6 ms·

American States are not sovereign entities. We fought an entire war over that.

by k33n 14d ago

ericmay 14d ago
American states are sovereign entities. This is very well understood in Constitutional law, albeit a little confusing for the laymen as the common understanding of sovereignty would be something like, well France is sovereign because it has an army and it conducts trade and all of those sorts of sovereign things. But US states are sovereign entities who have, effectively, joined together to delegate some of their sovereign activities to a federal body (which has increased in power over the years) for the common good. They are very tightly bound to the federal government, but these matters don't refute their sovereignty. It's one of the reasons, maybe the primary one, for the US Senate - it's a vote of sovereignty by any individual state so that states with higher populations don't simply dictate rules to states with lower levels of population. Lower population states wouldn't have agreed to delegate some of their sovereign rights without some mechanism to not be run over by populists. 10th/11th Amendment
- k33n 14d ago
  No, US States are not sovereign entities. They have no ability to conduct independent international diplomacy. They do not have independent militaries, and they have no right to secede. The supremacy clause (article 7) makes it clear that states cannot override federal law. With the way you’re characterizing the idea of sovereignty, every entity in the world is semi-sovereign. But sovereignty isn’t a spectrum. An entity is either sovereign or it’s not.
  - otterley 14d ago
    U.S. states are sovereign entities despite these limitations. See, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/706/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/706/ "Although the Constitution establishes a National Government with broad, often plenary authority over matters within its recognized competence, the founding document "specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities." Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, supra, at 71, n. 15; accord, Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775, 779 (1991) ("[T]he States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact"). Various textual provisions of the Constitution assume the States' continued existence and active participation in the fundamental processes of governance. See Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898, 919 (1997) (citing Art. III, § 2; Art. IV, §§ 2-4; Art. V). The limited and enumerated powers granted to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the National Government, moreover, underscore the vital role reserved to the States by the constitutional design, see, e. g., Art. I, § 8; Art. II, §§ 2-3; Art. III, § 2. Any doubt regarding the constitutional role of the States as sovereign entities is removed by the Tenth Amendment, which, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, was enacted to allay lingering concerns about the extent of the national power. The Amendment confirms the promise implicit in the original document: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." U. S. Const., Amdt. 10; see also Printz, supra, at 919; New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 156159, 177 (1992). The federal system established by our Constitution preserves the sovereign status of the States in two ways. First, it reserves to them a substantial portion of the N ation's primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status. The States "form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist No. 39, p. 245 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). "Second, even as to matters within the competence of the National Government, the constitutional design secures the founding generation's rejection of "the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States" in favor of "a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people who were, in Hamilton's words, 'the only proper objects of government.'" Printz, supra, at 919-920 (quoting The Federalist No. 15, at 109); accord, New York, supra, at 166 ("The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States"). In this the Founders achieved a deliberate departure from the Articles of Confederation: Experience under the Articles had "exploded on all hands" the "practicality of making laws, with coercive sanctions, for the States as political bodies." 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 9 (M. Farrand ed. 1911) (J. Madison); accord, The Federalist No. 20, at 138 (J. Madison and A. Hamilton); James Iredell: Some Objections to the Constitution Answered, reprinted in 3 Annals of America 249 (1976). "The States thus retain "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." The Federalist No. 39, at 245. They are not relegated to the role of mere provinces or political corporations, but retain the dignity, though not the full authority, of sovereignty."
    - k33n 14d ago
      This is a fine debate tactic — dumping a load of text without the proper context. But I’m not debating here. I’m plainly stating the fact that US states are not sovereign entities. In practical terms, there is no such thing as a semi-sovereign entity.
      - cowboylowrez 5d ago
        > the founding document "specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities." it was a small load of text easily digested, and the word "sovereign" is right there in it very early on. Your argument would be better accepted if you tossed in that you disagree with the characterization and have an opinion what YOU think sovereign entities are. Declarations of fact should only be used when what you are declaring is indeed a fact. >In practical terms, there is no such thing as a semi-sovereign entity. According to the text you're replying to, this is also untrue. In the future, I would recommend something like "while the 10th amendment talks about states being sovereign entities, in practical terms the federal government has jurisdiction over some matters involving states" or something like that. Its fine to voice opinions, but declaring your opinions "fact", well good luck with that hehehe
      - ericmay 14d ago
        Folks have provided great information. It's up to you to decide to accept the facts or continue to double down on your private worldview, but it won't serve you well to be ignorant of the facts here.
        deleted 14d ago
        [deleted]
        k33n 14d ago
        You and that other guy made good points from a constitutional law standpoint, don’t misunderstand my disagreement for dismissal of any kind. A legal term of art is often a bit different than the basic word itself. From a legal term of art perspective, I’m essentially referencing “absolute sovereignty”, which would more closely mirror the actual dictionary definition of sovereignty, as a basic, contextless word.
- jltsiren 14d ago
  US states are sovereign in the sense the term is understood in US constitutional law, but not in the sense used in international law and international politics. They would be autonomous subdivisions of a sovereign state in the latter sense. Sovereign states in the latter sense can delegate their powers to external entities (as they do in the EU), but they can also unilaterally choose to take that power back (as the UK did). The USSR was an interesting case when it comes to sovereignty. Legally its member republics were sovereign states, but that sovereignty meant little in practice. As a result of a weird compromise, Ukraine and Belarus were founding members of the UN, despite not being sovereign in the generally understood sense. There was a legal mechanism for secession, but in the end, the member republics ignored it and dissolved the union.

