When referring to the sovereign states, I am referring to the citizens of the state collectively.
That definition applies equally well to the concept of the federal "state".
The Framers instituted the concept of dual sovereignty as a system of shared authority between federal and state governments with each sovereign checking the other. As with the concept of shared powers between the three branches of federal government it was designed to provide balance between the interests of the state sovereigns and the federal sovereign.
Here's a simple test. Let's see who is subordinate and who is supreme:
Suppose the state of Arizona wants to declare war on Mexico (I can't that I would blame them). Do they have an unfettered right to proceed?
Let's say that the state of Tennessee has gotten tired of mitigating flood damage from the Mississippi River and starts building embankments that ensures that any flood waters will drain into Arkansas instead. Who would be the final arbiter of that dispute?
The state of Illinois decides that they want to aggregate more power so they devise a scheme to subdivide their state into three pieces. Can they of their own volition complete this action?
In each of these examples there is an authority that is superior to that of the individual states. The agents of that authority are divided between the President, Congress, and the Judicial branch of the federal government. I recognize that it is problematic, especially with the chronic desire of leftists toward overreach. And you are correct that the intent was for balance between the sovereigns, but with the power of the federal sovereign being divided among the representatives of the individual states.
The Federal government was never meant to be “supreme” over the states
The United States Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2 says otherwise:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Shared powers is not the same as shared sovereignty. Sovereignty will always reside in the people as represented by their sovereign states. States can delegate power but not sovereignty. You can see an example of this with the European Union. The member states have delegated certain powers to the Union, but they cannot delegate their sovereignty (Although certain big-government liberals would like to persuade people that this is possible).
Can Arizona declare war? While a member of the Union it cannot, as it has delegated this particular power to Congress. However if Arizona were ever to leave the Union, it would reassume its power to do so.
Disputes between states is another issue in which power has been delegated to Congress. You are trying to claim that this makes the Federal government superior, but I beg to disagree. Remember the states delegated powers to the Federal government, and you don't delegate to superiors, only to inferiors or equals. The Federal government in the aforementioned cases is acting as an agent of the states and at times an equal, but not a master.
Btw, as I told BroJoeK, I don't really have time for further discussions on these matters (my discussions with him have been especially long) due to working several jobs and if there is any further disagreement on this thread we will just have to agree to disagree. Hope you understand. :-) Have a nice rest of your weekend.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The federal government is an agent created by the states. It is not itself a state (although today it is treated like one). "
Our FRiend DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis wants us to believe that even though the Constitution, laws & treaties of the United States are "supreme", the various states remain "sovereign."
In fact, that's a distinction -- regardless of how elaborately presented -- without a meaning.
In practical terms: with authority goes sovereignty, and so the US Constitution transfers some "sovereignty" from states to the Federal Government.
The only real issue is: "how much sovereignty?"
On a scale of one to ten, our Founders intended perhaps a two or a three, while today's sad condition is eight or nine.
Our pro-Confederates like to claim "this was all Lincoln's fault", or better yet, such "big government" Federalists as wicked Alexander Hamilton.
And their attack on Hamilton -- I think -- gives away their game, because those "Founders" who most strongly opposed Hamilton, also voted "no" for ratifying the Constitution in the first place.
They were, literally, "anti-Federalists", meaning opposed to the Constitution, meaning they were not actual Founders.
They were the anti-Founders, who eventually became Southern Fire-Eaters, Confederates and today's pro-Confederates.
They never liked the Constitution to begin with, and still don't.
Which is fine, in a sense, whatever floats their boats, let them make their case.
But it's key for us to understand that they are not "conservatives", because they don't want to "conserve" the Constitution.
Instead, they are radical anti-Constitution-ists who wish to overthrow what the Constitution was intended to mean, even by our actual Founders.