Replies

Just for fun, show me how in any way any state (except for Texas and Hawaii) ever exercised soveriegnty prior to ratification of the Constitution. Was there ever a South Carolina foreign minister or a treaty between Massachusetts and a foreign country or any state law? Did any state under the Confederation or during the Revolution ever claim to be a country independent of the other states? Reasoned historical analysis shows that the Continental Congress preceded the formation of state governments independent of the British Crown, which was done actually in response from an appeal by Congress.

But enough. Your definition of sovereignty changes to suit the various points you are trying to make, which, as should be pointed out, contradict every law, Supreme Court decision, and presidential action since ratification of the Constitution. So, I am not going to waste my time arguing with you, since your argument is really with every sane American who ever lived. You are a cultist who cannot expect patriots to waste any more time on you.

From the time of the Declaration, every State exercised sovereignty. You are confusing acting in consort, followed by the adoption of a Confederation, to continue to act is consort, for strength in their foreign policy dealings, with acting as sovereign. The Federal Government, even after the Constitution, exercised almost no sovereign rights, except in the territories. The States, themselves, retained virtually complete rights of self-government, in all areas, not specifically delegated to the Federal Agency.

You can try to rationalize away both the explicit letter of the formulating documents, and the practical history, but the truth is there, for all to see.

Do you think that Britain gave up her soverignty, by working in concert with us during World War II--she did put her forces under Eisenhower in Europe. Do we give up sovereignty by entering into a mutual defense treaty with other Nations? Surely the gravamen to the question, is who exercises direct power over the people of the State or Nation, not what agencies they set up with other States or Nations to accomplish common purposes.

Again, there was virtually no direct control by the Federal Government, over the ordinary affairs of the citizens of the respective States, prior to the War in 1861 - 1865. The States agreed, by ratifying the Constitution, that they would respect each other's laws, and abstain from certain actions; but they retained the right to define what was legal in the day to day activities of their peoples--i.e. the Police Power, which is the basic foundation of soverignty.

Just in defining themselves as States, not as provinces, they claimed the status of sovereign Nations. (The only difference between the concept of a state and nation, is that you basically need to have sovereignty over a particular geographic domain, to be a State, whereas you can be a Nation, without a permanent domain, as witness some of the Indian Nations.)

My earlier post but gave some of the more obvious documentry references, which absolutely negate your silly argument. The Constitution is full of others--as is the Bill of Rights, as are the XIth & XIIth Amendments.

Simply refusing to acknowledge the plain meaning of legal terms, does not give you an argument. Nor does your fanatical pursuit of the denial of self-Government to your fellow Americans, recommend you for your "tolerance" of other viewpoints.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site