Sovereignty of these United States

[edpell]

When in history did we go from the States being sovereign and over the Federal government to the Federal government being sovereign and over the States?

The founders like Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Marshall and Webster all understood the States as sovereign with the right to secede.

 

[mgb_phys]

Pretty much as soon as the federal government could.

 

[russ_watters]

When in history did we go from the States being sovereign and over the Federal government to the Federal government being sovereign and over the States?

September 17, 1787, the day the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the US Constitution, replacing state sovereignty with federal sovereignty.

The founders like Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Marshall and Webster all understood the States as sovereign with the right to secede.

Nonsense. Cite your source or retract your claim.

...Let me just cut to the chase: Hamilton wrote some of the Federalist Papers, Adams was a member of the Federalist party when elected President and Marshall helped defined the role of the federal government as one of the first chief justices of the USSC.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

September 17, 1787, the day the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the US Constitution, replacing state sovereignty with federal sovereignty. Nonsense. Cite your source or retract your claim.

...Let me just cut to the chase: Hamilton wrote some of the Federalist Papers, Adams was a member of the Federalist party when elected President and Marshall helped defined the role of the federal government as one of the first chief justices of the USSC.

Still the constitution was rather strictly interpreted to maintain the freedoms of the states from the federal government until rather recently. The Constitution certainly gave a stronger position and more power to the federal government than did the Articles but that really isn't saying much since the Articles gave little power to the federal government and supplied virtually no means of actually wielding what power it did possess.

 

[russ_watters]

Certainly, the Articles were a contradiction - it is a wonder how the founders ever believed they would work! But the Constitution is explicit on the matter:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

And what do you mean by enforcement exactly? Ultimately, there is only one true form of political power in the world and it comes out the barrel of a gun. The goal of a social contract type government is for the citizens to be happy enough with it that the government doesn't need to use its gun (much).

 

[Pythagorean]

The federalists were pretty much working at it since the beginning, starting with a federal treasury.

The civil war resulted in a strengthening of the union and the 14th amendment made us all federal citizens (instead of pure sovereigns).

 

[mheslep]

To place this in the OP's terms, the 1787 constitution made the Federal government sovereign for the specifically enumerated powers in the constitution. The founders took pains through the tenth amendment and through the federalist papers to make that point clear: unless claimed otherwise by the constitution, the states remain sovereign.

As Statutory Ape points out, that state of affairs has changed along the way. The last gasp so to speak of the old order was in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" , where the court struck down the Federal govt paying farmers to take land out of circulation:

The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement, are but parts of the plan. They are but means to an unconstitutional end.

After FDR's court packing threats the court started reversing itself over several cases in the late 1930s, culminating in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers...

which I suppose is now the law of the land. But, the constitution is in my view one of the more carefully crafted and succinct writings in existence. The idea that the founders dumped superfluous amendments in it is crock.

 

[mheslep]

Certainly, the Articles were a contradiction - it is a wonder how the founders ever believed they would work! But the Constitution is explicit on the matter:

any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Therein lies the issue. Clearly, this phrase must be taken in the context that the federal government is sovereign for only the matters enumerated in the constitution, and thus does not allow the federal government to be sovereign over the states in anything it attempts to do.

 

[russ_watters]

Therein lies the issue. Clearly, this phrase must be taken in the context that the federal government is sovereign for only the matters enumerated in the constitution, and thus does not allow the federal government to be sovereign over the states in anything it attempts to do.

You misread the line. That's not the US Constitution it is talking about, it is state constitutions. It's saying that state constitutions and laws may not contradict the US constitution or laws.

Showing proper emphasis: "...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding."

 

[russ_watters]

The civil war resulted in a strengthening of the union and the 14th amendment made us all federal citizens (instead of pure sovereigns).

That portion of the 14th amendment is redundant in that it says basically the same thing as Article 6, quoted above. It was necessary only because Article 6 wasn't being properly followed. Wiki has articles on both, for reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

The primary author of the Privileges or Immunities Clause was Congressman John Bingham of Ohio. Bingham's main inspiration was the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article Four of the original unamended Constitution,[1] which provided: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

 

[russ_watters]

...which I suppose is now the law of the land. But, the constitution is in my view one of the more carefully crafted and succinct writings in existence. The idea that the founders dumped superfluous amendments in it is crock.

Your opinion, but that quote isn't the only court decision or historical precident to say it is superfluous:

Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified. [emphasis added] [1931]

and:

That this provision was not conceived to be a yardstick for measuring the powers granted to the Federal Government or reserved to the States was firmly settled by the refusal of both Houses of Congress to insert the word ''expressly'' before the word ''delegated,'' 3 and was confirmed by Madison's remarks in the course of the debate which took place while the proposed amendment was pending concerning Hamilton's plan to establish a national bank. ''Interference with the power of the States was no constitutional criterion of the power of Congress. If the power was not given, Congress could not exercise it; if given, they might exercise it, although it should interfere with the laws, or even the Constitutions of the States.'' 4 Nevertheless, for approximately a century, from the death of Marshall until 1937, the Tenth Amendment was frequently invoked to curtail powers expressly granted to Congress, notably the powers to regulate commerce, to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, and to lay and collect taxes.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/01.html#f3

In any case, you said it appears clearly in the federalist papers that this wasn't the intent: do you have a particular one in mind?

 

[mheslep]

You misread the line. That's not the US Constitution it is talking about, it is state constitutions. It's saying that state constitutions and laws may not contradict the US constitution or laws.

