The sovereignty of the States isn't "absolute", which implies "absolved" -- obviously, there are contractual obligations which individuals must obey (remember, the federal Constitution operates, as Hamilton and Madison were at pains to point out, on individuals, the chief remedy for the defects of the Articles of Confederation). Likewise, the States have agreed to refrain from certain activities, such as emitting money or drawing treaties either with one another or with foreign states.
So to say, that the States and the individuals composing the People are obliged by the Constitution, is not to say that they have changed their condition or their qualities in any respect, and that they are now no longer what they were, but only departments and subjects, vassals, of a created greater entity now exalted above them all. Rather, the People are still the undoubted Absolute Master of the States both singularly and in Union, and of the Constitution, and of the Union and Government that the Constitution created. The whole shooting match, in other words.
What I do claim for the People is all the powers of an absolute monarch, all of the rights, and all of the prerogatives, perquisites, and precedence. That includes all the powers delegated to the federal government -- just because I move a $20 bill from my right pocket to my left, doesn't mean I don't own it any more and can't spend it as I please. In like manner, the People of a State can resume their powers and go their own way at any time. The advisability of doing so is one thing, and completely political, but the ability of doing so is quite another, and in no doubt cast by the terms of the Constitution, which is the People's creature just as much as their individual States.
Bingo. Georgia is sovereign over Georgia, Texas is sovereign over Texas, ditto for New York et al.
No state SURRENDERED anything, they agreed to not exercise certain powers whilst they were members of the federal union.
There was no power granted to the federal government to compel a state, that notion was defeated twice during debates.
The Supreme Court ruled several times that the federal government cannot force a state to comply.
The framers stated that the states could use their militias against the federal army to prevent tyranny!
The motion to consolidate the people into one amalgamated body failed to receive a second.
The motion by Madison to grant federal power to prevent secession was voted down 8-3.
Now the pecksniffs advert that Lincoln was simply using the militia/army to ensure that the laws of the federal government be enforced. Yet none of them ever berates Lincoln (or any other President) for failing to enforce fugitive laws, or for the failure of the President to defend Texas from native American attacks. The President never sent troops to Massachusetts to force Gov. Caleb Strong to send militia unit to support the war. The Federalist party opposed that war, 8 of 10 New England Senators voted against war (nothing has changed), 34 of 36 House Federalists signed 'An Address of Members of the House of Representatives, of the Congress of the United States, to their constituents, on the subject of the War with Great Britain' opposing war. Why didn't the President, if he had the power, send troops to Massachusetts to cause the law to be upheld?
Possibly because the only LEGAL method of intervention was at the request of the governor or state legislature? Buehler ... Buehler ...
A freedom of political association that must await the Government's favorable response to a "Mother, may I?" is no freedom of political association at all.He understands 'sovereignty'. Wish we had more like him and Thomas.