That's a false dichotomy -- in fact our Founders intended a blend allowing as much sovereignty to states as possible, while assuming only as much national leadership as necessary.
That is ridiculous. Being a little bit sovereign is like being a little bit pregnant. You either are or you ain't.
Under the "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia," created by the Founders, it was stated at Article II that "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." Under Article III is was maintained, "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other...."
When the king ceased to be the sovereign, the State governments did not become the sovereign. The People became the sovereigns. The People exercised their sovereignty as political communities organized as States. The People of each State creted a State government to serve them.
The People were the sovereigns under the Articles and the People are the sovereigns today. In an exercise of their sovereignty, the People threw out the Articles and that government with THIRTEEN member States, and adopted the Constitution and formed a new government with ELEVEN member states, Rhode Island and North Carolina not included in the new union as they had not ratified the Constitution when Washington was inaugurated.
The People did not delegate sovereignty to the Federal and State governments. They delegated powers. All power resides with the sovereign. The sovereign delegates such powers as seen fit by the sovereign.
The Federal government has been delegated certain powers and others have been withheld. Each State government has been delegated certain powers by the sovereigns of each individual State, resulting in different powers being delegated to different States.
For a difference in Federal and State powers, and among the several States, currently clearly on display is the internal police power within the States. The power was deliberately withheld from the Federal government. The power resides with the State governments to the extent the People of each State have chosen. The People of each State independently determine their own delegation of their sovereign power to their State government. Each State constitution is the expressed will of that political community only.
A sovereign is answerable to no higher power. The king is a sovereign. The people are sovereigns. The government, State or Federal, is not a sovereign. Exercising their sovereignty, the People can amend the Federal Constitution and reverse any ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court or any act of the Federal Congress. Neither the Federal Congress, nor the U.S. Supreme Court, has the lawful power to overturn or amend anything in the Constitution as it was issued by a higher power.
The sovereign People are organized as political communities called States. They exercise their sovereign powers as States. The States who are the members of the Union are the political communities, not the State governments.
That the Federal government is not sovereign is evident in that it can grant itself no new power. It lacks authority to either amend the Constitution, or to pass a law repugnant to the Constitution. With the Bill of Rights, the People set limits on the authority of the Federal government. Likewise, with the 14th Amendment, the people extended limits upon the State governments.
The Constitution existed before the Federal government. It set limits on who was eligible to be President. Neither the Federal nor State governments can add any requirement, or eliminate or change any requirement. The Constitution was issued by a higher power, the sovereign, before there was any Federal government. The Federal government exists at the pleasure of the People, to serve the people.
As the powers of the Federal and State governments are delegated powers, if those governments are sovereigns, one must ask, delegated by whom?
our Founders intended
Our Founders/Framers stated:
- - - - - - - - - -
Federalist IX.
[Hamilton.]
“So far are the suggestions of Montesquieu from standing in opposition to a general union of the states, that he explicitly treats of a Confederate Republic as the expedient for extending the sphere of popular government and reconciling the advantages of monarchy with those of republicanism.
“It is very probable says be, that mankind would have been obliged at length, to live constantly under the government of a Single Person, had they not contrived a kind of constitution, that has all the internal advantages of a republican, together with the external force of a monarchical government. I mean a Confederate Republic.
‘“This form of government is a convention, by which several smaller states agree to become members of a larger one, which they intend to form. It is a kind of assemblage of societies, that constitute a new one, capable of increasing by means of new associations, till they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of the united body.
“‘A republic of this kind, able to withstand an external force, may support itself without any internal corruption. The form of this society prevents all manner of inconveniences.
‘“If a single member should attempt to usurp the supreme authority, he could not be supposed to have equal authority and credit in all the confederate states. ...
“‘Should a popular insurrection happen in one of the confederate states, the others are able to quell. Should abuses creep into one part, they are reformed by those that remain sound. The state may be destroyed on the one side, and not on the other; the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty.
“‘As this government is composed of small republics it enjoys the internal happiness of each; and, with respect to its external situation, it is possessed, by means of the association, of all the advantages of large monarchies." [Spirit of Laws, Book IX. Ch. I.]
I have thought it proper to quote at length these interesting passages, because they contain a luminous abridgment of the principal arguments in favor of the union, and must effectually remove the false impressions which a misapplication of the other parts of the work was calculated to produce. . . .
The definition of a confederate republic seems simply to be “an assemblage of societies," or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects, of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organisation of the members be not abolished, so long as it subsists by a constitutional necessity for local purposes, though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. . ."
- - - - - - - - - -
Federalist XXXIX.
[Madison.]
"The last paper having concluded the observations, which were meant to introduce a candid survey of the plan of government reported by the convention, we now proceed to the execution of that part of our undertaking.
The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government is strictly republican? It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible. . . .
“First. In order to ascertain the real charaoter of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.
“On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent states to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several states, derived from the supreme authority in each state — the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the constitution, will not be a national, but a federal act.
“That it will be a federal, and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors, the act of the people, as forming so many independent states, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the union, nor from that of a majority of the states. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several states that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each state must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the states, as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each state, in ratifying the constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."
- - - - - - - - - -
Federalist XLV.
[Madison.]
“The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments, are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation, will for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state. . . "
- - - - - - - - - -
Federalist XLVI
[Madison.]
“The federal and state governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes. The adversaries of the constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether, in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior, in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told, that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone; ...”
- - - - - - - - - -