continue to knock down the liars.
Ultimately, is likewise no longer even a question of arms, since the pen is mightier than then the sword, and the internet mighter than any nuke: if Jefferson Davis had a wireless, Lincoln would have been hanged at his own inauguration.
I therefore intend to expose this issue for everyone to see, and set the tree of lies ablaze with the truth, that it will spread like wildfire throughout the world-- not only the truth itself, but the benefits of the truth, of a tripled income for every person in real dollars.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-02-23 23:29:06
Republicae, you write that "There are an estimated million to a million and a half arms in private hands in this country."
That figure is short by about an hundredfold, as the actual number is closer to 180 million-- not for nothing, does the government fear them, as Madison wrote specifally in Federalist No. 46 that the militias would outnumber the armed forces about 20:1 to be effective. Likewise, a Destroyer missile can down any aircraft, while being operated from miles away from the launch-site by an untraceable hand-held remote-control the size of a Gameboy, which will likewise foil any ECM device; finally, a single blogger can void any military classification, or expose the weakness of any military system: complex equipment is also more vulnerable, as we saw what a simple flock of geese can do to a jet-engine.
Lincoln was the world's first Machiavellian dictator, in that he did not use the state's power to oppress the people, since he knew that he would lose badly due to the people's power of votes and state militiae; and so instead he twisted the law to claim that the many nations were actually a SINGLE nation, and thus tricked the people into using their power to oppress themselves (since by denying the sovereignty of the sothern states, the northern states also denied their OWN soveriegnty).
In contrast, Lincoln used the power of the state, to propogate these lies through totalitarian suppression of the truth, as the Republican Party crushed Free Speech for half a century, to the point where their dogma became convention, i.e. common-belief (the 1891 "Pledge of Allegiance" was the epitome of federal brainwashing).
Lincoln likewise reversed the 10th Amendment, claiming that all non-specified rights were reserved to the federal government, not the states or their people, in this way he usurped imperial authority over all states in the Union.
In conclusion, the United States exists in name only, as it is now an illegal empire by definition, and the individual states are simply under illegal foreign occupation.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-02-24 12:19:24
Finally, I wanted to mention a slight point about the title of this thread, i.e. "Are Stats Sovereign in America?" Without the context of "sovereign nations," this falls into the trap regarding the myth of "dual sovereignty," which is an outright oxymoron, since soveriegnty is absoluterulership that recognizes NO superior-- while "dual sovereignty" recognizes federal superiority, therefore it can't be sovereignty.
And so the answer that the current morons would give, would be "yes, they states are sovereign-- but the Union is MORE sovereign, since it's a NATION that the states are simply part of-- i.e. the state can do anything it wants, unless the federal government says they can't." That qualification of, "unless," means that they are NOT sovereign under the current administration, since only nations can be sovereign under international law.
Therfore of course this "dual sovereignty" myth is ridiculous, since that isn't soveriegnty-- it's exclusive privilege, like people have over "their" property. Sovereignty is the right to make laws, declare war, form treaties, and do ANYTHING that sovereign nations can do; here, the regime-pundits will say "but the Constitution says that states must and cannot do certain things, so that means they're not sovereign;" this of course is pure ignorance, since the Law of Nations expressly states that such restrictions of soveriegn powers are purely voluntary, and do not reduce their soveriegnty; the most obvious example is the the Articles of Confederation, whick listed the same or similar restrictions, but only after expressly holding that each state retained its sovereignty, freedom and independence, so clearly such restrictions did not void sovereignty by themselves.
Now here, pundits will likewise claim that since the states surrendered their soveriegnty under the Constitiution because they didn't specifically thus retain their soveriegnty, freedom and independence; however once again this is a common myth-conception, since the states In fact, such pundits have little respect for facts or logic, in that they simply engage in wishful readings of the Constitution, construing it at will through ignorance, simplistic arguments and outright intellectual dishonesty, e.g. "It didn't say Simon Says" etc. Even Lincoln claimed that all powers not expressly written in the Constitution, were subject to federal interpretation-- which is the polar opposite (or in Lincoln's case, bi-polar) to the express language of the 10th Amendment; in fact it's quite interesting that such a supposed "brilliant lawyer" could make such a glaring mistake about the Supreme Law of the Land. However Lincoln was only able to do so, because he first laid the groundwork of claiming that not only were the states not sovereign, but that they had never been sovereign, since (he claimed) that "the Union was older than the states," and indeed he stated before Congress (atrociously on July 4, 1861) that "Our States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by the Constitution, no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union."
And so the Jacksonian myth was first enforced by the Lincolnian sword, that the states were not sovereign nations, but rather simply districts thereof-- and that the federal government could therefore construe such "state powers" in any manner desired or possible. "Free Speech" became "fire in a crowded theater--" just like "the right to keep and bear arms" for the preservation of a sovereign state under (Federalist No. 46) became simply an armed draft-pool under U.S. vs. Cruikshank. Likewise, the 9th Amendment was construed that "rights retained by the people" to mean that pre-Union Common Law superseded anything but federal statute, rather than state statute-- leading to Roe vs. Wade and other absurd legal conclusions by the now-omnipotent court-- ALL as predicted and forewarned us hundreds of years ago by Resolutions.
Now some may think they can defy the laws of political causation by getting the "right people" in office (ala Ron Paul), however they can sooner defy the laws of physics and walk on water-- but to date, with one reputed exception they are all wet.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-02-24 12:56:52
I also wanted to add something I just discovered from Lincoln's above-mentioned speech (found here at bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )
Much is said about the "sovereignty" of the States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a "sovereignty" in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it "a political community without a political superior"? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty; and even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union, by which act she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution to be for her the supreme law of the land. The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from us, they can only do so against law and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty. By conquest or purchase the Union gave each of them whatever of independence and liberty it has. The Union is older than any of the States, and, in fact, it created them as States."
This is likewise highly interesting, in that Lincoln had claimed exactly 4 months earlier on March 4 of the same year, that " The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778."
Here interesting is quite selective in his citations-- in such a flagrant manner as to have any lawyer thrown out of the lowest courtroom for outright dishonesty-- since the same Declaration of Independence declared the colonies to be Free and Independent STATES, as opposed to single state-- while the same Articles of Confederation expressly declared that each state retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence (which conveniently slipped his not-so-sound mind).
This wasn't the first time that President Sasquatch put his bigfoot in his mouth, jackboot and all, however he had a way of dealing with those who corrected him in the media (and likewise thus discouraging those who thought about it), which involved the inside of Ft. Lafeyette (which true to its French name, thus earned the nickname "The American Bastille" regarding those who similarly exposed the flagrant lies of Louis XVI). Of course, Lincoln thought that habeas corpus was D.O.A-- and denial a river in Egypt.
At first glance I thought it might be enjoyable to enter into a conversation with you as the sovereignty issue is critical. However, there were enough negatives, such as "the answer that the current morons would give" that I've decided to pass. I appreciate your detailed views, time and information however.
Great article Gary (not that I am surprised by that). Posted a link to your column on a Facebook event I am organizing to head to the HCR 6 rally here in New Hampshire. I hope you don't mind and if you do, please let me know and I will remove the link.
I appreciate the fact you would want to link to one of my humble efforts, thank you. Will you be filling us in on the event? How about a link to the Facebook page? I will be anxious to hear what happens. I've been frustrated by the early rules here in UT preventing us from proposing legislation this year yet we will have a year to build enthusiasm so hopefully it won't get buried in committee. I also am disappointed with the stance of our Governor and Mayor of SLC but what do you but play the music for those that care to listen.
Brian,
I take no issue with your discussion except the negative slanders toward others. You can tell by the tone in most of my articles I have no appreciation for lies and dictators. I also have appreciation for many of the points you attempted to make. However, when we mix slander with discussion it drains the quality of the interaction and everyone walks away more emotional than enlightened, or so it has been my experience. Your presentation of the idea Lincoln was the first true Machiavellian dictator is an article unto its own consideration. Again, your points are interesting and when read without the emotional negatives quite appreciated.
As a side note, you stated sovereignty is not mentioned in early documents. There is a good reason, it was a word that had not gained any use in common discussion of the day. However, you may enjoy the definition of sovereign from the 1828 dictionary;
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-02-24 23:37:36
"I take no issue with your discussion except the negative slanders toward others. "
By that standard, you also take issue with the prosecutors at Nuremberg. Everything I said was 100% true, and there's a difference fouls shots and simply not pulling punches to avoid getting creamed-- better to just throw in the towel and leave the fight to those who can. This milquetoast-libertarianism has given the entire movement a bad reputation as fringe-extremists and right-wing anarchists-- with good reason-- and it's in this interest that I'm trying to steer us back onto the road of order via state sovereignty. Anyone who wants to be taken seriously had best the likewise.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-02-25 00:41:27
(continued) "As a side note, you stated sovereignty is not mentioned in early documents. There is a good reason, it was a word that had not gained any use in common discussion of the day. However, you may enjoy the definition of sovereign from the 1828 dictionary;"
Actually the more proper context is from the Law of Nations (www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm ), in which it's explained that a sovereign state is a nation, and vice-versa-- with the same meaning as that held today-- which was also the same context declared to each state in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence as "free and sovereign states (plural)."
However I said it wasn't mentioned in the Constitution, not "earlier documents;" the screen-editor simply omitted the line where I stated that it was specifically mentioned in the Articles of Confederation (i.e. "each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence). and likewise this granted in the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783, which recognized this sovereignty beyond dispute, and hence the states did not need to specifically retain it again through mutual degree and recognition among themselves only-- as did the Articles of Confederation. Rather, fully sovereign states/nations, by definition, not retain sovereignty by reservation, but by the very fact of sovereignty itself; and hence, any alteration to their soveriegnty must be express, direct, unambiguous, and absolutely beyond any question whatsoever by the sovereigns thereof-- which in the case of the states, were the indvidual citiens rather than any ruling elite as with Holland or similar nations (as explained by Madison in Federalist No. 39).
