Dept. of Justice acknowledges the obvious

[LAK]

United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818)

Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827): The U.S. Supreme Court held:

"There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.

Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.

"The soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour."

 

[Number 6]

A sovereignty primer

Sovereign, adj (Of a state) characteristic of or endowed with independent and supreme authority

Sovereign, n. A person, body, or state vested with independent and supreme authority.

Black's Law Dictionary , 8th Ed., pl 1430 (bold added).

Let us apply the above definitions to your "sovereign" states. Can your vaunted Old Dominion - or any of your other allegedly "sovereign" states:

1. Create its own currency?

2. Enter into treaties?

3. Declare war?

4. Raise its own military?

5. Obstruct with interstate commerce?

6. Flout Federal authority?

7. Enact or enforce laws which discriminate by race, religion, gender
or ethnic heritage?

8. Pass laws or undertake other state action which otherwise transgress
the US Constitution?

The answer to ALL the above is "NO." So much for your tedious, specious claims of "sovereignty."

States abandoned what little autonomy they had in favor of a lip-lock on the Federal teat. States sold their authority for subsidies. Face reality.

 

[Hugh Damright]

A Federal System of Dual Sovereignties

That's not how it works. You can't list a few delegated US powers and say that the States delegated all powers to the US. The States delegated LIMITED powers. And you listed some of them. Yes, the States delegated the power to declare war and to print money and so on. And the States kept the powers not delegated.

I might list things that States can do and the US cannot and "prove" that the States have all sovereignty and the US has none. For instance, the US cannot issue a marriage license or a driver's license or a CCW permit. The US cannot even set a speed limit. So clearly they are not sovereign in all matters. To use your logic, that would mean that the US has no authority at all.

Whether you can accept it or not, the US is a federal system of dual sovereignties.

And regarding the supremacy clause, the US is supreme only as long as it is acting within the powers granted it under the Constitution. Did you miss that part?

 

[LAK]

Number 6,

You cite many issues which are considered externals - like interstate commerce. These externals were what the States agreed to and are embodied in the Constitution. But they did retain their legal jurisdictions; and for example, the Federal authority you refer to in item 6 is limited to those externals and territory under Federal jurisdiction. Hence cases like Pfeiffer v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 755 F.2d 554, 557 (7th Cir. 1985) in which Federal age discrimination law did not apply.

Read the court decisions - including those of the U.S. Supreme Court; ju·ris·dic·tion is ter·ri·to·ri·al.

Merry Christmas all