There Is No "United States Government"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pity the folks in Washington have gotten the individual states so dependent on federal funding
Click to expand...

If a state seceded - the residents of said state would not have to pay a federal income tax or federal taxes of any nature.

I would think that would in fact
make up for the feds grant monies in a large part ?
 
More disingenuous offerings

Because as was pointed out it's a FEDERALIST form of government. Its creation did not eliminate the sovereign status of the several states or of the native tribes.
Click to expand...

False to the point of fatuous. The states CEASED to be sovereign the instant the Constitution was ratified, by the express terms of the document in question. It is "the Supreme law of the land." Art. VI; par. 2. HINT: It's called the "Supremacy Clause" for a reason.

Note further that your allegedly "sovereign" states cannot wage war, make treaties or impose tariffs on trade; their militias - to the extent they even have any - are subject to deployment at the whim of the President, as Commander in Chief. States cannot mint money, regulate immigration/emigration or pass laws which violate the Constitution.

In what way, shape, manner or form is an entity so limited "sovereign?" :scrutiny:

Those who declare states to still be sovereign fall into two categories:

1. The mendacious; and

2. The gullible.

:barf:
 
False to the point of fatuous. The states CEASED to be sovereign the instant the Constitution was ratified, by the express terms of the document in question. It is "the Supreme law of the land." Art. VI; par. 2. HINT: It's called the "Supremacy Clause" for a reason.
Click to expand...

Wrong and wrong again. The states and native tribes continue to be sovereign entities. I've lived this stuff, loved it and learned it. It's a basic principle of federalism at the core of the American system. This is why the Congress is not allowed to order state governments to do or refrain from doing things. It can BRIBE them by threatening to withhold highway funds and the like, but it cannot instruct them. In addition, states and tribe retain basic sovereign status and continue to enjoy sovereign immunity and the ability to govern their own affairs. The supremacy clause makes the federal government the first among equals, it does not eliminate the sovereign status of the several states. This is black letter Constitutional law.

For example:

Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999):

Although the Constitution grants broad powers to Congress, our federalism requires that Congress treat the States in a manner consistent with their status as residuary sovereigns and joint participants in the governance of the Nation. See, e.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 583, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (KENNEDY, J., concurring); Printz, 521 U.S., at 935, 117 S.Ct. 2365; New York, 505 U.S., at 188, 112 S.Ct. 2408. The founding generation thought it “neither becoming nor convenient that the several States of the Union, invested with that large residuum of sovereignty which had not been delegated to the United States, should be summoned as defendants to answer the complaints of private persons.” In re Ayers, 123 U.S., at 505, 8 S.Ct. 164.
Click to expand...

City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 499 U.S. 365 (1991):

The rationale of Parker was that, in light of our national commitment to federalism, the general language of the Sherman Act should not be interpreted to prohibit anticompetitive actions by the States in their governmental capacities as sovereign regulators.
Click to expand...

Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434 (1977)

that in a Union where both the States and the Federal Government are sovereign entities, there are basic concerns of federalism which counsel against interference by federal courts, through injunctions or otherwise, with legitimate state functions, particularly with the operation of state courts. Relying on cases that declared that courts of equity should give “scrupulous regard (to) the rightful independence of state governments,” Beal v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 312 U.S. 45, 50, 61 S.Ct. 418, 421, 85 L.Ed. 577 (1941),
Click to expand...

There are hundreds more, plus lengthy textbooks on the subject. In addition to the federalist principles which govern federal-state interactions, native tribes are considered sovereign entities with a direct and special relationship with the federal government.

Those who declare states to still be sovereign fall into two categories:

1. The mendacious; and

2. The gullible.
Click to expand...

I guess you need to add:

3. The Constitutional law professors

and

4. The Supreme Court
 
After reading Chucillians response to my post, and then reading the entirity of the original thread posting, I concede my post was rather superfluous.
 
The supremacy clause makes the federal government the first among equals, it does not eliminate the sovereign status of the several states. This is black letter Constitutional law.
Click to expand...

If you are first among equals, then how are you equals? ;)

It seems to me like you guys are describing two ends of the elephant from separate sides. Where the states ceded power to the Federal government, the Supremacy clause says that the Federal government has the last say. Where the states did not cede that power, they are still the supreme sovereign - United States v. New York (the radioactive waste case) being one example.

