State Sovereignty in the US of A

[Kulindahr]

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.

No, it means a system of delegated sovereignty.

That's how governments come about in the first place: citizens delegate a certain amount of their personal sovereignty to be wielded by certain of their number. In the case of the U.S., that sovereignty isn't all assigned to one place, it's spread about. Unfortunately, a good deal of sovereignty that was never delegated has been usurped, mostly by the federal government but also by the states.

Along the way, we've forgotten a very important truth: any government powerful enough to give us anything we want is powerful enough to take everything away.

 

[Kulindahr]

[Quoted text: Removed by Moderator]

[Text: Removed by Moderator]

[Quoted text: Removed by Moderator]

You departed from the topic of the thread by talking as though the topic was state nationhood. So far you're the only one who has pushed the conversation in that direction.

 

[opinterph]

You departed from the topic of the thread by talking as though the topic was state nationhood. So far you're the only one who has pushed the conversation in that direction.

I “pushed” the concept of state nationhood in the opening post and consider it to represent a legitimate aspect of this discussion.