In short, they weren't fully sovereign in 1781, and so they had to reserve their soveregnty in writing in the Articles; however the states were fully sovereign in 1787, and therefore no such written reservation was necessary in the Constitution to maintain it-- but on the contrary, any compromise of that sovereignty was necessary to be clearly and expressly stated in writing, in order to to change it in any way. Otherwise Hitler/Germany would have rightfully owned Austria, and Hussein/Iraq would have rightfully owned Kuwait-- by the same logic as Lincoln/America's ownership of the states (i.e. a legal claim, backed by a successful use of military force termed as "settlement by a trial of arms"), In short, the Law of Nations is the law of sovereigns-- not mere token lip-service to it, to excuse national conquest by brute force. The Constitution does not clearly or expressly cede alter any state's sovereignty, because it doesn't alter any state's soveriegnty-- and so the Unionists (i.e. those who claim national authority of the Union over the states) found it necesssary to invent such-- by any means necessary.... and since revision was necessary, revision bcame the means. Jackson, Madison, Lincoln, and (eventually) Amar, all engaged in various fanciful revisions of actual history, in order to claim what clearly isn't so; while I won't go into the prior ones, Amar more recently claims-- as his sole argument-- that the states "surrendered sovereignty" because (he says) that they were "bound by Constitutional amendments even if they voted against them--" and "this was inconsistent with soveriegnty." Of course this is absurd, since it's entirely consitent with soveriegnth, if the states are only voluntarily bound by the Constitution-- as is the case under the Law of Nations, in which it's expressly stated that in Book I, 10. ("Of states forming a federal republic") that "several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted." -www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
In this manner, the Constitution did not form the states into a single nation, as the Federal Empire has told us; rather, the issue has simple been buried under a "code of silence" to prevent anyone from exposing the truth-- which is why Lincoln found it necessary to forcibly suppress the truth by totalitarian means, when he jailed over 20,000 members of the opposition press (of which he likewise closed down over 300, or turned them into probaganda-mills by giving them to lapdog collaborators who called themselves "free press journalists" while acting as Lincoln pep-clubs.
In conclusion, the Great Lie lives on, not not because the truth is so difficult to see, or to grasp-- it's that the lies are spun too thick and deep to allow it, and likewise the truth is a third-rail for virtually any career, since a person can't even pass grade-school if they don't salute the flag as the symbol of "one nation indivisible." People just can't see the forest for the trees.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-02-25 01:01:06
Correction from above: The Declaration of Independence, declares the colonies to be Free and Independent States, however the context is clearly that of soveriegn states:
"We hold... That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."
This was followed by the Articles of Confederation in 1781, which openeed that with the claim that "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
Soveriegnty was finally granted by Great Britain in the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783, which conceded the demands of the Declaration of Independence, which states in Article 1 that "His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."
With sovereignty thus relinquished undisputed, each state was fully sovereign under international law and recognition; and hence they had no further need to expressly retain it against misconstruction by any federal union (or anything else.)
This, however, didn't stop later charlatans from attempting to distort hstory in order to mount a new Order by Machiavellian revisionism; Jackson, Madison, Story, Webster and Lincoln all had a hand in it (but of them, Webster and Madison alike repented, though it's not often mentioned for obvious reasons). Jackson mounted the Nullifical "crisis" (despite it having never been a "crisis" on any the other occasians that it had been raised as a defense to federal abuses); likewise, Story and Lincoln finished what Old Hickory started, via majoritarian propoganda and lies, combined with totalitarian suppression of the truth. Since then, we've lived under an empire ever since-- and that's why we're in the desperate mess we are today, with no end in sight other than down.
Thank you, not a single 'moron' slam and many interesting insights. When I get some time I would like to reply to your inputs. People must understand the nuances created through the abridgement of our natural liberty toward civil liberty along with the balance of political liberty at the very beginning. I'm pressed now but will attempt to share my thoughts later.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-02-25 08:40:05
There's not a single writer who never uses pejoriatives-- or more often, humor; however the term "intellectual morons" is a technical phrase in politics, in reference to ideologues-- and the Lincoln regime has more of those than anywhere else in history. -- intellectualconservative.com/article3990.html
For example, the convenient artifice of "dual sovereignty" was soon exposed as mere exclusive privilge among the inhabitants of federal districts. And as Madison made clear in his 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions, a federally-interpreted Constitution is no Constitution.
The Constitution was formed on a mutual pact by the states for the common welfare of the Confederacy. If they see the Fed as no longer serving their welfare they can and should break from the union.
States aren't Sovereign under the Constistution and the Supreme Court would never allow State Seccession since they are bound by the Constutition, so it ultimately comes down to the States to officially nullify by bill passage the US Constitution and replacing it with their own. Citing the 10th Amendment is a last ditch effort of the States, as the 10th Amendment can be interpreted however the Federal Judges choose to interpret it givien the predisposition of them to large or small government. Since the power of the Fed depends on weakening the States and appropriating their current power, their is a tug of war at work here.
Much of this could have been avoided by the Founders, had they merely amended the Articles of Confederation as they should have, instead of overhauling it completely creating a Bureacracy with the States at the Fed's mercy. Of course back then (and many amendments ago) the rise of Standing Armies and Income Tax, a nation's most powerful tools of Subjugation, weren't yet in effect. So the answer is No, the States aren't Sovereign in America, since America is ruled under the Constitution, but on the other hand the States are neccessary to its existense. Ultimately, Seccession is the card we must be willing to play.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-02-25 16:55:13
Randy;
did you not read my above statements? Or do you choose to forget that I said "there's nothing in the Constitution or any other document, which expressly states that the union of states isn't voluntary, or that they surrendered their sovereignty. Furthermore, sovereignty can only be surrendered by express statement."
So when you say "States aren't Sovereign under the Constistution," that is simply false, since the states were sovereign before the Constitution.
Likewise when you claim "they are bound by the Constutition," you are also disregarding my explanation that this is strictly voluntary on the part of the states, and does not impact on their sovereignty in any way.
I have to declare your entire statement nonresponsive.
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and thejudges in every state shall be bound thereby,anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution"
Does that sound like express consent? The US Constitution and the idea of State Sovereignty is mutually exclusive. When the states ratified the Constitution they effectively gave up Sovereignty. The Declaration of Independence was a statement to the crown and the Peace Treaty was a surrender of Great Britain. Neither of them were ratified by the states unlike the Constitution. They of course can Secede by nullifying the Constiution of the US and forming their own which as I said before is a real option and one that I would wholeheartedly support.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-02-26 20:28:49
"Does that sound like express consent? The US Constitution and the idea of State Sovereignty is mutually exclusive."
As evidenced by the phrase "Does that sound like?", unfortunately the Constitution is often miscontrued as a layman's document, lending itself to such dangerously simplistic interpretations.
Similarly, these other supporting claims are simply inaccurate: i.e. the Declaration of Independence was indeed signed by every state's representatives, while the Paris Peace Treaty was also ratified by delegates appointed by the individual states; and in any event, they were intended to be free, sovereign and independent therein, as the Articles of Confederation expressly retained--and hence they were each fully sovereign nations following their passage.
And in contrast to claims of the contrary, the Constitution contained no express phrase compromising such; rather, all restrictions on state powers were wholly voluntary, as specifically provided under the Law of Nations, Book I Section 10 regarding states forming federal unions. . Madison was quite clear, that every state remained nationally sovereign under the Constitution; meanwhile he and Jefferson were likewise adamant that the only thing "mutually exclusive" with the US Constitution regarding state sovereignty, was federal compliance without it.
And I used the term "express language" not "express consent," e.g. "the pratifying states surrendered their respective sovereignty to the federal union." Sadly, lay readers often attribute similar wild meaning to simple or familar-sounding terms, without formal understanding or proper analysis, and are thus given to forming inaccurate conclusion-- with disastrous consequences, as seen in the Civil War and ever since.
For example, an accurate reading would note, first, the phrase "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof". This was contextualized by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 33 that only federal laws written in pursuance of the Constitution, held any validity, while others were void.
Likewise, only state judges were bound by such laws, while all others were only bound to support the Constitution. Finally, the Supreme Law is not the soveriegn authority; rather, as Madison clarified in Federalist No. 39, to state that the sovreign power in each state is the individual citizens thereof, stating that "act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious".
Such misreadings, and "debauchings of the public mind" as Lincoln ironically coined the phrase, are only compounded by a century and a half of twisted readings and forced dogma in state-forced indoctrination thereof, to create a Pavlovian reflex toward construction of the Constitution and all other evidence to support and validate it, as with any cult.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-03-01 20:18:38
I'm afraid that no "reform" movement will work, without addressing state sovereignty-- nor is there any need for reform beyond sovereignty. Sovereignty, and only sovereignty, is the sole difference between meaningful and meaningless reform. It's useless to try to "reform" a corrupt system, which is illegal in the first place, and which Madison himself claimed was impossible to prevent from destroying all freedom. For without sovereignty, all talk of "upholding the Constitution" is just that: empty talk, while the federal government takes away everything from us, one step at a time.
When do you plan to stop paying your income taxes if you haven't already done so? What will happen when the Fed's come knock down your door and throw you in front of their tribunals, whether it be a circuit court or the US Supreme Court? Will you plead it is your constitutional right not to pay your income taxes and hand them the beautifully crafted document by Mr Mike Church which asserts "We the People of these 50 Sovereign States"? It has been tried by many tax evaders of the past, so far its got noone anything but jail.
I support your cause but before you stop paying the unlawful taxes, I would wait until Independence day of 2009 and wait to see if your local militias show up in force. I would like nothing else, but to watch this movement take speed as much as the original Declaration of Indepence that gripped our nation. But I am a bit sceptical of grassroot campaigns being anything more than a faxing/emailing machine whose amiable goals ultimately wind up in our Congressman's trash basket without so much as the title read.
I am currently of the belief that the most effective tool is by getting behind our state leaders and urging them to stand up to these Lifetime Federal Bureacrats that line our Congressional Halls. This proclamation currently being championed by atleast 15 states at the moment should just be a precursor or warning to our Federal Government of its abuses. Getting our State Government behind us avoids the Fed the luxury of labeling Citizen activists as terrorists, rebels, or seditionists which will only scare most citizens away from fear of our group being to weak or poorly structured. If we use our elected State Reps as the vehicle of our greivances than it would have greater effect IMO. I've noticed that the state reps are far more responsive than congressman and their cookie cutter email responses. And you can always do what I do, shoot a shotgun style email to each and every one of the senators and representatives in your state legislature. Hopefully these citizen movements combined with our State Legislature's Sovereignty movement can bring this mamoth to its knees.
By the way, I did read (though I do admit fast and clumsily) the entire document you linked. Let me know if you think I am off course on your intentions.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-03-03 15:29:05
David;
I am not interested in doomed "reform" movements to change the law or Constitution. I am only interested in my rights under the current law, as it stands today. That law preserves the sovereignty of every state in the Union as a free and independent state, bound only by voluntary restrictions on their respective sovereign powers.
