State Sovereignty in the US of A

[opinterph]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [Link]

It seems rather obvious that in the early days of our Republic, the several states were regarded as sovereign entities. But more and more the trend in modern times seems to indicate a shift toward direct democracy. Given public opinion, the manner in which our citizens become educated, along with a variety of historical factors – perhaps the status of US states has undergone a change after the country was initially organized.

Did President Lincoln set into motion this trend away from state sovereignty? Did the United States somehow evolve into an Empire that now routinely and systematically occupies and controls other sovereign states – including its own member states?

I pledge of allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands - One nation indivisible - with liberty and justice for all. [Link]

Penny for your thoughts. 8)​

 

[JB3]

I don't quite think in the same terms as Jockboy, especially regarding sovereignty and the signing of the constitution. States did not give up their sovereignty, but rather agreed to be governed by a national government while retaining most of their sovereignty. Contrary to what jockboy believes, the individual states did very much have their own sovereignty prior to the declaration, and even after it. The biggest single issue with the constitution and declaration was that many of the states did not wish to give up their sovereignty. And, in fact, the constitution did not require them to give it up. While state sovereignty was certainly not as strong under the constitution as under the articles of confederation, there was no such thing as a renunciation of sovereignty under the new constitution.

The turning point was, as you mention Opinterph, the civil war. It definitively laid down state's rights vs. federal rights, and reshaped the map as far as the role of states was concerned. It is notable that the fiercest debate about state's rights since the constitution occurred in the lead-up to the civil war. I would argue it was even more fierce than that of the federalist/anti-federalist debate. Whatever you think of it, it rocked the nation to its core and basically reset the role of the federal and state governments.

 

[Kulindahr]

The states were supposed to be sovereign entities except in the ways specifically stated in the Constitution with the powers reserved to the federal government, such as foreign policy (including war). The federal government wasn't supposed to do anything not enumerated.

Just a few parts of the federal government are unconstitutional and belong to the states....

Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce (arguably)
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation

and ones without Cabinet representation:

African Development Foundation
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Agency for International Development
American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC)
AmeriCorps
Appalachian Regional Commission
U.S. Arctic Research Commission
Central Intelligence Agency (arguable)
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Corporation for National and Community Service
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
Delaware River Basin Commission
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Farm Credit Administration
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Maritime Commission

Most of these have been accepted as coming under the much-abused commerce clause, which was meaqnt as a limitation on the federal government, not as an open invitation to build vast bureaucracies and impose rules on all the states.


Did Lincoln start the trend? He certainly gave it a kick, but Washington and Jefferson started it, Washington by calling out troops to suppress the "Whiskey Rebellion" which threatened to cover the entire country and upset the PTBs, and Jefferson by buying the Louisiana Purchase.

 

[Kulindahr]

I decided to do a separate post for the Republic vs. Empire question.

We used to have a clear division between "Fleet" and "Ground operations in our military. "Fleet" meant Navy and Marines; they were the ones who patrolled the world to keep the sea lanes safe for American commerce, to assist allies in small operations, to extract U.S. and friendly citizens trapped in nasty places, to assist in disasters on the seas and within reach of their forces. "Ground" was the Army, and the function of Ground was to go after the enemy, crush his forces, and announce a victory because the enemy had nothing left. Ground went into business when the President had identified an enemy and Congress had formally declared war, and when Ground did, Fleet shifted to take on a support role, aiding by coastal bombardment, but mostly retained its standard role, albeit one adjusted to live fire protection against hostile vessels, to make sure the Ground could keep getting its supplies and do its job.
Air power was ambiguous. It functioned on the one hand as a sort of 'super-artillery', able to go out and clobber enemy resources not just on the battlefield, but beyond it, and operating in this fashion was a Ground force, but on the other hand it carried out the support functions of the Fleet.

This form of operations depended on something important: an educated citizenry with loyalty to country and a grasp of the principles and virtues that make a Republic strong and keep it free. But we've lost those. Through a focus on direct democracy, and every special interest group from labor to gays to giant corporations fighting not for all but for a piece of the pie for themselves, the virtues of a Republic have been lost. Hardly anyone these days asks what they can do for their country rather than for themselves. That's dangerous, because the military forces of a Republic depend on the virtues of a Republic for their cohesion: in World War I there was no need to spend time instilling military virtues, because those virtues are the virtues of a Republic. Loyalty to one's company grew out of a shared loyalty to the Republic, and indeed loyalty to the Republic ranked higher than that to the unit.

