[downtownconservative]

“As Ronald Reagan would say in his first inaugural address over a century later, “the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.”

This subtle distinction is an important aspect of State sovereignty. The United States was founded on the ideals that federal power could be challenged by the states.”

Lincoln overlooked the fact that the states had formed a voluntary agreement and did not have the ability to surrender their sovereignty...to a centralized power.”

I found this excerpt to be quite interesting/thought-provoking. Imagine “sovereign states”. Puts a whole new light on the subject of federal power.

[Tublecane]

“Imagine ‘sovereign states’”

I can’t imagine the states being anything but sovereign. If they weren’t, why would it have been necessary to consult them before the Constitution became law.

Ultimately, however, sovereignty must reside with the individual. States cannot violate the rights of individuals any more than the federal government can overstep the prerogatives of the states.

I tend to view the Southern successionist cause as less of a legal thing than a matter of revolution. If you believe in the right of revolution, in the right of the people to violently oppose the government when it becomes destructive of their liberty, I don’t see any reason why you can’t believe in the right of states to revolt. Especially if you’re on the patriots’ side in the Revolutionary War. What was that but the states (/colonies) exercising their right to revolution?

Then again, the prevailing power has as much a right to defend itself as we have a right to revolt. One man’s revolution is another man’s treason.