To date, the federal government has illegally suppressed that sovereignty, both regarding its existence and its exercise--, instead forcing acceptance of the false claim that the federal union alone is a single sovereign state, over the individual member-states-- and that they are therefore subordinate to its final interpretation of the Constiution, and the laws supposedly passed in pursuance to it.
However, despite this supression, the law itself was never changed since its original inception, to reflect this claim; and therefore if the claim is false, then the laws must therefore remain intact-- and the states individually sovereign according to international law.
Those who fail to accept and realize this, are only hurting our case; therefore those who claim to help it, would do best to either take up and propogate this truth, or remain silent rather than claim otherwise-- they simply don't know what they're talking about.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-03-03 15:33:44
P.S. I have to note the irony in the phrase "the 50 sovereign states," followed by demands for federal reforms;" for here the absence of sovereignty is the very genesis of the need for such, since sovereign states may nullify any and all federal laws-- or secede from the Union entirely at will.
Therefore, state sovereignty is underscored as the sole prime objective.
A bit delayed, but yes I will be doing a piece on the event as soon as my fingers defrost tomorrow and here is the link to both my event on FB and the rally itself
Not paying taxes legally due to no one being able to show the law is accurate but only if you are one of the lucky few who get a jury of their peers that understand there is no law to show. Sadly, most who attempt this tact end up before jurors who don't understand anything except they pay and the person in front of them doesn't so most go to jail. In the few cases where the jurors are informed and the press is made to display the law go free yet it is a very bad gamble. We do need to indeed end production based taxation, repeal the 16th, and move beyond the draconian nature of income taxes. However, doing so will take education and while that process marches on too many of our citizens end up in jail not because there is a law they are violating but because we are failing to control the government in the jury box.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-03-04 09:55:42
David;
I'm afraid this is a mis-reading. "A tax on a salary," is not the same thing as tax on income. It just means that the employee must pay it, instead of the employer. This argument could be extended to the avoidance of payroll taxes as well; however again employees already have the option to opt-out of these as well, and pay income taxes on their own; payroll taxes are simply a convenience, they are not required by law. Even the 13th Amendment against slavery won't help in argung against taxes, since the 16th amendment overrides it.
As for hoping for jury-nullification, that might work in a criminal trial, if the jury abuses their discretion to suspend the law, since by law you would be guilty of a criminal offense if you deliberately refused to pay taxes; and you'll be protected by double-jeopardy from being appealed; but it won't work if the government sues you civilly, since then they can appeal on the law.
Not to sound condescending, but once again, this is the danger with lay persons reading law, in that they risk their own freedom with misinterpretations regarding how they think it "sounds" in their lay opinion, vs. from what it actually means as determined by those who actually wrote it.
The reason I'm not being condescending in writing this, is that this sort of "legal technocracy" can only be avoided by observing the fundamental sovereignty that every state retains from the date of its recognized origin, and restoring the adversarial relationship between state and federal government to protect the individual citizen-- as opposed to the hierarchy that exists today in oppressing the individual; ala the mafia, in which the boss (fed) protects you from the goons (states) -- for a price.
The original 13 states were thus recognized as individually-- rather than collectively-- sovereign in 1783; and thereafter the new states were recognized on their respective dates on which they attained official statehood.
However under current dogma, they are states in name only, and exist under the dominion of the pseudo-state termed "the Union," aka "The United States of America."
Also it's a mistake to claim that I'm trying "to begin enforcing for the first time the law AS IT HAS EXISTED FOR 220 YEARS."
This would not be the "first time," since the law was enforce quite properly up until 1833-- at which time Jackson manufactured the "nullification crisis" when the law got in his way, and so he decided to write a new one; and his fellow Washingtonians followed suit. Since then, the truth as been surpressed by force and lies, as well as shill-academia and shill-journalism.
However as you point out regarding "the law AS IT HAS EXISTED FOR 220 YEARS," the simple fact remains that the law was never properly changed, and so any pretense of national authority over the states is simply null and void. And the current crisis gives more and more incentive for people to investigate the facts.
Kuglin, one of the people you mention in your blog didn't escape paying back the taxes in her civil suit, she just escaped criminal charges from a Memphis Jury:
Vernice B. Kuglin faced criminal charges for falsifying Forms W-4 and failing to pay taxes on $920,000 of income between 1996 and 2001, but was acquitted by a federal jury. United States v. Kuglin. Mrs. Kuglin after studying the IRS Tax Code could not find anywhere in it that she was required to pay federal income taxes. Jurors found persuasive the defendant’s argument that she attempted to obtain an explanation of the Service’s authority to collect taxes from her but her correspondence went unanswered. She did not escape civil liability for the taxes because she was later interviewed on a radio program and admitted that the IRS had garnished her salary to pay the taxes she owed. Eight months later, she entered into a settlement with the IRS in Tax Court in which she agreed to pay more than half a million dollars in back taxes and penalties. Kuglin v. Commissioner.
Also, The defendant in United States v. Brunet, No. 03-00057 (M.D. Tenn. March 12, 2004), argued he could not find any information that would lead him to conclude the Internal Revenue Code made him liable to file income tax returns or pay taxes. In stark contrast to Kuglin, the jury returned guilty verdicts against Brunet on four counts of tax evasion and the court sentenced him to serve 27 months in prison.
Right or Wrong, everything has been tried, and the losers far outweigh the winners. BTW, I favor the repeal of the 16th amendment and the implementation of the fairtax, but just not paying income taxes opens up yourself up to the jackbooted IRS making your life miserable sometime in the future.
Posted By: David M Zuniga
Date: 2009-03-04 17:13:56
Randy,
Your last post was even more insipid than the one before. First, as to your hopes for repeal of the 16th Amendment, and your prayers to the Tax Fairy:
a) The 16th Amendment is immaterial; read the rulings on tax cases.
b) The Fairy Tax is frying pan-into-the-fire, "revenue neutral" idiocy. See my article entitled "Yippeeeee!! It's the Fairy Tax!!" on the American Glasnost site. You people that believe in the Tax Fairy just haven't thought very deeply about the matter. Ask any European how it might work out.
No 'revenue neutral' scheme is fair if the Congress is raking in $3,600,000,000,000 annually and the revenues required to fund the lawful powers of federal government are about $3 trillion LESS than that! The Fairy Tax would make things much worse, because then those of us who have grown a brain and a spine; who have studied the law and cases and learned to say "NO!" to lawless employees, would then be thrown in the boiling pot with you lazy Taxpayers.
That would be ANYthing but fair.
Second, as to the "danger" of being a Nontaxpayer; I gave you the statistics on filers v. non-filers. Check for yourself and believe what you like, but 67 million people are out of the line you're standing in. Filers are recommended 800% more often for indictment, than non-filers.
I think you either have poor reading comprehension, or Stockholm Syndrome, my friend.
Posted By: David M Zuniga
Date: 2009-03-04 17:23:30
Vernice Kuglin filed; that's a stupid idea for someone that doesn't owe an income tax. If Vernie Kuglin thought she didn't owe, why did she file?
Secondly, she committed fraud against the most fraudulent government agency on earth, and you never kid a kidder. She filed with a whole slew of exemptions (if memory serves, she claimed 99!).
Just plain dumb.
I just obey the law, tell the truth, and am very firm with my IRS employees. They've tried stuff like filing a "notice of federal tax lien", but as I explain in great detail at the end of the Tax Honesty Primer, a Texan has FOUR counts of fraud against any IRS operative that tries that stunt.
If you're ignorant of law, they can do all kinds of bad things to you; that's what terrorists do. But 67 million of us just don't play the game anymore. For every Vernie Kuglin case you can cite each year, approximately 225,000 non-filing Americans weren't touched by the D.C. al Qaeda.
If you think that 225,000-to-1 odds just aren't "safe" enough for you, then hold your petticoat down while you work.
But even if you're too afraid to fight for honesty, help is on the way for you, too. The IRS works directly for the kingpins in the US Congress and, beginning this Independence Day in up to 535 American cities, we're going after the kingpins.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-03-04 18:12:22
David, I'm quite informed, and you are simply mis-reading the case-law in question away from its originally-intended meaning. However, if you think you have a valid legal defense against paying taxes, then simply file a case with the federal court for a declaratory judgment and judicial review regarding your rights, based on your legal claims; and that will be the end of it. But as I've stated, I don't think the courts will see it your way.
Perhaps the government's indictment rate is "400% higher for filers than non-filers, on a per capita basis--" but this is wholly misleading; what's the conviction-rate, and average fine or sentence? Those are the real factors to consider; indictment means nothing if the charges are dropped, or the person receives greater leniency. The indictment-rate is lower, perhaps because it's simply more difficult to indict a non-filer-- but the penalty and likelihood of conviction are most certainly much higher, since there is no plausible deniability for any person of sound mind; paying taxes, is one of the few crimes of omission which passes Constitutional muster; likewise, it's a basic doctrine of law, that ignorance of the law is never an excuse.
Randy:
There is really no hope for justice under the Constitution, so long as it continues to be construed as a national document, when it is in fact an international one. Madison and Jefferson were adamant, that state sovereignty is the only real security against federal erosion of the Constitution (their words not mine), since otherwise the federal majority in Congress and the Supreme Court would simply erode the Constitution against the minority-interest; and Lincoln broke that dam, 148 years ago TODAY, claiming that the Constitution was foolproof.
Since then, the federal power-base has eroded and abridged endless freedoms, and the minority-states have had no recourse against such abuses; and it will continue to be this way, until state sovereignty is restored in the national sense.
Already, over 32 states have claimed, or are planning to declare, their sovereignty under the 10 Amendment in their state legistlatures. However this isn't enough, since the federal government can simply claim that Constitutional adherence, i.e. that all of its laws either exercise powers delegated to it under the Constitution, or prevent the exercise of powers prohibited to the states therein; and indeed, it will do so, since otherwise it wouldn't have passed the laws in the first place in stark violation of the 10th Amendment.
So far I am the only person of note who, has publicly attempted to establish the truth, regarding the sovereign national character of the individual states, under the existing law; however the evidence for it is so compelling-- and the evidence against national Constitution so strong-- that and now, it's time to call for a convention by each state to determine the facts, and act accordingly.