Even with the expansive reading of the commerce clause from the New Deal era, the states still enjoy considerable sovereign powers (and hopefully the recent Court trend of shifting that balance back towards the states will continue).
 
Then explain the following...

Wrong and wrong again. The states and native tribes continue to be sovereign entities.
Click to expand...

Then how is it the native tribes have to apply for, and receive, PERMITS to open casinos and sell cigarettes (to name but 2 examples) ? :scrutiny:

We still await your rationalization of how it is that states, if the "sovereign" entities you claim them to be, have none of the powers I set forth in my previous post.

The Lopes decision had NOTHING to do with "states' rights" or their (non-existent) "sovereignty;" it was decided on the Commerce Clause. The court found no sufficient nexus between interstate commerce and "gun-free school zones."

The fact that states still have rights does not make them sovereign any more than the fact that individual citizens having rights makes THEM sovereign.
 
It can BRIBE them by threatening to withhold highway funds and the like, but it cannot instruct them.
Click to expand...

That's a technicality. The income tax amendment, regardless of intent, came to mean that the purse strings rule.
 
Then how is it the native tribes have to apply for, and receive, PERMITS to open casinos and sell cigarettes (to name but 2 examples) ?
Click to expand...

Permits from whom? Lots of states out there would love to shut down native casinos, but under a very complex series of opinions the Sct has held that if the state allows a certain level of gaming, then it cannot prevent a sovereign tribe from opening casinos. As far as celling discount cigs, many of them do that as well.

We still await your rationalization of how it is that states, if the "sovereign" entities you claim them to be, have none of the powers I set forth in my previous post.
Click to expand...

You don't have to await anything. Under the federalist system, states are sovereign entities. You can pretend they aren't, but you're totally wrong. They have sovereign immunity. They have their own governments. They have much broader legislative and police powers than the feds. This is not a matter open for debate, as I said it's black letter law. I'm sorry you're confused about the matter, but I've already cited Supreme Court cases and I'm not going to waste any more time trying to persuade you. I'm an attorney. I've had Con law. I've passed the bar. This is black letter law--a basic principle of federalism. The states ARE NOT AND HAVE NEVER FRICKING BEEN ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICTS OF A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT! How can you live in the US and not understand this? It's why so many criminal and other laws change as you cross the borders.

That's a technicality. The income tax amendment, regardless of intent, came to mean that the purse strings rule.
Click to expand...

You seem to be confused here. The federal income tax does not give Congress the power to, for example, quash a state income tax.
 
That's a technicality. The income tax amendment, regardless of intent, came to mean that the purse strings rule.
Click to expand...

You seem to be confused here. The federal income tax does not give Congress the power to, for example, quash a state income tax.
Click to expand...

One can say that if ignoring political consequences or what is likely to happen or not.
 
Great Stuff, Everyone!

I hope to have time to respond in depth tomorrow.

Thanks!

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this nation; founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood
 
very interesting read

One of the great things about thr is learning about things you've never even thought about.
I love borders, I'm a 1/2 hour from CA but light years away from the crazy CA anti gun tyranny:evil:
 
And yet, you're still wrong.........

You don't have to await anything.
Click to expand...

Meaning you can't, and therefore, won't, explain how your allegedly "sovereign" states lack the indicia of such entities...... :rolleyes:

Under the federalist system, states are sovereign entities. You can pretend they aren't, but you're totally wrong.
Click to expand...

And yet, by all objective criteria, I am correct and you are the deluded party.

They have sovereign immunity. They have their own governments. They have much broader legislative and police powers than the feds.[
Click to expand...

They have LIMITED immunity and NONE for violations of Federal law. What they have is residual from pre-Federal law. Their powers are still constrained by Federal law, particularly the police power.

This is not a matter open for debate, as I said it's black letter law. I'm sorry you're confused about the matter, but I've already cited Supreme Court cases and I'm not going to waste any more time trying to persuade you. I'm an attorney. I've had Con law. I've passed the bar. This is black letter law--a basic principle of federalism.
Click to expand...

It's nothing of the sort, as proven by The Supremacy Clause, the War Powers, the Tariff Power and the Interstate Commerce Clause. For someone who claims to have "passed the bar," you seem oblivious to the obvious. Indeed, you fail to correctly define the "black letter law" of federalism - I did. See my post citing Black's Law Dictionary.