There's no way the military can instill the virtues of a Republic into its recruits. That's the job of the schools, and they've failed miserably. Yet the military still needs unit cohesion, which means unit loyalty. Without the virtues of a Republic, unit cohesion can only rest on the only common loyalty available: to the unit itself. That's a form of loyalty known since the Roman legions happily toppled Roman cities and tackled other Roman armies: they had no loyalty to Rome; there was no concept of Rome at all as being theirs, only as a paymaster and taskmaster and hopefully the source of a small farm when they retired. Loyalty to unit meant they had no problem fighting other units, or even marching on the capital. Theirs was the military virtue set of Empire, which easily tipped loyalty to unit into loyalty to commander. That, in fact, is where we get the word "imperator", from which we get "emperor": it meant someone hailed by the troops as worthy to command.

So what we get in today's military are the virtues of an empire, not of a Republic. This gets reinforced as presidents use the military, especially the Ground, as more or less a private army to achieve their own goals: the command structure of Empire, not of Republic. They have turned Ground into what Fleet has always been, a way to throw forces into the equation without a declaration of war.

And when we get veterans of such a system, they emerge not with loyalty to a Republic, but to the military itself. They are trained to respond to the chain of command; only rarely do they even have the capacity to question the chain of command on the basis of the virtues of a Republic. Ironically, the greatest encouragers of this trend with the military have been those elected officials who call themselves "Republican".

Apart from the military, the same process goes on: we have a flood of immigrants who know nothing of the virtues of a Republic. Their heritage culturally is of Empire. They understand bowing to authority and doing what it says; they do not grasp that the greatest thing a citizen can do in a Republic is to not merely question, but be suspicious of authority. And for at least a generation, our public schools have failed to instill the virtues of a Republic, so that even our home-grown citizens are tuned to Empire.

Taken all together, this means that we as a nation are primed to think in terms of bowing to government's wishes, not to defying it or questioning it. That is a disease that makes us, if not an Empire in actuality, an incipient one. It is, furthermore, a disease that has been fed by the unrestrained growth of a federal government which contrary to the supreme law of the land assigns to itself more and more authority over more and more aspects of life, until citizens obey without thinking, trained in the habit of obedience to authority.

 

[Kulindahr]

They were British colonies under the British crown, and were not independent states. Upon signing the Declaration of Independence, they formed a national union called the United States, to which sovereignty was given.

To which limited sovereignty was given. The federal government has far overgrown its bounds, making of the states little more than provinces.

I see that as breach of contract, such that any state or states which decide to leave are entirely justified in doing so.

 

[Kulindahr]

The idea of state sovereignty is the most dangerous thing imaginable to human rights. Could you imagine a state like Mississippi being given free reign? They have proven themselves, along with several other states, historically unfit for self-rule because of a legacy of human rights abuses that continue to this day.

On the issue of the economy, as 50 independent squabbling states, we'd be much much worse off than a strong union under a central government.

Did you read nothing that I wrote?

I read it all.

I'd say that rendering the states down to provinces is the most dangerous thing for human rights.

Besides which, with human rights incorporated under the Constitution, all states would have to go with them anyway. That's the proper function of the federal government -- nothing more and nothing less than to guard our rights.

 

[JB3]

I don't think Lincoln started the slippery slope that got us where we are today. There were only a handful of strong Federalist policies enacted between Lincoln and FDR.

FDR is the source that started it all. Social security was the beginning of the end. Mandating a Federal entitlement program like that and making it so very difficult to change was where it really began.

Lincoln acted to preserve human rights, whereas FDR unwittingly set a trend of taking economic power out of the hands of states and individuals.

Lincoln most definitely started it, but he did so unknowingly. He acted to preserve the union, and in the process unknowingly began the deterioration of state sovereignty.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't think Lincoln started the slippery slope that got us where we are today. There were only a handful of strong Federalist policies enacted between Lincoln and FDR.