Yah, fine. You're quite informed, and you're "a person of note". Like I said, believe whatever you like, and parse your legal theories (I think I recall you bloviating...hyperventialatin, really) on Lew Rockwell's site not long ago.
I have very little time or respect for lawyers these days, and I know you're studying to be one so that must be hard to hear. But I also have no time for theoreticians when the events of history are outrunning their self-important musings.
I've studied tax law for 11 years and issues of State sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution for several years, with some of the finest historians and authors "of note". You're chasing your tail in interpretation and in tactics.
But don't pay attention to me; I'm no one "of note", nor do I have anything like your dizzying intellect. So we'll just watch American history prove you moot, and me correct.
Like I said, have a nice life. Don't study too hard.
As you study Tax Honesty and acquire those resources necessary to establish the truth of the matter beyond reasonable doubt to gather the courage to (gasp!) actually stand up to your corrupt employees, consider these timeless quotations of great statesman of history:
The tombstone of a civilisation is laid at precisely that point at which truth is no longer defended because it cannot be known.David M. Zuniga
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.George Orwell
(T)he Great Lie lives on, not not because the truth is so difficult to see, or to grasp-- it's that the lies are spun too thick and deep to allow it, and likewise the truth is a third-rail for virtually any career, since a person can't even pass grade-school if they don't salute the flag as the symbol of "one nation indivisible." People just can't see the forest for the trees.Brian McCandliss
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives.James Madison
Back on subject, and (again) to disagree with Brian McCandliss, the States are, quite obviously, sovereign. We the People and our Sovereign States, gave birth to the federal government. It is our creature, and we are its creators.
When we begin to act as its creators -- by tightly re-wrapping its chains of limitation and disability -- the world will see an American People that have not been in evidence for many generations, and a properly de-horned U.S. federal government that has considered itself an imperial power over all the world -- its own creators included.
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. It wasn't you but Randy who said,
"...US Constitution and the idea of State Sovereignty is mutually exclusive. When the states ratified the Constitution they effectively gave up Sovereignty."
Yes, I know. Nothing like that statement could have emanated from Brian McCandliss' keyboard! Too many things going on, on my desk, is all.
And yes, my Republic has always been free and independent among the nations of the world. When people of other countries come to Texas, they treat my patria just as I do -- like the sovereign Republic it has always been. Just because we agreed to help a bunch of wimpy little yankee States coin a common currency and build some post roads and stuff, doesn't mean we'll ever stop being what we are: one of the world's greatest republics!
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-03-08 04:12:19
Of course! I was somewhat confused there for a minute.
The Constitution doesn't even address each state's sovereignty, which was already fully achieved and recognized by the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783; the Constitution simply sets supreme law among the states-- and, by definition, each state's soveriegn people are bound to it only by volition, as with any sovereign nation.
Unfortunately, shills in academia, law and journalism have turned coat on their obligations to law and truth, and parrotted the party-line in ways that Pravda never imagined.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-03-10 14:15:41
The final proof of state sovereignty, is simply that the states were sovereign prior to the Constitution. Likewise, Philadelphia Convention delegates met for the sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. Once the body convened, meeting and deliberations were conducted in secrecy, where it was decided that the body would ignore the limitations of its call and propose the replacement of the Articles with an entirely new basic instrument of government."
Since each state was popularly sovereign, then only a state's popular will could alter its sovereignty in any way; otherwise, the state would necessarily remain popularly sovereign. In contrast, state delegates had no such carte blanche to do so, any more than ambassadors to foreign states may do likewise without specific authorization by the sovereign. Clearly, no people of any state, made any such authorization to compromise their state's sovereignty; and therefore, each state remained indvidually sovereign after ratifying the Constitution. This would be the case even if their delegates had expressly surrendered soveriegnty via the Constitution-- which they did not (despite Hamilton's proposal for such). On the contrary, the strongest argument that proponents have for such a claim, is Article V, whereby states are "bound" by amendments to the Constitution even if they voted against such; however this is fully compatible with the voluntary nature of states within a federal republic of sovereign nations: as Madison expressly writes in Federalist 39, each state is bound only by its own voluntary act. For this reason, Lincoln lied about the entire history of the Union, in order to authorize his federal coup, claiming that the states had never been sovereign, and had never been "out of the Union." Sadly, unintelligent people still believe it.
No, of course not. Are you kidding? Didn't we fight a Civil War over this issue? Why bring up what should have been settled over a century ago?
When you join a greater union, you give up your indepedence to serve the union. Even states themselves are a union of the people within them. How would a state feel if some of its citizens said, "I am a soveriegn individual, so I will ignore state laws I disagree with and live on my own!"
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-05-10 09:54:00
Are States Sovereign in America?
No, of course not. Are you kidding? Didn't we fight a Civil War over this issue?
No. A "civil war" is between factions of the same nation; but the states were sovereign nations unto themselves, and hence could not have fought a "civil war" between themselves, any more than between England and France. I explained all this above, if you'd care to read it.
Why bring up what should have been settled over a century ago?
Because the original Constitution depended on state sovereignty to uphold itself, by providing supreme recourse against federal abuses; if the federal government violated the Constitution, then the states could simply refuse to allow it to enforce such abuses within their borders Because Lincoln suppressed state sovereignty-- and with it, their sovereign power to stop federal abuses-- the people are now the slaves of their government, rather than its master.
When you join a greater union, you give up your indepedence to serve the union.
Completely false. By actual law, the states were sovereign nations under the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation-- and those were "unions," just like under the Constitution.
Even states themselves are a union of the people within them. How would a state feel if some of its citizens said, "I am a soveriegn individual, so I will ignore state laws I disagree with and live on my own!"
They're not "unions," they're sovereign states, or "nations." They did not unite to relinquish their sovereignty and form one single nation among them: this is a common layman's misconception. The fact is that the states were each sovereign nations unto themselves, before and after the Constitution-- and obviously, legal sovereignty can' t be illegally abrogated just by claiming it never existed. Again, read my prior statements, and learn before you leap.
Lincoln and the Civil War did not kill state's sovereignty, the latter 19th century progressive/socialist movement and the unconstitutional 17th Amendment did.
Clause 5: "... and that NO State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
These were 10 that failed to "consent" FL, MS, DE, KY, UT, MD, RI, AL, IA and GA. The clear manner in which article 5 is written places the statement dealing with States equal suffrage in the Senate after the words: "Provided that no Amendment which may be made..." further showing that this was an exception to the rule regarding amendments.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-05-20 11:07:00
"Lincoln and the Civil War did not kill state's sovereignty, the latter 19th century progressive/socialist movement and the unconstitutional 17th Amendment did."
No, They happened because of the loss of sovereignty; on the contrary, sovereignty was maintained in each state, to prevent gradual takeover through internal politics and similar machinations. Like the state "sovereignty" movements today, you're confusing sovereignty, with exclusive state privilege. Sovereignty means that the state is a soveriegn nation, like Canada; privilege means that it's a separate district of a nation, like Ontario.
By law, every state is a sovereign nation; the Constitution does not bind it against its will, since nothing can bind a sovereign nation against the will of the sovereign.
Likewise, by definition, an amendment is always constitutional: for example the 14th Amendment denied compensation-rights to slave-owners who were deprived of $3 billion ofproperty under the 13th Amendment, even though this violated the Constitution as an ex post facto law.
However the Constitution is only a law, and laws are simply the tools of the sovereign: by definition, nothing can bind the sovereign against its will. Unfortunately, Americans don't realize that the "sovereign" (i.e. supreme rulers) are the government policy-makers under the current regime: it is not "the American people," as politicians so deceptively tell them. On the contrary, the American citizenry has no power other than to vote in their respective state elections, period; and this in turn is simply a privilege. In contrast, under the actual law, the sovereigns are the citizens of each respective state: each state is a popularly sovereign democracy, wherein the individual citizens are the sovereigns; as such, the sovereign will, is the majority of each state's citizens.
However, most Americans foolishly believe that the law is the sovereign, or that the state is some collective abstratc, rather than an actual person or persons (as the Pledge of Allegiance says, "the Republic"); however this is not only false, it's impossible: the sovereign can only be a person or persons. Rather, such delusions simply allow these actual "unofficial sovereigns" (again, government policy-makers) to rule in the name of the people, and then claim to be "doing their duty" when abusing power (like Lincoln did when he held that the people approved of his actions unless they stopped him, even though he locked up and even tortured anyone who tried). and I quote:
"Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary." --Lincoln's First Inaugural Address
In other words, "I can do anything I want, and the American people approve--- unless they stop me, even though anyone who tries, will be locked up without trial indefinitely."
Lincoln also wrote in this speech, that " A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people."
Naturally, this proviso of "held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations," logically means that government is the sovereign, not the people.
Of course Lincoln's entire platform was based on a lie; the union was not a nation, as he claimed, but a federal republic of sovereign nations; and therefore a state breaking the Constitution, is simply a nation breaking a treaty; the states expressly retained their sovereignty under the terms presented in Federalist 39, wherein the people of each state only ratified the Constitution on the express understanding that they did so "as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation".
However Lincoln didn't even check the Federalist Papers when writing his First Inagural, but simply Henry Clay's 1850 Speech on compromise, Webster's reply to Hayne, Andrew Jackson's proclamation against nullification, and the U.S. Constitution itself: i.e. he wasn't interested in the facts-- only in repeating other people's lies. Like any dictator, he wanted to dictate the law to the people, not submit to it in serving them (except in name).
So to conclude: sovereign states are sovereign nations, and it was Lincoln and the Republicans who destroyed it.
An interesting discussion, but largely missing the point.
Sovereign means "sole reign", historically referring to the power of a king or queen over a specific territory. Under most forms of government, the sovereign can be equated with the "sole" ruling powers within the nation. However, any sovereign entity can surrender some or all of its ruling powers to other ruling entities, by treaty, conquest, or many other forms of mutual agreement.
The King of England surrendered his sovereignty over the individual American colonies after the War of Independence. They were absolutely sovereign over their territory (even though the land area had been defined by Royal Grants). The colonies voluntarily surrendered a portion of their sovereignty in adopting the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which established the United States of America. From that point on, the states had limited sovereignty over their territories, surrendering various powers to the "reign" of the federal government. Upon the adoption of the Constitution, the states voluntarily surrendered an even larger portion of whatever sovereign powers they had retained after the adoption of the Articles. The "sovereignty" remaining with the states, the sole power and authority that they could exercise, was limited by a grant of federal powers under Article I, Section 8 and consent to the restraints on state powers specified in Section 10.
