There Is No "United States Government"

[hugh damright]

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?

I might word it differently, and say that if the US is delegated a power and the States are denied it ... for instance, if the Constitution says that the US shall have power to declare war and no State shall declare war, or that the US shall have power to coin money and no State shall coin money, then I might say that the US is the sovereign or supreme authority when it comes to declaring war and printing money, but all the while the US is a federal system, which is a compact between the States, and any federal sovereignty is delegated by the States, and the ultimate authority resides in the States.

 

[cuchulainn]

hugh damright: then I might say that the US is the sovereign or supreme authority when it comes to declaring war and printing money

I agree that the U.S. Government has sovereign authority in those areas. I don't know that I agree that the sovereign authority makes the U.S. Government sovereign.

It's possible to have sovereign authority without actually being sovereign. The King of Whatchamacallit-stein is the sovereign. He can delegate his sovereign power over the military to Duke Whatshisname. Once that power is delegated, Duke W has sovereign authority, but he's not sovereign.

In other words, if your sovereign authority is delegated from someone else -- and can be revoked without your consent or participation -- are you truly sovereign?

 

[hugh damright]

Well ... I believe in federal government, and "federal" means "a compact between the States", so I consider the States to be sovereign ... but I think the way Madison described the US was as "part national, part federal", and as "a hybrid system of dual sovereignties" ... and I think Jefferson said that the States were not subordinate to the feds, nor were the feds subordinate to the States, but rather the people of the US delegated certain powers to their State and certain powers to the US ... but personally, I tend to believe that the feds must ultimately be subordinate to the States, because I understand the US Constitution to be a compact between the States.

The best way I have found to look at it is to say that the US has a federal foundation, upon which is built a superstructure which is part national and part federal ... and what that means to me is that any national/federal powers are delegated by the States and can be reclaimed by the States i.e. the States are ultimately sovereign.

When I say the US is sovereign in their realm, I don't mean that the US is sovereign in the way the States are, as if power flows from the US ... I only mean to say that the States are sovereign and the central government is considered to be sovereign within its realm.

 

[RealGun]

Interesting discussion, but in considering the assertion There Is No "United States Government" I have to pose the question, in practical terms who has the soldiers and who has the money? It seems like on too many occasions any legal constraints on the federal government have been modified or ignored as necessary; fabricated rationale, whenever challenged, supported by Courts who sided with the desired result.

 

[Mannlicher]

the avoidance of reality is one of the classic indicators of mental illness.

 

[Cosmoline]

The important point is that our system operates very differently from those where a single central government has apex power and all lesser bodies are mere agents of the central government. In our system the Congress cannot order state legislatures to pass laws, though it can tie up highway funding and the like until the legislatures play ball. And on a day-to-day basis, it's the sovereign power of the states that puts people in prison, issues judgments and keeps the roads in shape. This power does not come from the feds to the states, it pre-exists the federal power. The Constitution makes the Federal power supreme, but it does not eliminate the state's sovereign powers save in a few limited areas such as foreign policy.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The Bottom Line

The basic premise of my article, "There Is No "United States Government"", is solid. What ever you wish to call the Union, it is not a complete government without including the rest of those powers we deem necessary to govern ourselves with, that are not granted to the Union and have been reserved to the states and to the people. The restrictions in the Second Amendment, therefore, cannot be held to apply solely to the Union, especially since no power has been granted to any branch of the Union to infringe upon the RKBA in the first place! Where else could the Second Amendment apply but to any governmental body in our land?

Hugh Damright, I'd go one step further and state that all the sovereign power in this land rests with the people for all the same reasons the states hold sovereignty over the Union with the ability of the states to amend the Union to nothing if the states so desired. After all, it is all about us, isn't it?

Woody

"Gun Control" seeks to put bounds upon, and possibly effect the elimination of, our inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Don't be led astray with the inference that it is "gun" control. What is under attack are rights of the people. Guns are inanimate objects; tools of freedom and self defense, primarily. Dehumanizing the discourse by calling it "gun control" or "gun rights" tends to lessen the impact from what the impact would be if the discussion were to be directed at the HUMAN right being infringed, and attempts to hide it from the strict scrutiny of the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[cuchulainn]

woodcdi: The basic premise of my article, "There Is No "United States Government"", is solid.