FDR is the source that started it all. Social security was the beginning of the end. Mandating a Federal entitlement program like that and making it so very difficult to change was where it really began.

Lincoln acted to preserve human rights, whereas FDR unwittingly set a trend of taking economic power out of the hands of states and individuals.

That's an arguable perspective with good ground under it. As I recall, though, FDR referenced Lincoln as he rode roughshod over the Constitution and threatened to stack the Supreme Court if he didn't get his way.

That was definitely the beginning of the super-politicization of the Court, though. And the precedents they set under FDR's coercion put us on a road where the flimsiest justifications are used to regulate anything at all under an inverted commerce clause.

 

[iman]

There has always been a conflict, it was Washington that sent Federal troops to Lancaster County, Pa and hung a few rebellious farmers. (Doesn't that make you nostalgic for the good old days) Transportation and communication put the nail in the coffin of most "states rights" just as they are slowly killing off ideas of "national sovereignty", despite those Jubbers who are lamenting the end of the 19th century.

Of course, the states that cry loudest about the loss of "states rights" can't even pay for their own road system or welfare costs - they want our money and their rights.

 

[hotatlboi]

[Quoted text: Removed by Moderator]

[Text: Removed by Moderator]


Now, as to the thread topic. I do think that obviously the federal government has assumed too much power in recent years. The Civil War was one catalyst for this. The Depression was another. And WWII was yet another.

I do think their is danger in too weak a federal government. We certainly found that out under the Articles, but there is danger in too strong of one as well. If the fed government controls everything, then essentially any wrong choice they make means you are screwed. Also, the heterogeneity of geography and local needs means one government is not best suited to solve all the problems for everyone. The issues are too diverse and varied for one solution to work everywhere. That's why local government is better for many things. They are more in touch with the local populace, the issues surrounding life in that locale, and what the desires of that smaller subset of people are.

 

[opinterph]

I don't see the early 13 states as ever being sovereign, delegates to the Continental Congress formed a national government which declared independence a sovereign nation together in 1776, not piece by piece, about the same time that they all declared independence from Britain and formed state governments.

Does your premise represent an interpretation or is it empirical?​

Our States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by the Constitution – no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union. The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence; and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence … – President Lincoln (July 4, 1861) [Link]

I’m not sure how important Mr. Lincoln’s “spin” may prove to be in determining if US states are now, or were ever, sovereign. However, I do find it interesting that when King George III endorsed the Peace Treaty of 1783, he addressed each state separately as a sovereign:

Article 1:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. [Link]

 

[opinterph]

… there was no such thing as a renunciation of sovereignty under the new constitution.

I think you are correct. [The Constitution of the United States]

Not specifically retaining sovereignty in the wording of the document does not imply that it was forsaken.

… the much-abused commerce clause, which was [meant] as a limitation on the federal government, not as an open invitation to build vast bureaucracies and impose rules on all the states.

Perhaps you have already read Montana House Bill 246. I imagine you will probably agree with the premise of the legislation (note especially Section 4). I wonder if such a declaration [by a mere state] can stand though, if challenged in the federal court system.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think you are correct. [The Constitution of the United States]

Not specifically retaining sovereignty in the wording of the document does not imply that it was forsaken.

Excellent point.

Perhaps you have already read Montana House Bill 246. I imagine you will probably agree with the premise of the legislation (note especially Section 4). I wonder if such a declaration [by a mere state] can stand though, if challenged in the federal court system.

"Perhaps"?

I had the text before the law even passed.

It's quite carefully worded, and there's nowhere for the federal government to make a case against it. Even under the inverted notion of the commerce clause, anything that is purely within a state doesn't lie under federal jurisdiction in any way.

 

[Kulindahr]

All in all, there seems to be a belief that 'sovereignty' is synonymous with 'absolute power' or 'dominance'. That's not the only definition for the term.

That's an essential distinction.

 

[JB3]

That's an essential distinction.

And a distinction that quite a few people can't grasp, unfortunately.

 

[Kulindahr]

And a distinction that quite a few people can't grasp, unfortunately.

Many people can't even grasp that they have sovereignty over themselves.

 

[JayHawk]

Did President Lincoln set into motion this trend away from state sovereignty? Did the United States somehow evolve into an Empire that now routinely and systematically occupies and controls other sovereign states – including its own member states?

That statement pulled me from lurker status back to the forum. While I am off topic a moment let me add the discourse in the forum appears much more healthy than it was 6 months ago.

That said, I think many of you take for granted that the US has been in 'empire' mode for a long time. Think of manifest destiny, just ponder a moment how we have so many naval stations in so many places. Then after you google those naval stations research how we obtained them. It wasn't through bags of rice and military aid. They were taken by force or as the result of ending of hostilities in many if not all instances.

(BTW Kuli, maybe it is service pride speaking but the Navy has through its entire history enforced this nations federal will through diplomacy or force. To that end we have the finest assault force on earth in the USMC. It has and will continue to dominate thru sheer will on any battlefield. Those who believe our strength is in our technology haven't been on a field of battle. Our strength is the unmitigated determination that we can not fail.

The army's forte' is holding property once the marines are done. They are unsuited to assault for many reasons with the exception of their finest in airborne and delta who coincidently based their tactics off marines and used new technology or equipment. Don't get me wrong I love 'em but their strength and design has been different until now. Now they are forming into a structure very similar to marines because of the task we have placed on their plate but that is not their history)

Now after my diatribe back to our regularly scheduled rant.

In fact, many of the atrocities we denounce in less developed countries we did ourselves in our own country to establish dominance. That dominance was via state militias or federal troops. Yet time and again the federal govt has proven that the states will cede certain rights and the federal govt will stand. We even subverted the militias when it became clear they could threaten the nation as a whole. It often makes me wonder how hypocritical we could possibly be when we denounce nations who use the same tactics we used in the past to usher in a solid state inside their own borders.

Would you agree we are a highly developed and successful country? A lot of that dominance comes from our ability to work as one which is orchestrated by the Fed. Why do you think Europe formed it's own wanna be union? Our model was unstoppable and they couldn't begin to compete, thats why.

Finally, for the one world conspiracy folks. Many of you all will be stunned to hear a person you all have judged or decreed as a repuglican (or what ever the derogatory term is these days) say the following.

We as a species need one world. It is the only way we can even remotely think human beings killing human beings will ever stop. I have and will continue to serve the interest of this nation because I believe the ultimate goal is a free world where all of our resources help all people. Sovereignty is a wonderful nationalistic concept but it is not a human concept at its base.

 

[JayHawk]

It is contradictory.

I think a world govt or consortium to bring all of our natural resources to bear ensuring all people have food, homes, prosperity and safety would be wonderful.

However it is not realistic. Sovereignty of nations or religious beliefs...anything that excludes essentially and by necessity alienates specific people or cultures.

We are too ignorant as a species as of yet to put aside the petty cultural differences and move forward as one species that serves all included.

I think i may have just made it less clear. SO I am gonna stop while I am ahead.

 

[opinterph]

… not the only definition for the term.

… an essential distinction.

… a distinction that quite a few people can't grasp, unfortunately.

Does this “distinction” resemble “dual sovereignty?”​

I sense that a democratic majority may not really care how we got here, but are happy to join a mutual affirmation in order to assert that most citizens prefer a condition of federal superiority. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the “Federalist Agenda” has prevailed, over the long term.

Depending largely upon whatever meaning we ascribe to “sovereignty,” the condition itself may or may not be a matter of significant concern.

Although there may be exceptions, it is thought by many international academics that most states enter into legal commitments with other states out of enlightened self-interest rather than adherence to a body of law that is higher than their own. [Wiki]

 

[justright25]

This is pretty simple. 1st the colonies were under British control, 2nd came independence, 3rd came the Articles of Confederation (AKA, the original U.S. constitution) but this gave almost no power to the federal government. 4th The U.S. Constitution was adopted after a constitutional convention "In order to form a more perfect union." This gave the federal government real power and made the constitution the "supreme law of the land" thereby enshrining the superiority of the federal government over the states. FYI: Washington was the first president under the current constitution and not the first USA president.