"The constitutional reallocation of powers created a new form of government, unprecedented under the sun. Every previous national authority either had been centralized or else had been a confederation of sovereign states. The new American system was neither one nor the other; it was a mixture of both." - James Madison, Federalist 39
Under the 10th Amendment, states did retrain any sovereign powers they had not granted or surrendered, generally applying to the enforcement of common law. They did not retain the kind of absolute "sovereign" powers imagined here. They were not "nations", they were states with a very limited scope of "sole reign" over their own territories.
All of the states that subsequently joined the federation voluntarily surrendered the same degree of sovereignty as the original colonies, although some of the treaties (Texas and Alaska) retained the option of future succession, under specified terms.
None of this contests the justified anger expressed here at the expansion of federal powers, but the vast majorities of powers over the states were voluntarily accepted by the states, with the promise of a bribe, federal funds offered as compensation for the surrender of state sovereignty over certain provisions of common law. We can condemn those actions of our states, but they were all voluntary concessions of sovereignty by the state legislatures. Whether or not it is Constitutional for the federal government to offer such bribes is certainly debatable, but the Supreme Court has ruled and every state voluntarily consented to honor the final rulings of that court.
When the Southern states (with the possible exception of the Republic of Texas) voluntarily consented to abide by the Constitution, they abandoned any and all sovereign powers that they had granted or conceeded to the federal government in perpetuity. Of course, if they had won the Civil War, they would have acquired de-facto ("right of conquest") sovereignty over the nation. But, they lost.
None of this chatter about states being "nations", or retaining "absolute sovereignty" makes any sense in law or historic context.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-08-29 20:09:30
This is wholly incorrect. The Articles of Confederation never and nowhere relinquished sovereignty-- but on the contrary, expressly stated that "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
Likewise, the Constitution was ratified by each state acting solely in its sovereign capacity to first secede from said "perpetual Union," and then in order to ratify the and establish the Constitution between it and the other ratifying states.
"Limited" or "divided" or "dual" soveriegnty are absurd logical oxymorons, since there can obviously only be one sole reign.
The states never surrendered any sovereignty, but on the contrary they expressly retained it, by ratifying in the context of assurances made in the Federalist papers, that the states would retain their sovereignty, and not form one nation.
But I do agree, your chatter makes no sense in law or history, since you're lying in our faces without understanding a whit of what you're talking about. You haven't even read the papers you claim to speak on authoritatively-- and if you have, you certainly don't understand them. Everything you say, flies in the face of the Articles of Confederation (article II), the Constitution (Article VII), and The Federalist Papers.
You also haven't names a single inkling of documentation to support your claims, that the people of any state expressly intended to relinquish their individual popular sovereignty to a federal bureaucracy-- as inane as that notion is: i.e. that government would no longer be by consent of the governed of the individual state, with the power to alter or abolish it-- but that they would wholly become the property of some abstract state under the whims of the plebiscite-majority of the elected and appointed elite. Hah!
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-08-29 20:33:37
P.S. You're even lying about the quoted passage: Federalist No. 39 does not contain the verbiage you attributed to it! What are you trying to pull off, here? Go spew your lies somewhere else, revisionist-- liars aren't welcome here! Keep to your own kind with the Republicans and Democrats.
McCandliss: "The Articles of Confederation never and nowhere relinquished sovereignty ..."
The entirety of Article VI dictates all the things that states may not do. To whatever degree, each of those things is a loss of sovereignty: [link edited for length]
"... expressly stated that "Each state retains its sovereignty ... which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States ..."
Precisely. It retains all sovereignty that has not been expressly delegated to the federal government. Obviously, the Articles do expressly delegate many features of sovereignty to the United States.
".. the Constitution was ratified by each state acting solely in its sovereign capacity to first secede from said "perpetual Union ..."
Each state had the sovereign authority to ratify the Constitution or not. Once it was ratified, they lost many aspects of their sovereign powers, as specified in Article 1, Sections 8 and 10. Whether or not they retained the power to subsequently secede is debatable for the original colonies. It is not debatable for most other states, who explicitly surrendered that option.
" ... there can obviously only be one sole reign."
In a national totalitarian state, that may be true. It was certainly true in most medieval Kingdoms. In the United States, it is not true. In federal systems, powers are delegated amoung the state and federal entities: [link edited for length]
" ... ratifying in the context of assurances made in the Federalist papers, that the states would retain their sovereignty, and not form one nation."
Whatever assurances you may find in the Federalist Papers, they have no legal bearing on the explicit constitutional restraints on the states.
"... You also haven't name[d] a single inkling of documentation ... that the people of any state expressly intended to relinquish their individual popular sovereignty ..."
The people may not, but their representatives certainly did, by consenting to the provisions of the Constitution which restrain state powers.
"... as inane as that notion is: i.e. that government would no longer be by consent of the governed of the individual state, with the power to alter or abolish it ..."
Whether you agree or disagree, Texas and every other state agreed to abide by the Constitution, which specifies that the Supreme Court decides such issues. It did so, in Texas v. White: [link edited for length]
"... Federalist No. 39 does not contain the verbiage you attributed to it! ..."
You're right. I misread the statement by historian Forrest McDonald, derived from the ideas James Madison expressed in Federalist 39: [link edited for length]
... but the lengthy Madison article expresses exactly the viewpoint characterized by McDonald.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-10-22 09:16:56
It was really wise of you not to reveal your real name, since then you’d certainly be unable to show the face associated with it without being laughed even out of your own mother’s house where you’re writing it.
McCandliss: "The Articles of Confederation never and nowhere relinquished sovereignty ..."
The entirety of Article VI dictates all the things that states may not do. To whatever degree, each of those things is a loss of sovereignty: [link edited for length]
"... expressly stated that "Each state retains its sovereignty ... which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States ..."
Precisely. It retains all sovereignty that has not been expressly delegated to the federal government. Obviously, the Articles do expressly delegate many features of sovereignty to the United States.
And even more obviously, you don’t know what “delegate” means… might want to look that up before hanging your dunce-cap on it.
Even if if your vocabulary is too limited for the subject which you opt to discuss while projecting some sort of knowledge and familiarity (falsely), the context of the sentence alone, shows that “delegation” by a state, is consistent with the retention of that state’s sovereignty, freedom and independence.
Obviously, you’ve proven yourself a pseudo-intellectual.
".. the Constitution was ratified by each state acting solely in its sovereign capacity to first secede from said "perpetual Union ..."
Each state had the sovereign authority to ratify the Constitution or not. Once it was ratified, they lost many aspects of their sovereign powers, as specified in Article 1, Sections 8 and 10.
These nowhere express any compromise of sovereignty. Once again you’re talking through your … hat.
" ... there can obviously only be one sole reign."
In a national totalitarian state, that may be true. It was certainly true in most medieval Kingdoms. In the United States, it is not true. In federal systems, powers are delegated amoung the state and federal entities: [link edited for length]
Once again, you need to learn what “delegated” means… and once again you hang your dunce-cap on an argument that proves you a pseudo-intellectual. Even if your statement was correct—i.e. that a delegate becomes a sovereign-- it would be logically impossible to have more than one sovereign authority in a single nation. There you’re not only not only informationally-challenged, but mentally as well.
" ... ratifying in the context of assurances made in the Federalist papers, that the states would retain their sovereignty, and not form one nation."
Whatever assurances you may find in the Federalist Papers, they have no legal bearing on the explicit constitutional restraints on the states.
I’m sorry, I didn’t see you having posted any legal credentials which show you as qualified to speak on such, so you must be assumed to have none— which I’m sure is the case anyway, so it’s a moot point.
Actually, the Federalist Papers DO bear out as Parol Evidence— and I’m sure you know what that is, right, being a legal expert and all? In any event, it’s irrelevant since sovereign nations do not need to expressly retain their sovereignty in order to do so— I was simply making a point for evidence.
"... You also haven't name[d] a single inkling of documentation ... that the people of any state expressly intended to relinquish their individual popular sovereignty ..."
The people may not, but their representatives certainly did, by consenting to the provisions of the Constitution which restrain state powers.
(SIGH) Once again your reach exceeds your grasp of the subject. First of all, representatives do not have sovereign authority, hence any dispensation of sovereignty would be void. Second, they did not dispense with any sovereignty, since the “restraint” in the Constitution was strictly VOLUNTARY.
"... as inane as that notion is: i.e. that government would no longer be by consent of the governed of the individual state
with the power to alter or abolish it ..."
Whether you agree or disagree
Texas and every other state agreed to abide by the Constitution
Any agreement without an express abandonment of sovereignty is VOLUNTARY. Unfortunately you don’t know what “express” means either.
which specifies that the Supreme Court decides such issues.
One more pseudo-intellectual who thinks that the Supreme Court is the sovereign not only of a single nation, but over ALL nations.
It’s a sad testament to socialized public education which turns out such human pseudo-intellectual drivel-machines.
"... Federalist No. 39 does not contain the verbiage you attributed to it! ..."
You're right. I misread the statement by historian Forrest McDonald,
... but the lengthy Madison article expresses exactly the viewpoint characterized by McDonald.
Another case of the blind leading the blind, deafand dumb.
Again, the only smart thing you’ve done here, is hide behind a pseudonym to avoid having yourself put away in a shool for the developmentally disabled.
Otherwise, why not show your real name- unless you’re ashamed to be identified with such pearls of wisdom?
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-10-22 12:37:29
P.S. I almost forgot this cute little distortotion by Westmiller:
McCandliss: "The Articles of Confederation never and nowhere relinquished sovereignty ..."
The entirety of Article VI dictates all the things that states may not do. To whatever degree, each of those things is a loss of sovereignty: [link edited for length]
"... expressly stated that "Each state retains its sovereignty ... which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States ..."
Precisely. It retains all sovereignty that has not been expressly delegated to the federal government. Obviously, the Articles do expressly delegate many features of sovereignty to the United States.
Cute, REALLY cute. Here’s the original full text of Article II of Confederation:
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
And here’s how YOU doctored (I should say BUTCHERED) it:
that "Each state retains its sovereignty ... which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States ..."
Now, did you REALLY expect that to fly? Or worse, do you actually BELIEVE your own fertilizer? Go very far away.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-11-04 09:07:52
P.S.
