Southern history and the truth

[ReillyT]

OK...

Given that the states -can- dissolve the union w/o any input or consent from the federal government, and that the states -can- add and remove federal powers (and thus, laws) without any input or consent from the federal government, how can you be right, and how can the states NOT be sovereign?

I don't think that the states can add or removal federal power without the input/consent of the federal government. States can change the constitution, but they can only do according to the procedures found in the Constitution which form the basis of the contract with the federal government. This was a power ceded to the states against the federal government when the compact was written. It is part of the initial contract. The states are not completely sovereign. They are only sovereign in their spheres.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't think that the states can add or removal federal power without the input/consent of the federal government. States can change the constitution, but they can only do according to the procedures found in the Constitution which form the basis of the contract with the federal government.

And the states can amend the constitution without the federal government -- the entitly created by the constition, anbd thus a party to same, under your argument -- having any input whatsoever, or having any legal way to stop them. Thus, they have the ability to change the contract without all parties of that contract giving their consent.

The states are not completely sovereign. They are only sovereign in their spheres.

They have the right and the plenary power to amend the powers that they gave the Federal government at will. Thus, sovereign.

 

[Rogue 9]

Then you agree with my position that the states are sovereign.
Thank you.

An individual state is not; the Union, which is the joining of the states, is. This is not a difficult concept. If an individual state was sovereign, then it would take only one state to amend the Constitution, not a large supermajority.

 

[M14 Shooter]

An individual state is not; the Union, which is the joining of the states, is. This is not a difficult concept. If an individual state was sovereign, then it would take only one state to amend the Constitution, not a large supermajority.

Your argument noted that the federal government was sovereign.
It is not, as you have agreed.

 

[nukeman]

An individual state is not; the Union, which is the joining of the states, is. This is not a difficult concept. If an individual state was sovereign, then it would take only one state to amend the Constitution, not a large supermajority.

EACH state has the ability to determine as to whether or not they will SUPPORT the federal gov't. So if an individual state decides the Federal gov't is not representing them they can "choose" to change the way they interact with the Feds so YES they are in essence sovereign!

 

[ReillyT]

And the states can amend the constitution without the federal government -- the entitly created by the constition, anbd thus a party to same, under your argument -- having any input whatsoever, or having any legal way to stop them. Thus, they have the ability to change the contract without all parties of that contract giving their consent.

No, the federal government gave their consent to changes of this nature in the first instance. If 10 people form a contract, and it provides that the contract can be amended if any 9 of them agree, then if it is amended, it is because the 10th person consented to amending it when he/she signed the initial contract. It is just one more right given up at the outset.

They have the right and the plenary power to amend the powers that they gave the Federal government at will. Thus, sovereign.

They are only sovereign within their sphere. They do not have complete sovereignty. They gave a portion of their sovereignty up when they joined the union. There are plenty of things the states are not allowed to legislate on (or do) without federal consent. If they had complete sovereignty, they would not be beholden to the federal government in any way.

 

[ReillyT]

EACH state has the ability to determine as to whether or not they will SUPPORT the federal gov't. So if an individual state decides the Federal gov't is not representing them they can "choose" to change the way they interact with the Feds so YES they are in essence sovereign!

They can't choose to change the way they interact with the federal government in the sense that they are completely sovereign. When Alabama (I think it was Alabama) decided it wasn't going to enforce Brown, Federal troops ensured that they did. Each state is bound by the Constitution that they signed.

 

[Rogue 9]

Your argument noted that the federal government was sovereign.
It is not, as you have agreed.

Except it is. The federal government is the governing body of the Union. You're drawing a dichotomy where none exists.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They can't choose to change the way they interact with the federal government in the sense that they are completely sovereign.

"Completely" soverign v "ultimately" sovereign.
Compare and contrast.

 

[ReillyT]

"Completely" soverign v "ultimately" sovereign.
Compare and contrast.

Okay. They are ultimately sovereign in their spheres.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except it is. The federal government is the governing body of the Union.

The federal government can be changed and/or eliminated, at will, by the states, without it being able to do anything about it. Any sovereignty that the Federal government may have is situational and exists at the whim of the states.
Thus, the states are sovereign.

 

[Rogue 9]

You know, all this about the amendment process is totally irrelevant. Even if it means the federal government isn't sovereign at all (I contend it does not), it still takes three quarters of the states to agree to an amendment; if this is your argument for state sovereignty, then we can conclude that the states are not sovereign unless three quarters of them exercise their sovereignty in concert. Thus, it should take no less than three quarters of the states to agree to a secession.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You know, all this about the amendment process is totally irrelevant. Even if it means the federal government isn't sovereign at all (I contend it does not)

Given the plenary and unlimited power of the states to change and/or eliminate the federal government, how is it even possible that the states are not ultimately sovereign over the federal government.

it still takes three quarters of the states to agree to an amendment if this is your argument for state sovereignty, then we can conclude that the states are not sovereign unless three quarters of them exercise their sovereignty in concert.

No one has argued any differently.

Thus, it should take no less than three quarters of the states to agree to a secession.

Non-sequitur.

 

[Rogue 9]

Let's turn this on its head. What if some of the other states decided in concert to eject one of the states from the Union against that state's will. Would you agree that they were right to make that decision and that they had the power to compel the other state to leave?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's turn this on its head

Because you can't argue otherwise?

What if some of the other states decided in concert to eject one of the states from the Union against that state's will. Would you agree that they were right to make that decision and that they had the power to compel the other state to leave?

Amendment XXVIII
California is ejected from the Union.

Right or wrong? Doesn't really matter, as the power clearly exists.

 

[Rogue 9]

I can't help but note that every single argument you're putting forth uses the amendment mechanism, so if the amendment mechanism is the entire basis for your argument, why should it not have been used in 1860-61? And if it didn't have to be used then, why would it have to be used to eject a state from the Union?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can't help but note that every single argument you're putting forth uses the amendment mechanism, so if the amendment mechanism is the entire basis for your argument, why should it not have been used in 1860-61?

Because the argument for the legitimate right to secession is based on the 10th amendment.

And if it didn't have to be used then, why would it have to be used to eject a state from the Union?

That should be obvious - there is no inherent mechanism for ejecting a state. The right to remain a state is covered by the 10th.

 

[Rogue 9]

Because the argument for the legitimate right to secession is based on the 10th amendment.

I note that the 10th Amendment also reserves powers to the people. You may wish to remember that; it seems you treat it as exclusively applying to state governments.

That should be obvious - there is no inherent mechanism for ejecting a state. The right to remain a state is covered by the 10th.

Of course there is - according to your argument, anyway. The other states are simply seceding from the one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I note that the 10th Amendment also reserves powers to the people. You may wish to remember that; it seems you treat it as exclusively applying to state governments.

Given the context of the conversation, why does that matter?

Of course there is - according to your argument, anyway.

No, not according to my argument.

 

[Rogue 9]

Okay, explain this. If one state can summarily secede from the whole, why can the whole not remove one state by the same logic, i.e. seceding from it?