Ever hear of it - "counselor?" :rolleyes:
 
:banghead: :banghead:

You're way out of your depth but you still insist the water's still only six feet deep.

Like an anti who can't figure out the difference between a bullet and a cartridge, you seem to have convinced yourself that the supremacy clause and the reservation of certain powers to the federal government magically rendered the several states null and void. I suggest you go murder someone besides a federal employee. Since there is no federal criminal provision outlawing such a murder, you can tell the arresting officers (operating under the sovereign power of the STATE) that they have no authority over you. Then you can quote Black's definition of "federal" at the judge and see how you do.

You need to spend some quality time learning about the concept of FEDERALISM and the division of sovereign power. I'm not going to try to teach you anymore because it appears to be futile.

You have also called me a liar, so I'm done with you. I hope you don't get bit by any sharks if you ever have to venture out in the deep end again.
 
woodcdi, where in the Constitution does it say that a federal goverment has to be created by the Constitution of there is to be a federal government?

As noted, the Constitution is a latecomer to the whole process, not the founding seed from which everything else sprang. A federal government was already in place when the Constitution was created, hence it did not need to create what was already there.

If you are contending there is no federal government because it isn't created in the Constitution, then the Constitution is meaningless as it gets its power from the federal government.

By the way, you don't exist either as you aren't mentioned in the Constitution.
 
Incorrect

As noted, the Constitution is a latecomer to the whole process, not the founding seed from which everything else sprang. A federal government was already in place when the Constitution was created, hence it did not need to create what was already there.
Click to expand...

WRONG. Had a federal government actually been in place, there would have been absolutely NO need for the Constitution. :scrutiny:

The national system preceding that created by the Constitution was a confederacy, as has already been noted in this thread. It was because the states were still sovereign under that system, and withheld resources from the impotent national body, particularly military supplies, that the war was very nearly lost and the system came close to total collapse. Washington held it together, particularly by not allowing a military coup by his officers.

Note that the same system caused the same problems with worse result in the Civil War.

There was no Federal system of government in this country until the ratification of the Constitution. That ended true state sovereignty, continued, deluded claims to the contrary notwithstanding. :rolleyes:
 
Tory and Cosmoline

I think you're both arguing against strawman versions of each other's positions.
  • Tory isn't saying that the states lost 100% of their sovereign powers.
  • Cosmoline isn't saying that the states retained 100% of their sovereignty.

Note the difference between sovereign powers and sovereignty.
  • Sovereign powers refer to areas where a government has ultimate power -- and the states retained a lot of them.
  • Sovereignty refers to who is the ultimate power -- and the states ceded ultimate power in many areas.

This isn't a 100% vs. 0% issue -- but you guys are acting as if it is (or, rather, you're acting as if your opponent thinks that ... thus the strawman).


.
 
Let's start with the basics:

SOVEREIGN (of a state) characteristic of or endowed with supreme authority.

SOVEREIGNTY supreme authority, domination or rule.

NON-SOVEREIGN STATE .......Among other things, a non-sovereign state has no power to engage in foreign relations

Black's Law Dictionary (8th Ed.)

States have certain retained, pre-existing powers and certain zones in which their law controls. That does NOT make them "sovereign," no matter how much rationalizing - and blatant false assertions - are made to the contrary. :barf:
 
U.S. Constitution (Article V): The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Click to expand...
If the states can call a Constitutional Convention -- without any approval or participation of Congress -- then they have the power to strip the U.S. government of all its powers.

Can a government be truly sovereign if those supposedly under its sovereignty have the power to strip its sovereign powers?

If entities under the "sovereign power" have access to changing the ultimate power (without consent or approval of the sovereign power), don't they hold the supreme authority?

Congress cannot change the Constitution without approval of the States.
The State can change the Constitution without approval of Congress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Arizona Prepares For Secession
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
labgrade
L
W
  • Locked
ACLU Versus the Second Amendment:Change the Wording
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
Seekerrr
S
U
  • Locked
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights.
Replies
8
Views
1K
USAFNoDAk
U
2
  • Locked
The Forgotten Militia Amendment
Replies
7
Views
829
jimpeel
J
I
  • Locked
Do states/governments have rights?
Replies
12
Views
548
Ieyasu
I
Back
Top