It is not even POSSIBLE to delegate sovereignty-- only sovereign powers. Sovereignty means supreme rule, while "delegation" is the assignment of a deputy-- which by definition is NOT supreme rule.
McCandliss: "It was really wise of you not to reveal your real name ..."
Since most of your comment is crude, petty, ad-hominem invective, I wasn't going to reply.
My real name is William Westmiller. I have been a Nolan Chart columnist for a long time and haven't lived with my mother in 45 years. That you chose to make such an unfounded and preposterous assertion at the beginning of your reply is an admission that you're just pounding the table and screaming ... apparently the only defense you have remaining.
McCandliss:"... the context of the sentence alone, shows that “delegation” by a state, is consistent with the retention of that state’s sovereignty, freedom and independence."
Clearly, English is not your native language. The sentence "Each state retains its sovereignty ... which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States ..." clearly diminishes state sovereignty. State powers delegated to the federal government by a legal agreement are lost and cannot be legally reclaimed, except under the terms of the agreement. States do not retain the sovereign power to unilaterally declare any provision of the Constitution null and void.
McCandliss: "... it would be logically impossible to have more than one sovereign authority in a single nation."
The sovereign powers of any state in a republic are multiple and distinct. Some of those powers may be surrendered, as they clearly are in the Constitution, while others are retained. A state exercises sovereignty only over those things which it has not expressly delegated to the federal government, clearly listed in Article I, Sections 8 and 10.
McCandliss: "... I didn’t see you having posted any legal credentials ..."
I don't need credentials to recognize that the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land" and note what it clearly states. The Federalist Papers do offer "Parol Evidence" of the intent and clearly support all of my assertions, but none of your convoluted interpretations.
McCandliss: " ... representatives do not have sovereign authority ..."
The representatives of a state are the only agents of any sovereign power. You seem to agree that those representatives did, voluntarily, surrender certain state powers in joining the Union. They're gone and can't be reclaimed, except by civil war. In the United States, sovereignty is not unilateral and supreme; it is distributed between the federal and state governments, as the Federalist article I cited clearly states.
McCandliss: "One more pseudo-intellectual who thinks that the Supreme Court is the sovereign not only of a single nation, but over ALL nations."
I never said any such thing. The Supreme Court is the final authority in "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution." - Article III, Section 2.
McCandliss: "... the only smart thing you’ve done here, is hide behind a pseudonym ..."
I haven't ... but if I were you, I'd seriously consider it, to avoid total embarrassment.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-11-08 23:44:35
McCandliss: "... the context of the sentence aloneshows that “delegation” by a state is consistent with the retention of that state’s sovereignty freedom and independence."
Westmiller: Clearly English is not your native language. The sentence "Each state retains its sovereignty ... which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States ..." clearly diminishes state sovereignty.
English is not only my first and ONLY language, I know how to read it without selective omission to tell a misleading half-truth; I even pointed out your error in my earlier response, and yet you still didn't get it; so here it is again:
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
Now, do you see any "..." in there? I sure don’t. You simply put a “…” where you felt like it.
Likewise, anyone competent in English literacy beyond the third grade, should have enough knowledge of basic parallel structure, to know that the actual sentence means the following:
Each state retains 1) its sovereignty, freedom, and independence; and 2) every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
So it's not sovereignty, freedom or independence that's delegated, but retained. Meanwhile, only powers, jurisdictions and rights are delegated.
Otherwise, the sentence would read “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
However it doesn’t say that, because it doesn’t mean that.
Furthermore, delegation does not "diminish" anything, as I've already explained. Delegation simply deputizes.
Now tell me, using an example more to your level of understanding: who’s higher in rank in Mayberry—Sheriff Andy Taylor, or Deputy Sheriff Barney Fife?
McCandliss: "... it would be logically impossible to have more than one sovereign authority in a single nation."
Westmiller: The sovereign powers of any state in a republic are multiple and distinct.
I guess someone forgot to tell Emerech de Vattel about that. Sovereign states in a federal republic, are sovereign nations.
So your claim is not only logically impossible, it’s entirely false.
It might be a good idea to stop making things up.
McCandliss: "... I didn’t see you having posted any legal credentials ..."
Westmiller: I don't need credentials to recognize that the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land"
Laws do not bind the sovereign-- on the contrary, the sovereign binds the law. If you don't know what that means, ask a law-professor… at least they have legal credentials.
Westmiller: and note what it clearly states. The Federalist Papers do offer "Parol Evidence" of the intent and clearly support all of my assertions but none of your convoluted interpretations.
Then let’s see you present it.
Also, Parol Evidence is not a figure of speech, it’s a legal term; so there’s no need to put it in quotes. Likewise if you don’t know what it means, then you obviously can’t know what qualifies as Parol Evidence, so don’t purport that you do.
McCandliss: " ... representatives do not have sovereign authority ..."
Westmiller: The representatives of a state are the only agents of any sovereign power. You seem to agree that those representatives did, voluntarily, surrender certain state powers in joining the Union.
Again, not to anyone with basic literacy.
First, they did not “surrender” anything. AGAIN, delegation is not surrender—it’s assignment of authority to a “legate,” or deputy.
Second, representative agents cannot surrender anything, which the principal did not expressly authorize; and the principals—i.e. the People of the individual state—did not authorize a surrender of sovereignty.
Westmiller: In the United States sovereignty is not unilateral and supreme; it is distributed between the federal and state governments as the Federalist article I cited clearly states.
Ok, several deviations from the truth here….
First, all sovereignty is unilateral and supreme; anything else is an oxymoron, reductio ad absurdum.
Second, you didn't cite a Federalist Paper, remember? You quoted something else, and claimed it was from a Federalist paper- specifically, Federalist No. 39. Then, you claimed that it meant the same thing, but didn’t quote the actual text from Federalist 39 in order to support it.
Third: NO government has sovereignty—neither federal, nor state government. Only the People have sovereignty—the People of the individual state, no one else.
THIS is what Madison stated in Federalist No. 39—which your quoted author did NOT.
McCandliss: "One more pseudo-intellectual who thinks that the Supreme Court is the sovereign not only of a single nation, but over ALL nations."
Westmiller: I never said any such thing. The Supreme Court is the final authority in "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution."
Article III, Section 2.
And what part of national sovereignty, do you think falls under “law or equity?” In any case, you’re wrong. Likewise, if the Supreme Court claims in a case arising under law or equity, that England is the part of the US, then does that make it so? If it does for Texas or any other state, then it also does for England.
McCandliss: "... the only smart thing you’ve done here is hide behind a pseudonym ..."
I haven't ... but if I were you I'd seriously consider it to avoid total embarrassment.
Yes, you did— you didn’t include your first name.”Westmiller” could be mean anything.
And as for me, there’s no shame in telling the truth—unlike what you’re doing.
Brian McCandliss: "...there’s no shame in telling the truth..."
I'm not sure whether we're making any progress toward the truth, but our dispute seems to be coming down to the meaning of words, particularly sovereignty. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree.
The idea of sovereignty has changed over the course of centuries. For many of those centuries, it refered to the absolute power of a monarch. All powers, rights, and authority rested in one, supreme, individual leader over a nation. That concept also applied to a wide variety of dictatorships over the past century. In those cases, you are correct: sovereignty was absolute, complete, and indivisible. But, that isn't the case in the United States.
Sovereignty today - at least in the United States - is distributed. The vast assortment of rights, powers, and authority are allocated among the various levels of government and to the people. Sovereignty is not absolute, complete, and indivisible.
Brian McCandliss: "...only powers, jurisdictions and rights are delegated."
But, that is the essence, the basis, for what we call sovereignty: which individual components of rights, powers, and authority are exercised by which particular jurisdictions. There are federal, state, county, and municipal components. To one degree or another, they are separate venues of sovereignty over particular sets of laws within particular jurisdictions.
You spend a great deal of time parsing the meaning of a sentence that has absolutely no bearing whatever on any rights, powers, or authority - the delegation of diverse levels of sovereignty - in the current United States of America. The sentence is from the Articles of Confederation (Section II), not the Constitution. Even if your interpretation were correct, it is totally irrelevant, since we are not governed by the Articles of Confederation, and haven't been since 1789, when the Constitution was ratified by all the states.
I don't agree with your parsing of that sentence, since even the Articles deprived states of a wide range of rights, powers, and authorities that restricted their sovereignty.
Brian McCandliss: "I guess someone forgot to tell Emerech de Vattel about that. Sovereign states in a federal republic, are sovereign nations."
You can't seriously be citing a philosopher of the 18th century as an authority on the distribution of sovereignty in the United States. His book was written before the U.S. Constitution was adopted, when sovereignty was still absolute, universal, and unilateral in most of the nations of the world. IF you had written this article in 1758, it would probably be correct ... but it wouldn't have any bearing on the United States.
Brian McCandliss: "Laws do not bind the sovereign-- on the contrary, the sovereign binds the law."
You would have been correct if you were referring to most nation's governance a century ago. In spite of the fantasies of people like Richard Nixon, the President is not above the law. We don't have monarchs. We have a democratic republic, a division of powers among three branches of government, authority distributed among several levels, and fundamental rights that are fully retained by the people.
I urge readers of these comments to peruse Federalist 39 to understand the distribution of the various sovereign powers under the Constitution. I think they'll find that my view of sovereignty, as exercised in the United States, is correct.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-11-11 03:24:53
Brian McCandliss: "...there’s no shame in telling the truth..."
Westmiller: I'm not sure whether we're making any progress toward the truth, but our dispute seems to be coming down to the meaning of words, particularly sovereignty. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
The official definition of sovereignty, is “supreme, independent authority over a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided.” This is the definition regardless of whether you agree with it, or not.
Westmiller: The idea of sovereignty has changed over the course of centuries. For many of those centuries, it refered to the absolute power of a monarch. All powers, rights, and authority rested in one, supreme, individual leader over a nation. That concept also applied to a wide variety of dictatorships over the past century. In those cases, you are correct: sovereignty was absolute, complete, and indivisible. But, that isn't the case in the United States.
Sovereignty today - at least in the United States - is distributed. The vast assortment of rights, powers, and authority are allocated among the various levels of government and to the people. Sovereignty is not absolute, complete, and indivisible.
Logic dictates otherwise, since the federal government has the power to rule and make law under the current illegal regime. Logically, there can only be one unitary sovereign power.
