Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rustbucket
Where in your opinion does sovereignty ultimately reside? The king, the federal government, the state, the people of the state, the lumpen mass of the people of the whole country, individuals?

I think what Madison says is compatible with the idea of the Preamble that "We the People" hold ultimate sovreignty. As Madison states later in #39, the Constitution sets up a general government that is not wholly national or federal. This composite concept fits in with the divided sovereignty idea. The prevalent error today makes the general government into a fully sovereign national government, but the other extreme of fully sovereign state government is going too far in the other direction.

842 posted on 12/17/2010 7:11:59 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 833 | View Replies ]


To: Colonel Kangaroo
I think what Madison says is compatible with the idea of the Preamble that "We the People" hold ultimate sovreignty. As Madison states later in #39, the Constitution sets up a general government that is not wholly national or federal. This composite concept fits in with the divided sovereignty idea. The prevalent error today makes the general government into a fully sovereign national government, but the other extreme of fully sovereign state government is going too far in the other direction.

Thanks for your reply. Sorry to be so long in responding but I was out of town without a computer on a trip to see family. I've been slowly going back through my pings while celebrating Christmas back at home.

I see that we differ in our interpretation of where sovereignty ultimately resides. But differences of opinion are good. That's how we both learn and flesh out and defend our thoughts.

If the lumpen people of the whole are the ultimate sovereigns, how is it that Hamilton and Jay and the New York Ratification Convention said they could reassume their own governance and that that is consistent with the Constitution? The people of a state couldn't reassume their own governance unless the people of the state were thought to be the ultimate sovereigns.

In ancient Greek city-states, at least in a democracy like Athens, sovereignty was thought to ultimately reside in the male adults of the city-states who were not slaves. In the early United States during the writing of the Constitution, sovereignty was thought to ultimately reside to the separate peoples of the various states, not the lumpen people of the whole country. That is why ratification was submitted to the people in states, not to the populace of the whole country.

Here are some comments about the lumpen people by Justice Thomas (originally posted by 4CJ long ago).

"In addition, it would make no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation."
Justice Thomas, US Term Limits v Thornton, 514 US 779, (1995).

These days politicians like Hillary push for the end of the electoral college. This would, in effect, shift power from the peoples of the individual states to the lumpen mass of the people of the whole country. This would give corrupt political machines in large cities increased power in elections. No thanks. Our Founders were wise in not going that route.

876 posted on 12/25/2010 10:58:19 PM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 842 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson