State Sovereignty Question

Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
545
Location
Pittsburgh
#1
How can one say that states retain their full sovereignty upon joining the Union when by joining, they give up the ability to choose which type of government they desire? The ability to chose a type and form of government is the first act of sovereignty. Under the constitution, this is denied to the states. The constitution states that the federal government guarantees the states a republican form of government, thus a different mode of government would be illegal. How can a body politic claim sovereignty when they cannot even choose which type of government they would like to form?
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#2
How can one say that states retain their full sovereignty upon joining the Union when by joining, they give up the ability to choose which type of government they desire? The ability to chose a type and form of government is the first act of sovereignty. Under the constitution, this is denied to the states. The constitution states that the federal government guarantees the states a republican form of government, thus a different mode of government would be illegal. How can a body politic claim sovereignty when they cannot even choose which type of government they would like to form?
More than that, in Luther v Borden SCOTUS decided that Congress and or the President decided which was the proper government of a States. Reconstruction affirmed that and Texas v White ruled that also.

Article 10 forbids a number of powers that independent sovereign have.

SECTION 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.​
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.​
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.​
 

JeffBrooks

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
2,113
Location
Manor, TX
#3
Because they did not retain "full" sovereignty. When their citizens ratified the Constitution, the state governments were compelled to surrender a large chunk of their sovereignty to the federal government.

Moreover, the states did not join the Union, per se. The Union was created by "We The People" of the entire republic and not by the individual states. The states were the logical vehicle to deal with the process of ratification by the people, but the authority of the federal government derives directly from the American people and not the pleasure of the states.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#4
Because they did not retain "full" sovereignty. When their citizens ratifying the Constitution, the state governments were compelled to surrender a large chunk of their sovereignty to the federal government.

Moreover, the states did not join the Union, per se. The Union was created by "We The People" of the entire republic and not by the individual states. The states we the logical vehicle to deal with the process of ratification by the people, but the authority of the federal government derives directly from the American people and not the pleasure of the states.
Good point.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
545
Location
Pittsburgh
#5
Because they did not retain "full" sovereignty. When their citizens ratifying the Constitution, the state governments were compelled to surrender a large chunk of their sovereignty to the federal government.

Moreover, the states did not join the Union, per se. The Union was created by "We The People" of the entire republic and not by the individual states. The states we the logical vehicle to deal with the process of ratification by the people, but the authority of the federal government derives directly from the American people and not the pleasure of the states.
I agree in full.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
109
#6
When the states ratified the Constitution, created the federal government, and voluntarily joined the union they created, they demanded that the federal government perform certain tasks. And one of the tasks that the states demanded of the federal government was ensuring that each state would adhere to a republican form of government. It's a relatively simple idea.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#7
When the states ratified the Constitution, created the federal government, and voluntarily joined the union they created, they demanded that the federal government perform certain tasks. And one of the tasks that states demanded of the federal government was ensuring that each state would adhere to a republican form of government. It's a relatively simple idea.
The States demanded nothing from the Federal government because they did not create the Federal government.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
109
#10
All the States' representatives were meeting in New York. So it seems the States were cut out of whatever was happening in Philadelphia.
Actually, the credentialed state delegates were meeting in Philadelphia (except the delegates of Rhode Island) in order to create a federal union of states and a corresponding federal government.

PS- The Confederation Congress failed to even achieve a quorum most of that summer.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
2,426
#11
Because they did not retain "full" sovereignty. When their citizens ratified the Constitution, the state governments were compelled to surrender a large chunk of their sovereignty to the federal government.

Moreover, the states did not join the Union, per se. The Union was created by "We The People" of the entire republic and not by the individual states. The states were the logical vehicle to deal with the process of ratification by the people, but the authority of the federal government derives directly from the American people and not the pleasure of the states.
I COMPLETELY CONCURE. VERY WELL CRAFTED. DAVID.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#12
Actually, the credentialed state delegates were meeting in Philadelphia (except the delegates of Rhode Island) in order to create a federal union of states and a corresponding federal government.

PS- The Confederation Congress failed to even achieve a quorum most of that summer.
So these 'delegates' usurped the authority of State representatives in Congress?
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
109
#15
One of the more interesting episodes concerning the discussion and debate regarding the mode of ratification occurred on July 23, 1787. On that date Pennsylvania delegate Gouverneur Morris "moved that the reference of the plan be made to one general convention chosen and authorized by the people". More specifically, Morris actually advocated that "We the People" of the entire republic, rather than the thirteen separate and individual states, should be empowered to ratify the Constitution. The idea was treated with such scorn, contempt, and derision, that not only was the idea flatly rejected, but not even a single delegate moved to second the idea. Not so much as a single delegate in convention supported the idea.