Likewise, sovereignty hasn’t changed—only the particular People in which it was vested. Under the United States law, sovereignty was vested entirely in the people of the individual state; Madison explains this in Federalist 39-- if you ever care to read the real thing, instead of some perverted version that you try to fob off as the real one.
Brian McCandliss: "...only powers, jurisdictions and rights are delegated."
Westmiller: But, that is the essence, the basis, for what we call sovereignty: which individual components of rights, powers, and authority are exercised by which particular jurisdictions. There are federal, state, county, and municipal components. To one degree or another, they are separate venues of sovereignty over particular sets of laws within particular jurisdictions.
Er, no. Again, sovereignty is the supreme power to rule and make law; you are confusing this with delegated power. Under the current illegal regime, the federal government his this power—not the People.
Westmiller: You spend a great deal of time parsing the meaning of a sentence that has absolutely no bearing whatever on any rights, powers, or authority - the delegation of diverse levels of sovereignty - in the current United States of America. The sentence is from the Articles of Confederation (Section II), not the Constitution. Even if your interpretation were correct, it is totally irrelevant, since we are not governed by the Articles of Confederation, and haven't been since 1789, when the Constitution was ratified by all the states.
I only spend time correcting your corruptions of it. And it does have bearing, since it expressly proves that the states each retained their sovereignty, freedom and independence prior to the Constitution—while your corruptions held that they didn’t. You’re not going to sit here and deny that.
Westmiller: I don't agree with your parsing of that sentence, since even the Articles deprived states of a wide range of rights, powers, and authorities that restricted their sovereignty.
Delegation is not deprivation-- as continue to ignore. It would be a good idea for you to to obtain an education in the usage of trade, before attempting to comment on the meaning thereof.
Brian McCandliss: "I guess someone forgot to tell Emerech de Vattel about that. Sovereign states in a federal republic, are sovereign nations."
Westmiller: You can't seriously be citing a philosopher of the 18th century as an authority on the distribution of sovereignty in the United States. His book was written before the U.S. Constitution was adopted, when sovereignty was still absolute, universal, and unilateral in most of the nations of the world. IF you had written this article in 1758, it would probably be correct ... but it wouldn't have any bearing on the United States.
Then I suppose Hippocrates has NO bearing on modern medicine? (Chuckle).
You wrote, in reference to the Constitution, that “The sovereign powers of any state in a republic are multiple and distinct.”
But now, you’re trying to claim that a federal republic of sovereign nations that was created in 1787, had no relation to the definition given in 1758? You really do need to get your story straight—unless you think that political language had changed so much in 29 years, as to render prior definitions wholly obsolete (again, chuckle).
Likewise, the Founders were clear, that the states would NOT lose their sovereignty under the Constitution—and it was ratified solely on that basis.
Brian McCandliss: "Laws do not bind the sovereign-- on the contrary, the sovereign binds the law."
Westmiller: You would have been correct if you were referring to most nation's governance a century ago.
The Constitution was written and ratified over two centuries ago. (Assumes you knew that, but can’t figure out why you’d suddenly forget).
Westmiller: In spite of the fantasies of people like Richard Nixon, the President is not above the law. We don't have monarchs. We have a democratic republic, a division of powers among three branches of government, authority distributed among several levels, and fundamental rights that are fully retained by the people.
“Rights” which the sovereign can choose to ignore—as Lincoln did. You’re simply waffling over that which you don’t understand, and your can’t keep your story straight, since you’re describing an oxymoron—and weaving quite a tangled web to support it.
Westmiller: I urge readers of these comments to peruse Federalist 39 to understand the distribution of the various sovereign powers under the Constitution. I think they'll find that my view of sovereignty as exercised in the United Statesis correct.
Only if they misinterpret it as liberally as you have. However, the actual document concurs entirely with my statements:
…the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.
--James Madison, Federalist No. 39
There we have it: “forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation”.
So there we have it: your sovereignty as exercised in the United States is not correct.
And that’s why we’re in so much trouble: the federal government is wielding sovereignty that belongs to the People of the individual states; they are servants of their government instead of the other way around—and they don’t even know it, thanks to charlatans like who spew misbegotten (and logically absurd) notions like yours.
The clause you quote from Federalist 39 is one aspect of an argument about whether the Constitution specifies a national or federal institution. As Madison concludes, it is neither:
"... the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects."
That is, states were intended to be left with only a residual sovereignty over some (common) laws, not the supreme and unitary sovereignty you imagine.
Of course, I agree with your point that "... the federal government is wielding sovereignty that belongs to the People of the individual states... ", since the 10th Amendment was effectively (though not legally) repealed by Supreme Court in 1937.
If we restored the proper balance of sovereign powers, then the federal government would have no rights, powers, or authorities beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. Lacking that understanding of distributed sovereignty, it's impossible to fight its perversion.
Your argument that states should or do have complete, absolute, and unfettered rights, powers, or authorities is a totalitarian argument, not an argument for liberty.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-11-11 20:49:58
The clause you quote from Federalist 39 is one aspect of an argument about whether the Constitution specifies a national or federal institution. As Madison concludes, it is neither:
"... the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects."
That is, states were intended to be left with only a residual sovereignty over some (common) laws, not the supreme and unitary sovereignty you imagine.
Poppyseeds. “Forming so many independent states,” means just that. It’s “partly national” only in the sense of delegated powers; otherwise, it is completely national by default. “Divided sovereignty” is an absurd fantasy, since disputes over said “divisions” can only be settled by force; therefore it is reductio ad absurdum an oxymoron.
As Madison states in his 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions, a “state” is defined as “a people operating in their highest sovereign capacity.” Nothing about “divided sovereignty” or other nonsense.
Of course, I agree with your point that "... the federal government is wielding sovereignty that belongs to the People of the individual states... ", since the 10th Amendment was effectively (though not legally) repealed by Supreme Court in 1937.
If we restored the proper balance of sovereign powers, then the federal government would have no rights, powers, or authorities beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. Lacking that understanding of distributed sovereignty, it's impossible to fight its perversion.
Once again, you just don’t understand the reductio ad absurdum nature of your hypothesis, which is based on the oxymoronic pretense of “divided soveriegnty.”
Even your argument for restoring these proper “divisions,” are based on idle flights of fancy: “if we” did this, “if we” did that. Such idle speculations cede yoru point, since the fact that it was abrogated to begin with, prove that your theory has failed.
Your argument that states should or do have complete, absolute, and unfettered rights, powers, or authorities is a totalitarian argument, not an argument for liberty.
No, it’s a statement of fact, that that this was—and remains-- the original intent of the sovereign states in ratifying the Constitution; and that it remains in effect to this day, since it was never legitimately or officially changed.
As to the rest, your fantasy of “divided sovereignty” is not only facetious, but it logically equates simply to benevolent dictatorship as some means of “preserving liberty—“ which is of course political suicide for liberty, just as it was under every attempt at such, dating back to ancient Israel, if not sooner.
Unless the People of the individual states, retained their sovereign power of self-government, then they become de facto the servants of the government-- and not vice-versa. Your dotage on simple written restrictions are, once again, mere delusional fantasy in the power of written words on the de facto ruling sovereing.
This is borne out by your above fantasizing and hypothesizing of “IF we did this,” “IF we did that,” etc. If your theory was correct, “we” wouldn’t have to, since under your theory of “divided sovereignty,” the written restrictions in the Constitution would have precluded it. Clearly, they didn’t; and hence your theory is proved utterly false.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-11-12 03:10:46
I also wanted to mention that "divided sovereignty" is not only logically impossible on a reductio ad absurdum basis, but also on a categorical basis: i.e. sovereignty is a nominal -- and thus indivisible and exclusive-- characteristic, since naturally there can only be ONE supreme and final judge in a matter.
This is simpy so plain and self-evident, that if one can't understand it, then they never will: i.e. that sovereignty includes the supreme and final power to rule on the bounds of its own authority .
In contrast, this notion of "divided" or "distributed" sovereignty, indicates that there can be TWO or more supreme final judges of the bounds of their own powers-- just as Jefferson warned in the Kentucky Resolutions-- and thus the stronger party (i.e. the federal majority) can simply claim to have any power it wants, and the matter will be determined by brute force in favor of the stronger party.
And thus, the story will be-- as with the War Between the States-- that "the matter was settled by the highest tribunal of the battlefield."
This stronger party will therefore simply use the same reasoning that Lincoln did, i.e. "The Constitution means X, -- and if you don't comply, then you will force the national authority to use bloodshed."
And since its power was sovereign-- i.e. final-- then none could claim the superior power to differ and overrule this erring party-- even if the Constistution specifically stated "THIS DOES NOT MEAN X." The Constitution is not going to create a magical "force-field" in order to prevent the federal government from doing X, simply because this violates its written word or intended meaning.
Likewise, the popular majority isn't going to scrutinize the Constitution to determine the actual meaning, and storm Washington in order to stop it-- particularly if, like Lincoln, the party suspends habeas corpus, and imprisons, tortures, and/or KILLS anyone that doesn't agree. Not many people are capable of dissecting the Constitution or other law and related history, in order to determine its original intent (as proven daily right here); and so most of the population will be WRONG about it, and go along with it-- particularly if they see everyone imprisoned who doesn't go along with it.
In contrast, geographical bounds are far more tangible, and less easy to alter with confusing arguments regarding the exact delineations thereof: to date, no two nations have EVER gone to war over the accuracy of lines on a map between them, but only on the propriety of the sovereign claim to such.
As such, sovereignty has always been divided soley by geographical bounds-- never within them.
Since it isn't clear from your article, do I take it correctly that you believe that each state legislature does - or ought to - have supreme and total sovereignty over all laws in that state?
If so, what proper rights, powers, and authorities does the federal government have over the states?
The Constitution seems pretty clear about this question, but your position is baffling.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-11-12 19:51:31
Since it isn't clear from your article, do I take it correctly that you believe that each state legislature does - or ought to - have supreme and total sovereignty over all laws in that state?
It’s entirely clear from my “article” above-- where I wrote the following:
As Madison states in his 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions, a “state” is defined as “a people operating in their highest sovereign capacity.”
Each state was sovereign via it's People, who were the ruling sovereigns thereof; if you had really read Federalist No. 39, you would know that.
The Constitution seems pretty clear about this question, but your position is baffling.
From the above, I have absolutely zero faith in your opinion of what is “clear.” A sloppy layman’s misinterpretation, which ignores both proper meaning and context, is not much of an argument to stand on. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.
