Were the States Sovereign Nations?

LewRockwell.com ^ | April 20, 2004 | Brian McCandliss

[sheltonmac]

*ping*

[Hanging Chad]

"Were the States Sovereign Nations?"
- - -
Yeah, but "were" ain't the same as "are".
200 years of Federalism have seen to that.

[stoney]

So many people compain about the words "under God" in the Pledge. I would be willing to support removing the words if the proper words would be inserted to read, "... one nation, of the several states, indivisible,..."

[Morgan in Denver]

I believe the author has failed to expand his education to include an understanding gained from the historical aspect, and need, for both the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers.

[good_ole_texas_boy]

I would like to see what further rebuttal this has . I'm sure there's a considerable amount.

[William Terrell]

I believe the author has failed to expand his education to include an understanding gained from the historical aspect, and need, for both the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers.

How do you mean?

[4CJ]

Spot on - he nailed it. Anyone reading the debates and Federalist Papers clearly sees that the delegates were intent on preserving their state and it's sovereignty. Even John Marshall stated such in the Virginia debates that what was delegated could be taken back if necessary. Hamilton and Madison both observed that a Bill of Rights would only apply to the federal government.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Interesting topic bump. Admittedly I'm a novice on the concept, but conceptually, I don't see how states wouldn't have a "right" of secession. "When in the course of human events" and all . . .

On a related note, I believe a ski town in Vermont has recently voted to secede from that state and join New Hampshire.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

The Articles of Confederation clearly have a level of autonomy for each State involved. The level of autonomy in the Constitution is much less (although more than Lincoln allowed).

This again shows the true beliefs of those who are on the extremes of the Conservative movement. They are the same beliefs as Patrick Henry, that the Constitution itself is a tyrannical document. Those on the far fringes of the right do not want us to return to the intent of the founders and the Constitution. They want to return to the Articles of Confederation and local rule before those rascals of Adams, Hamilton, and Washington shackeled us with that anti-liberty Constitution.

[Morgan in Denver]

Agreed. Seldom mentioned is the Bill of Rights being necessary for the Constitution's ratification. Nor do people read and understand the Federalist Papers explanations of "one" nation versus the then current "confederations" of states. Papers 3 through 14 I think. Or, for over a period of more than a year and a half as the Federalist Papers were printed to explain and sell the constitution to the country. And, I'm sure there is more.

[Morgan in Denver]

Sorry. I was typing while you were posting. Please see number 11 for a couple of examples.

[Feckless]

Without a doubt, Texas was at the time we joined the US.

[PaxMacian]

I was told that Texas has a clause in its state constitution providing for secession. Does anyone have data on that?

[sheltonmac]

They want to return to the Articles of Confederation and local rule before those rascals of Adams, Hamilton, and Washington shackeled us with that anti-liberty Constitution.

Well, the antifederalists would certainly have a good case based on our history up to this point. Just look at how tyrannical the government has become under the guise of a constitutional republic.

[William Terrell]

Before the war, the electorate was defined in each state, according to the state constitution. Determining the electorate in a representative republic is the single criteria of sovereignty, don't you think?

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

If you think we live in a tyrannical country, I invite you to move elsewhere and return with a much changed opinion. Our Constitution has kept us free and safe when the rest of the world has dealt with 200+ years of turmoil and oppression.

Haiti right now has no government, maybe you will feel free and liberated down there.

[Morgan in Denver]

Before the war, I think you're right. Although I do not remember the dates of the original thirteen colonies constitutions being signed. Nor am I certain that all thirteen states had a constitution.

My point was the original concepts of using a confederation versus one nation was discussed extensively in the Federalist Papers; argued and then won by the concept of having one nation.

The constitution writers considered under God as a premise so accepted that nobody thought the concept should have needed confirmation nor explanation.

I would agree with you as to the people, being citizens, as sovereign of the state (ninth and tenth amendments).

[Protagoras]

Our Constitution has kept us free and safe when the rest of the world has dealt with 200+ years of turmoil and oppression.

Free and safe from what?

[Protagoras]

If you think we live in a tyrannical country, I invite you to move elsewhere and return with a much changed opinion.

Grading on the curve is usually a liberal practice.