So in the end, thirteen independent, separate, and sovereign states ratified the Constitution. And each state ratified for itself, and for itself only.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,799
Location
Texas
#16
One of the more interesting episodes concerning the discussion and debate regarding mode of ratification occurred on July 23, 1787. On that date Pennsylvania delegate Gouverneur Morris "moved that the reference of the plan be made to one general convention chosen and authorized by the people". More specifically, Morris actually advocated that "We the People" of the entire republic, rather than the thirteen separate and individual states, should be empowered to ratify the Constitution. The idea was treated with such scorn, contempt, and derision, that not only was the idea flatly rejected, but not even a single delegate moved to second the idea. Not so much as a single delegate in convention supported the idea.

So in the end, thirteen independent, separate, and sovereign states ratified the Constitution. And each state ratified for itself, and for itself only.
I'm pretty sure that the OTHER STATES had to agree on any State that wanted to join. Kinda shoots down that a State could just waltz in and say, "Here I am"!

Kevin Dally
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#17
One of the more interesting episodes concerning the discussion and debate regarding mode of ratification occurred on July 23, 1787. On that date Pennsylvania delegate Gouverneur Morris "moved that the reference of the plan be made to one general convention chosen and authorized by the people". More specifically, Morris actually advocated that "We the People" of the entire republic, rather than the thirteen separate and individual states, should be empowered to ratify the Constitution. The idea was treated with such scorn, contempt, and derision, that not only was the idea flatly rejected, but not even a single delegate moved to second the idea. Not so much as a single delegate in convention supported the idea.

So in the end, thirteen independent, separate, and sovereign states ratified the Constitution. And each state ratified for itself, and for itself only.
Why not list the names of the States like the AOC did. For that matter why all the song and dance of a Consitution when the AOC was already in place with sovereign independent States?

Madison Debates July 23 Looks to me that the governments of the independent sovereign States were cut out of the process and in doing so ended the independent sovereignty of the States.

Mr. MADISON thought it clear that the Legislatures were incompetent to the proposed changes. These changes would make essential inroads on the State Constitutions, and it would be a novel & dangerous doctrine that a Legislature could change the constitution under which it held its existence. There might indeed be some Constitutions within the Union, which had given a power to the Legislature to concur in alterations of the federal Compact. But there were certainly some which had not; and in the case of these, a ratification must of necessity be obtained from the people. He considered the difference between a system founded on the Legislatures only, and one founded on the people, to be the true difference between a league or treaty, and a Constitution. The former in point of moral obligation might be as inviolable as the latter. In point of political operation, there were two important distinctions in favor of the latter. 1. [FN12] A law violating a treaty ratified by a pre-existing law, might be respected by the Judges as a law, though an unwise or perfidious one. A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void. 2. [FN12] The doctrine laid down by the law of Nations in the case of treaties is that a breach of any one article by any of the parties, frees the other parties from their engagements. In the case of a union of people under one Constitution, the nature of the pact has always been understood to exclude such an interpretation. Comparing the two modes in point of expediency he thought all the considerations which recommended this Convention in preference to Congress for proposing the reform were in favor of State Conventions in preference to the Legislatures for examining and adopting it.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved that the reference of the plan be made to one general Convention, chosen & authorized by the people to consider, amend, & establish the same. -Not seconded . On [FN13] question for agreeing to Resolution 19. [FN16] touching the mode of Ratification as reported from the Committee of the Whole; viz, to refer the Constn. after the approbation of Congs. to assemblies chosen by the people:
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN17]
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
109
#18
Federalist 39 (Madison)

"this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, NOT as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, WILL NOT BE A NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act."

So that settles that.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#19
Federalist 39 (Madison)

"this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, NOT as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, WILL NOT BE A NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act."

So that settles that.
Not it does not, all this is, is a quote perhaps out of context. Please translate to simple English with a paragraph or two. Thanks.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
109
#20
Federalist 39 (Madison)

"the act of the people, as forming so many INDEPENDENT States, NOT as forming one aggregate nation, IS OBVIOUS from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the SEVERAL States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, IS CONSIDERED AS A SOVEREIGN BODY, INDEPENDENT OF ALL OTHERS, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and NOT a NATIONAL constitution."

So again, that settles that.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top