And all positions tend to be “baffling,” if one ignores the accompanying text, in addition to knowing virtually nothing about subject-matter.
McCandless: "As Madison states in his 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions, a “state” is defined as “a people operating in their highest sovereign capacity.”
Madison was making reference to one meaning of "state", among several others, which you ignore. In this case, he was referring to individual sovereignty, meaning the rights and liberties reserved to the people, as well as their power to elect representatives to speak on behalf of the states as distinct parties to the Constitution.
McCandless: "Each state was sovereign via it's People, who were the ruling sovereigns thereof ..."
So, you're saying that every single individual has "supreme and absolute sovereignty" to decide for themselves what laws, powers, and authorities they will recognize? That's baffling and strikes me as an appeal to anarchy.
The entire point of Madison's report is to object to the Virginia Resolution's contention that it alone has the sovereign power to determine whether there has been a breach of fundamental constitutional principles. He says they do not:
"It does not follow, however, because the states, as sovereign parties to their constitutional compact, must ultimately decide whether it has been violated, that such a decision ought to be interposed either in a hasty manner or on doubtful and inferior occasions."
... since the states have agreed, via the Constitution, that the federal judiciary shall decide such questions. I invite readers to review this new document, which affirms - once again - my contention that state sovereignty is neither supreme nor absolute.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-11-12 23:17:02
McCandliss: "As Madison states in his 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions, a “state” is defined as “a people operating in their highest sovereign capacity.”
Westmiller: Madison was making reference to one meaning of "state", among several others, which you ignore.
No I don’t "ignore--" I properly edit. I simply include only the one to which he refers-- while omitting the superflous remainder:
“It is indeed true that the term "states" is sometimes used in a vague sense, and sometimes in different senses, according to the subject to which it is applied. Thus it sometimes means the separate sections of territory occupied by the political societies within each; sometimes the particular governments established by those societies; sometimes those societies as organized into those particular governments; and lastly, it means the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity. Although it might be wished that the perfection of language admitted less diversity in the signification of the same words, yet little inconvenience is produced by it, where the true sense can be collected with certainty from the different applications. In the present instance, whatever different construction of the term "states," in the resolution, may have been entertained, all will at least concur in that last mentioned; because in that sense the Constitution was submitted to the "states;" in that sense the "states" ratified it; and in that sense of the term "states," they are consequently parties to the compact from which the powers of the federal government result.”
So your last point is proved false, in that he was using the meaning “last mentioned-” i.e. “the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity.”
Westmiller: In this case, he was referring to individual sovereignty, meaning the rights and liberties reserved to the people, as well as their power to elect representatives to speak on behalf of the states as distinct parties to the Constitution.
Once again-- wrong. Madison meant the nationally sovereign People of an individual state.
McCandliss: "Each state was sovereign via it's People, who were the ruling sovereigns thereof ."
Westmiller: So, you're saying that every single individual has "supreme and absolute sovereignty" to decide for themselves what laws, powers, and authorities they will recognize? That's baffling and strikes me as an appeal to anarchy.
It doesn’t matter how it “strikes” you, since each state was popularly sovereign—i.e. the sovereign will of the state, was determined by the will of the popular majority.
Westmiller: The entire point of Madison's report is to object to the Virginia Resolution's contention that it alone has the sovereign power to determine whether there has been a breach of fundamental constitutional principles. He says they do not:
"It does not follow, however, because the states, as sovereign parties to their constitutional compact, must ultimately decide whether it has been violated, that such a decision ought to be interposed either in a hasty manner or on doubtful and inferior occasions.”
(Sigh) Once again, WRONG. He says “It doesn’t follow that they ought to be.” Do you even know the meaning of “ought to?” It means “should--” not “may.” He’s simply saying—in a friendly manner-- that states shouldn’t be hasty or petty, in overruling the federal government—not that they CAN’T!
Such a basic misconstruction of language, only goes to show—again-- that you simply don’t have the slightest notion what you’re talking about.
Westmiller:... since the states have agreed, via the Constitution, that the federal judiciary shall decide such questions. I invite readers to review this new document, which affirms - once again – my contention that state sovereignty is neither supreme nor absolute.
Once again, you just skip right over—and contradict—the express statements in the very text that you claim to analyze. Madison states outright, just a little further down in the Report:
“However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.”
This makes it abundantly clear that you didn’t even read the entire text, but only skimmed (or even word-searched) it, for parts that you thought would support your contentions—while ignoring everything else outright (and, ironically, accusing me of ignoring things)..
Such basic and abundant errors in judgment, all fall into accord with the general premise, that you don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about with regard to this subject; and I really don’t have the time, patience or inclination to spoon-feed you by correcting your endless—and very basic— layman’s mistakes… particularly when you don’t even take the time to read the relevant text yourself. As Confucius said: “A fool may ask more questions in an hour, than a wise man can answer in seven years;" and that seems to be about accurate not only in terms of number, but of time as well.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-11-13 05:13:25
I wanted to add, however, that Madison was adamant that state legislatures did not have the power to overrule federal law; for the state's legislative body was not the state's sovereigns: for they were also not the ratifiers of the Constitution, as they were with the Articles of Confederation. Only the People of the state, were its ruling sovereigns. Therefore, they had no right to rule on the Constitutionality of federal law; for the People of the state did not delegate this power to the legislature, but only to the US Supreme Court.
Contrary to popular distortion, this was Madison's protest during the Nullification crisis; he did not alter his original intent regarding state sovereignty; but rather, he simply protested South Carolina's Nullification of federal law by the South Carolina legislature, rather than by a proper Convention of the People of South Carolina.
In order for a state to nullify or secede, it must do so as a matter of popular will-- not legislative; otherwise, the legislature would be usurping the People's sovereign power.
(The 1860 secessions, meanwhile, were expressions of of popular will, and were therefore valid exercises of each state's sovereign powers.)
So to recap: each state's sovereignty was in its People: not its legislature;. and so only its People could exercise that sovereignty.
I think we've made our positions clear. I'll only comment on your final "recap":
McCandless: "... each state's sovereignty was in its People: not its legislature;. and so only its People could exercise that sovereignty."
Which could only lead one to conclude that you believe the Constitution was never properly ratified, since it was the state legislatures that conceeded and delegated the sovereignty of the state to federal powers, with no popular vote of the people whatever.
If that's the case, arguing the merits of the Confederacy or the Constitution is irrelevant, since the people were never asked to concede their sovereignty to either entity.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-11-13 18:55:53
Westmeller:I think we've made our positions clear.
Again, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
And accordingly, I’ve also made clear that my position is in accordance with the facts-- while yours is not.
Westmeller: I'll only comment on your final "recap":
McCandliss: "... each state's sovereignty was in its People: not its legislature;. and so only its People could exercise that sovereignty."
Westmeller: Which could only lead one to conclude that you believe the Constitution was never properly ratified, since it was the state legislatures that conceeded and delegated the sovereignty of the state to federal powers, with no popular vote of the people whatever.
Once again, the facts present a different story.
It was each individual state’s People-- not legislature-- that ratified the Constitution. The process for ratification in each state, was that delegates were elected to a ratifying convention, which would decide whether or not that state would ratify the proposed Constitution. As Madison writes in Federalist No. 39:
“On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves.
” That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.”
Accordingly—for the nth time— the people’s “delegation” of power to the federal government, was not a surrender of power to such, but merely assignment to a subordinate agency by a sovereign principal.
However it seems that you are so all-out obsessed with believing that “delegation is surrender,” in your embracing the myth of “divided sovereignty,” that you have blinded yourself to all contrary fact—no matter how plainly proven; however that’s simply not the definition of “delegation—“ as used in either the Constitution or the dictionary.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-11-14 10:30:45
Likewise, the states ratified the Constitution in response to the above assurances, therefore they clearly intended to retain their respective status as independent sovereign nations according to that context. In sum, they ratified the Constitution as independent sovereign nations, and REMAINED under the Constitution as independent sovereign nations.
Likewise, sovereign nations do not need to expressly retain their sovereignty, in order to do so; the Articles of Confederation only contain such express retention of state sovereignty (in Article II), for the reason that they were not yet officially sovereign at the time, in 1781; this required recognition by existing sovereign nations-- which happened later, at the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783.
Therefore, the Constitution contained none of the same express retention of state sovereignty, freedom or independence, as is found in the Articles of Confederation-- for the simple reason that the states didn't any longer need such, in order to retain their individual sovereignty.
Various misinformed pundits have attempted to construe this comparative absence of express retention, as evidence of intent to consolidate the states into a single nation; but clearly this is false, for reasons I've explained above. The states simply weren't officially sovereign under the Articles, as they were under the Constitution.
So even if the Federalist Papers didn't contain such express assurances of retained sovereignty, then the Constitution would not alter or impair any state so retaining its respective sovereignty as a separate nation; however ratification only in response to the presence of such express assurances, leaves this intention clear and irrefutable beyond all doubt-- i.e. that the sovereign People of each state, fully intentended to retain their sovereign status as free, sovereign and independent nations.
Posted By: D.R. Starr II
Date: 2009-12-10 14:14:55
The state governments have become so rife with corruption, the money wouldn't make it to the citizenry. but this does not justify the abatement of the principle.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-12-20 11:46:34
State sovereignty is held by a state's People-- not its government: i.e. they are the absolute rulers of that nation-state, and have the absolute right to choose their government -- or to alter or abolish it at will. No power on earth-- neither the state or federal government, or anyone else-- has any authority over them.
The only principle difference between the Constitution and the Confederation, is that the People of a state-- rather than the state government-- ratified the federal Constitution, and delegated power to the federal government, and elected federal delegates; therefore, the federal government could act on its own authority, rather than through the authority of the state government's consent or authority (as was the case with the prior Confederation of 1781).
That's IT. The Constitution did not form the states into a single nation-- again, it simply placed federal choice of federal delegates directly in the hands of the People of each state, rather than their government.
Since Lincoln, however, history has been distorted to claim that the states did form one nation, either by ratifying the Constitution, or beforehand; and as a result, the People of the states serve the federal government, rather than the other way around-- despite all talk to the contrary, by which Lincoln simply deceived the ignorant by claiming to "obey the People--" despite doing everything in his power to destroy their authority through force, terror and censorship.
And thus, today we still have the myth of "government of the people, by the people and for the people--" despite that the people have NO power to alter or abolish their government-- rather than simply choosing certain members of its staff... and only at prescribed intervals.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
