Yes, sovereignty is vested in people by our Creator. Unfortunately for your theory of legislative democracy, our form of government includes the sovereign states acting as the first level of government to whom the peoples' sovereignty is delegated. In our form of government, the states are the agents of the people and the federal government is given its limited sovereign powers by the states, not by the people. The United States as established in our Constitution was created by action of the states, not by a homogenous mass of people.
For that reason, a state, or several states can reverse Roe v Wade by simple legislative action. That is how our system is designed. There is no process in the Constitution whereby the people may act independently of their states to effect change in the federal government.
So, you're admitting that we don't agree at all. That makes your aggrieved tone in the earlier post simple histrionics. I'm in the habit of speaking plainly. That you call my manner of response a personal attack doesn't make it so. Let's be men, shall we? This boohooing over who slung snot is silly.
Such a simple world. In the real world, men of good will can disagree about the powers granted by the Constitution. They did so disagree from the beginning, and they continue to so disagree. Self-government involves the question of what to do when men of good will disagree.
Yes, sovereignty is vested in people by our Creator. Unfortunately for your theory of legislative democracy, our form of government includes the sovereign states acting as the first level of government to whom the peoples' sovereignty is delegated. In our form of government, the states are the agents of the people and the federal government is given its limited sovereign powers by the states, not by the people. The United States as established in our Constitution was created by action of the states, not by a homogenous mass of people.
It is simply not clear that the people granted sovereignty entire to the states, who then pass on a portion to the government of the Union. The process of ratification did eschew treating the people as a "homogenous mass," but this does not demonstrate that what the people "consolidated into states" did was other than the delegation of a portion of their sovereignty directly to their national instrument.
For that reason, a state, or several states can reverse Roe v Wade by simple legislative action. That is how our system is designed.
That's the nullifying account of things, no doubt. And when the State of California exceeds the powers I delegated to it, I can simply inform it of this, and ignore the law, I presume. It's a simple enough doctrine on paper. It's called anarchy.
There is no process in the Constitution whereby the people may act independently of their states to effect change in the federal government.
True enough, as I recall. And far short of a demonstration that there is not federal authority established and modified by such procedures which exercises its sovereign authority directly on the people.
So, you're admitting that we don't agree at all. That makes your aggrieved tone in the earlier post simple histrionics. I'm in the habit of speaking plainly. That you call my manner of response a personal attack doesn't make it so. Let's be men, shall we? This boohooing over who slung snot is silly.
I was trying to acknowledge agreement at least with your most recent post, abstracting from the insults. But braced by your manly virtue, I resolve to sling no more snot, nor cry over it once spilt.