No. For starters there is, indeed, a "United States Government" -- the Founders even called it that right in the Constitution (despite your assertion otherwise). You seem quite proud of this factual error -- however, because you highlight it and refuse to acknowledge that it's wrong, you undermine any legitimate points you make.

woodcdi: The restrictions in the Second Amendment, therefore, cannot be held to apply solely to the Union,

Actually, the Founders intended for the Bill of Rights to restrict only the "United States Government." This is clear even from a mere cursory review of the debate over the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states -- which have their own restrictions in their own constitutions. It was only through later application of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment that parts of the Bill of Rights were applied to the States. However, that requires a legal decision at the SCOTUS level (“incorporation”), and SCOTUS has not yet ruled on incorporating the 2nd Amendment -- don't get me wrong: I want the 2nd. incorporated ... but that hasn't occurred yet.

woodcdi: I'd go one step further and state that all the sovereign power in this land rests with the people for all the same reasons the states hold sovereignty over the Union with the ability of the states to amend the Union to nothing if the states so desired.

Philosophically, I agree with you. However, legally, it probably depends on how a particular state's constitution defines its sovereignty. It would be interesting to see how the 50 state constitutions deal with state sovereignty versus sovereignty of the people.

 

[hugh damright]

It would be interesting to see how the 50 state constitutions deal with state sovereignty versus sovereignty of the people.

I am not sure what you mean by "State sovereignty versus sovereignty of the people". When I say the States are sovereign, I mean that the people are sovereign ... but the US is not empowered by the people as one big sovereign political body but rather by the people as fifty sovereign political bodies. Of course the State Legislature also have a role ... they originally chose the Senate, and they still may ratify amendments.

 

[cuchulainn]

hugh damright: but the US is not empowered by the people as one big sovereign political body but rather by the people as fifty sovereign political bodies.

Yes, I know. I'm simply wondering how each state constitution deals with

• whether the "state" (as a government entitiy) is sovereign over the people, or
• if the people are sovereign over the "state" (as a government entitiy).

It's not a question of about things ought to be -- it's simply a question of how each state dealt with the issue, if they deal with that question at all.

 

[hugh damright]

I'm still not sure I understand the question ... but maybe you are saying that each State in the US must have free government, republican government, where the people are sovereign ... and you are asking how the State Constitutions declare this truth?

Since the US Constitution guarantees each State a republican form of government, I do not think a State would be allowed in the Union if its Constitution said that the State Government was sovereign over the people.

I have not read every State Constitution, but I have read the original State Constitutions:


Virginia - SEC. 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

Vermont - V. That all power being originally inherent in, and consequently, derived from, the people; therefore, all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants. and at all times accountable to them.

Pennsylvania - IV. That all power being originally inherent in, and consequently derived from, the people; therefore all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants, and at all times accountable to them.

North Carolina - I. That all political power is vested in and derived from the people only.

Maryland - I. That all government of right originates from the people, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole ... IV. That all persons invested with the legislative or executive powers of government are the trustees of the public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct; wherefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought, to reform the old or establish a new government. The doctrine of non-resistance, against arbitrary power and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind

 

[cuchulainn]

hugh damright: I'm still not sure I understand the question ... but maybe you are saying that each State in the US must have free government, republican government, where the people are sovereign ... and you are asking how the State Constitutions declare this truth?

Yes, I'm simply wondering how all 50 states dealt with the issue.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Seems there has been a little bit of interest expressed in this thread so I am bumping it up so the expressee might be able to comment.

Woody

 

[gc70]

And for the next miracle... resurrecting the dead.

 

[ctdonath]

"Some ideas are so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." - George Orwell

 

[xjchief]

Interesting reading but the problem is that a high percentage of "The People" of this country can't even correctly identify the type of governmental system this country operates on. Most couldn't tell you the name of the Speaker of the House or name the Vice-President. What makes you think that they could possibly understand what you're trying to say?

 

[Kentak]

Woody's theoretical position could become reality. I could be abducted by aliens tonight.

Both are equally likely.

K

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

xjchief,

I can't answer that. All I can hope for is that they at least start asking questions.

Kentak, if you get abducted by aliens tonight, have fun! I hear their women are hot!

Woody

As the Court said in Boyd v. United States:

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

We should not wait solely upon the Court to protect our rights for us, but should take an active part in protecting our own sovereignty as well.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Utter unmitigated nonsense. "Rock lawyer" stuff squared and cubed. The most ridiculous I have ever heard or read.

Can you cite a legal precedent for the idea that we actually have no United States Government? Don't you think that if your idea were even remotely true, that the Framers would have noticed that such a government was set up immediately after the constitution was ratified?

How do the moderators allow stuff like this to be posted?

Is this the image of gun owners and RKBA advocates that THR is trying to give a voice to?

If I were a mod I'd fry this whole thread in less time than it takes to tell it.

 

[Justin]