LOki
The Yaweh of Mischief
- Mar 26, 2006
- 4,084
- 359
- 85
I think that's doing a bit of contortion. Article IV, Section 4 states "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence".
Point taken. I would rather consider "The States" to be considered more consistently as an expression of the political collective of certain peoples--however, I think the point of the Constitution was to not dictate to the form of that expression within the geographical jurisdiction of each state, but to make guarantees to The People which comprised each state.
It seems to me that "state" is viewed as a separate entity, separate from its "people" or "government". I think that's what they're saying. Of course, there may be caselaw construing it differently. I don't know offhand.
I'm saying I think that's what they're saying.
<blockquote><i>"[A state] describes sometimes a people or community of individuals united more or less closely in political relations, inhabiting temporarily or permanently the same country; often it denotes only the country or territorial region, inhabited by such a community; not unfrequently it is applied to the government under which the people live; at other times, it represents the combined idea of people, territory, and government.I think that might be reading too much into it, unless I'm missing what you're referring to.
It is not difficult to see that, in all these senses, the primary conception is that of a people or community. The people, in whatever territory dwelling, either temporarily or permanently, and whether organized under a regular government, or united by looser and less definite relations, constitute the state."</i></blockquote>
I think it just views the States as a separate entity in the same manner that a corporation is a separate entity under the law. But yes, there is a distinction between "the States" and "the people".
I think they are saying that the primary conception of a state is that of a people or community.
Yes. But they also implied that any breaking away would be construed as being tantamount to treason.
Except through consent of the States.
Yes... but all? Or some? I would think it would have to be unanimous.
How often is unanimous consent required? Why not 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States, like the much more weighty Amendment process?
I think the States have rights as discussed above.
Sure, if we are referring to them sub-sets of the People, otherwise not.
I disagree... except with agreement of all the other states.
That's all the exception I require.