American States are not sovereign entities. We fought an entire war over that.

by k33n 14d ago

American States are not sovereign entities. We fought an entire war over that.

American states are sovereign entities. This is very well understood in Constitutional law, albeit a little confusing for the laymen as the common understanding of sovereignty would be something like, well France is sovereign because it has an army and it conducts trade and all of those sorts of sovereign things. But US states are sovereign entities who have, effectively, joined together to delegate some of their sovereign activities to a federal body (which has increased in power over the years) for the common good. They are very tightly bound to the federal government, but these matters don't refute their sovereignty. It's one of the reasons, maybe the primary one, for the US Senate - it's a vote of sovereignty by any individual state so that states with higher populations don't simply dictate rules to states with lower levels of population. Lower population states wouldn't have agreed to delegate some of their sovereign rights without some mechanism to not be run over by populists. 10th/11th Amendment

k33n 14d ago
No, US States are not sovereign entities. They have no ability to conduct independent international diplomacy. They do not have independent militaries, and they have no right to secede. The supremacy clause (article 7) makes it clear that states cannot override federal law. With the way you’re characterizing the idea of sovereignty, every entity in the world is semi-sovereign. But sovereignty isn’t a spectrum. An entity is either sovereign or it’s not.
- otterley 14d ago
  U.S. states are sovereign entities despite these limitations. See, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/706/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/706/ "Although the Constitution establishes a National Government with broad, often plenary authority over matters within its recognized competence, the founding document "specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities." Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, supra, at 71, n. 15; accord, Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775, 779 (1991) ("[T]he States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact"). Various textual provisions of the Constitution assume the States' continued existence and active participation in the fundamental processes of governance. See Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898, 919 (1997) (citing Art. III, § 2; Art. IV, §§ 2-4; Art. V). The limited and enumerated powers granted to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the National Government, moreover, underscore the vital role reserved to the States by the constitutional design, see, e. g., Art. I, § 8; Art. II, §§ 2-3; Art. III, § 2. Any doubt regarding the constitutional role of the States as sovereign entities is removed by the Tenth Amendment, which, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, was enacted to allay lingering concerns about the extent of the national power. The Amendment confirms the promise implicit in the original document: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." U. S. Const., Amdt. 10; see also Printz, supra, at 919; New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 156159, 177 (1992). The federal system established by our Constitution preserves the sovereign status of the States in two ways. First, it reserves to them a substantial portion of the N ation's primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status. The States "form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist No. 39, p. 245 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). "Second, even as to matters within the competence of the National Government, the constitutional design secures the founding generation's rejection of "the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States" in favor of "a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people who were, in Hamilton's words, 'the only proper objects of government.'" Printz, supra, at 919-920 (quoting The Federalist No. 15, at 109); accord, New York, supra, at 166 ("The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States"). In this the Founders achieved a deliberate departure from the Articles of Confederation: Experience under the Articles had "exploded on all hands" the "practicality of making laws, with coercive sanctions, for the States as political bodies." 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 9 (M. Farrand ed. 1911) (J. Madison); accord, The Federalist No. 20, at 138 (J. Madison and A. Hamilton); James Iredell: Some Objections to the Constitution Answered, reprinted in 3 Annals of America 249 (1976). "The States thus retain "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." The Federalist No. 39, at 245. They are not relegated to the role of mere provinces or political corporations, but retain the dignity, though not the full authority, of sovereignty."
  - k33n 14d ago
    This is a fine debate tactic — dumping a load of text without the proper context. But I’m not debating here. I’m plainly stating the fact that US states are not sovereign entities. In practical terms, there is no such thing as a semi-sovereign entity.
    - cowboylowrez 5d ago
      > the founding document "specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities." it was a small load of text easily digested, and the word "sovereign" is right there in it very early on. Your argument would be better accepted if you tossed in that you disagree with the characterization and have an opinion what YOU think sovereign entities are. Declarations of fact should only be used when what you are declaring is indeed a fact. >In practical terms, there is no such thing as a semi-sovereign entity. According to the text you're replying to, this is also untrue. In the future, I would recommend something like "while the 10th amendment talks about states being sovereign entities, in practical terms the federal government has jurisdiction over some matters involving states" or something like that. Its fine to voice opinions, but declaring your opinions "fact", well good luck with that hehehe
    - ericmay 14d ago
      Folks have provided great information. It's up to you to decide to accept the facts or continue to double down on your private worldview, but it won't serve you well to be ignorant of the facts here.
      - deleted 14d ago
        [deleted]
      - k33n 14d ago
        You and that other guy made good points from a constitutional law standpoint, don’t misunderstand my disagreement for dismissal of any kind. A legal term of art is often a bit different than the basic word itself. From a legal term of art perspective, I’m essentially referencing “absolute sovereignty”, which would more closely mirror the actual dictionary definition of sovereignty, as a basic, contextless word.
jltsiren 14d ago
US states are sovereign in the sense the term is understood in US constitutional law, but not in the sense used in international law and international politics. They would be autonomous subdivisions of a sovereign state in the latter sense. Sovereign states in the latter sense can delegate their powers to external entities (as they do in the EU), but they can also unilaterally choose to take that power back (as the UK did). The USSR was an interesting case when it comes to sovereignty. Legally its member republics were sovereign states, but that sovereignty meant little in practice. As a result of a weird compromise, Ukraine and Belarus were founding members of the UN, despite not being sovereign in the generally understood sense. There was a legal mechanism for secession, but in the end, the member republics ignored it and dissolved the union.