Sovereignty would, Liar. However asserted.
Ah there's no bullshit artist quite like a Southron bullshit artist. Your squawk "Sovereignty" would trump the rule of law and the rights of ownership? South Carolina says, "It's mine" and presto-changeo it becomes their's, is that how it works? What a time saver! So we really didn't need a treaty for the Panama canal after all. All Panama really had to do was say "Sovereignty" and the U.S. would have had to get out on the double. Sure wasted their time with the Senate and all, didn't they? And if Cuba tomorrow pointed to Gitmo and said "Sovereignty! Get out!" you'd head down there to help with the packing, wouldn't you? Sure would cause a stir, what with all the A-rabs held there and all. But hey, sovereignty trumps all. Lentulusgracchus says so.
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Here we are,the good part... _____
Attn._NonSequitur
It has been observed, to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single state This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts, or any large state, should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those states which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself — a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government.
But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible. Mr. HAMILTON didn't foresee the hostile takeover by Dishonest Abe.