"There were no sovereigns in these states, as they were comprised of free men, each his own 'sovereign'."
You are confusing the meaning of sovereign as it applies to individuals (ie; Kings) and sovereign as it applies to nations. The states were in fact sovereign - meaning independent governing entities |
"The Constitution has been the supreme law of Fed, State, & local governments since ratification."
Only supreme in the areas allowed by the constitution itself. Under the 10th amendment all rights not specifically delegated to the federal government were reserved to the states or the people. This is the essence of the problem
"The feds have no more power over the State/local governments than the Constitution allows."
Au Contraire. The feds have usurped massive amounts of power from the states and the people. The constitution was a LIMIT on federal power. Now it has become an allowance of power.
"They don't, because the political system is totally corrupted by national politics."
No - The reason the states don't refuse unconstitutional edicts is because Lincoln established the precedent that might makes right. The constitution has come to allow whatever the federal gvt (and the courts) says it allows.
The whole concept is turned on it's head.
The constitution as it was originally established was a voluntary union between sovereign nations known as "states"
No, the constitution as it was originally established was a voluntary union between former English colonies known as "States". There were no sovereigns in these states, as they were comprised of free men, each his own 'sovereign'.
You are confusing the meaning of sovereign as it applies to individuals (ie; Kings) and sovereign as it applies to nations.
Not at all. Under our Constitution, the people are sovereign, not the nation.
The states were in fact sovereign - meaning independent governing entities.
The People of States joined the union, and agreed to accept the US Constitution as their supreme law. They granted no 'sovereign' powers to their States. Quite the opposite. Both State & Federal powers are limited, as the 10th makes clear.
___________________________________
The Constitution has been the supreme law of Fed, State, & local governments since ratification.
The feds have no more power over the State/local governments than the Constitution allows.
Only supreme in the areas allowed by the constitution itself.
Yep , that's what I wrote.
Under the 10th amendment all rights not specifically delegated to the federal government were reserved to the states or the people. This is the essence of the problem.
One 'problem' is that you refuse to acknowledge that some powers were prohibited to States. Namely, States cannot infringe upon our rights to life, liberty or property, without due process.
______________________________________
--- Any State could prove that [the feds have limited powers] by simply refusing to obey unconstitutional federal edicts.
Au Contraire. The feds have usurped massive amounts of power from the states and the people. The constitution was a LIMIT on federal power. Now it has become an allowance of power.
Strange comment. -- You haven't made a contrary point.. Essentially, we're in agreement.
______________________________________
They [States] don't, because the political system is totally corrupted by national politics.
No - The reason the states don't refuse unconstitutional edicts is because Lincoln established the precedent that might makes right. The constitution has come to allow whatever the federal gvt (and the courts) says it allows.
The whole concept is turned on it's head.
Nope, -- your are standing on your head to see it from a 'States rights' POV.
A 'free state' concept would work. The feds could not jail a whole State for refusing to obey unconstitutional edicts on gun control, for instance.