Yes you're right I misread, though I think the point still holds. The authority of the federal government is, or should be, limited only to that which is enumerated in the constitution, and the general welfare language is not a do-what-you-will escape clause for the Fed. Otherwise the states are sovereign.

 

[mheslep]

In any case, you said it appears clearly in the federalist papers that this wasn't the intent: do you have a particular one in mind?

Oh yes, 45 to start.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed45.htm"

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

I'd say Madison's first sentence has been almost exactly reversed in the modern era. It's a retro history parlor game to say so, but if the Depression era acts of Congress could have been forseen, and given the concerns of those which Madison attempts to allay above, this constitution never gets ratified as is in 1789.

Edit: And 39, which shows the care taken in striking a balance between loose confederacy (ie federal government) and a strong monolithic (ie national government)
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed39.htm"

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.

The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features.

The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character; though perhaps not so completely as has been understood. In several cases, and particularly in the trial of controversies to which States may be parties, they must be viewed and proceeded against in their collective and political capacities only. So far the national countenance of the government on this side seems to be disfigured by a few federal features. But this blemish is perhaps unavoidable in any plan; and the operation of the government on the people, in their individual capacities, in its ordinary and most essential proceedings, may, on the whole, designate it, in this relation, a NATIONAL government.

 

[Pythagorean]

That portion of the 14th amendment is redundant in that it says basically the same thing as Article 6, quoted above. It was necessary only because Article 6 wasn't being properly followed. Wiki has articles on both, for reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

The redundancy seems to be in the line:

""No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.""

The line I'm talking about:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. "

Where they created a kind of dual-citizenship. The folklore (i.e. Authors like Lynne Meredith) claims that this was because they wanted to control the rights of newly freed slaves to make sure that they didn't have pure sovereign rights (so they couldn't quickly move in on politics and/or become land owners).

So they compromised, the legend goes, and made us all half-slaves by putting us in debt with national treasury, and carrying that debt through the US Dollar and its taxes.

The general idea is that you still have your sovereign rights, but you can easily sign them away by entering into the contract with the US Federal Government (i.e., allowing yourself to become a Federal citizen under 14th amendment).

Meredith (and other sovereign authors) talk about all the ways we accept this citizenship, and enter unknowingly into a commercial contract with the government (by using zipcodes and federal codes for states in our mail: like AK, OR, WA. By checking "YES, I'm a US Citizen" on forms, by carrying US Federal Notes (US Dollars).


Of course, I don't know how much of this is true, but for a long time, people used it to get out of punishment for statutory laws (which is allegedly bound by the UCC and violates constitutional rights) and not pay taxes.

Most of them were actually successful in terms of legality, but the authors that distributed this information eventually got raided by the IRS.

As a personal anecdote, I relied on the Jefferson Party website, which pertains more to
Alaska (which started as a Foreign Trade Zone, so has a slightly different backbone of law.
I used their website to legally get out of a handful of moving violations (which actually prompted the local court system to skip the preliminary hearings for traffic violations: now we either turn in our ticket with money or we don't... and get a bench warrant... the preliminary hearing was the only opportunity to state your case constitutionally. Now you get arrested, spend a night in jail, and then state your case constitutionally. Not worth the night in jail)


The Jefferson Party website is now associated with malware. This is strange to me, because I know the group that ran it and they're not out to destroy people's computers, they're actually vigilantly trying to spread the word and increase public awareness. I can't help but suspect a third-party is involved here:

Here's google's warning page about the site

http://www.google.com/interstitial?url=http://www.jusbelli.com/

 

[brainstorm]

What does sovereignty really mean in a republic anyway? The whole point of a republic is to allow citizens to self-govern by rule of reason. The branches of government are supposed to check and balance each other and protect the sovereign rights and freedoms of individuals.

This may be my own interpretation or not, I'm not sure, but it seems like the purpose of dividing power between federal and state governments is that they should check and balance each other's power to assure that no individual's rights and freedoms are solely conditional on the power of a single level of authority.

In other words, sovereignty is supposed to be multiple to prevent autocracy. If the point had ever been to delegate absolute sovereignty to any level of society from the president to the landlord, the whole principle of all people being equal and having inalienable rights and freedoms would have been compromised, because a single sovereign government or governor would have a monopoly on the institutional means of claiming those rights for the people within their jurisdiction.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And what do you mean by enforcement exactly? Ultimately, there is only one true form of political power in the world and it comes out the barrel of a gun. The goal of a social contract type government is for the citizens to be happy enough with it that the government doesn't need to use its gun (much).

In my perception the confederate states was much like a large scale formalized syndicalist style government. The Federal government was not an autonomous authoritative body but rather more a forum for voicing and resolving grievances. Resolutions arrived at by the fed were to be followed but this hinged on the willingness of the individual states to actually enforce any particular resolution. The problem here, as with most syndicalist style governments, was that those states with greater wealth, resources, and access to shipping lanes and ports necessarily made a far weightier vote than the less wealthy states. The consequence being that few wished to go against them and even if a resolution was made against these states they could easily flout the resolution without much concern that any of those states who rely upon them would actually attempt to enforce it. The effect of course is that the federal government made many resolutions that the governors of individual states were unwilling to abide or enforce.

You misread the line. That's not the US Constitution it is talking about, it is state constitutions. It's saying that state constitutions and laws may not contradict the US constitution or laws.

The issue here is that the fed was not considered to have the authority to abridge state law through its actions unless the constitution gave it the explicit authority to do so. So congress could pass federal laws only so long as the subject of those laws fell squarely within the domain of the federal government and, assuming this criterion was met, no state law could then countermand the federal law. Mostly it has been invoked with regard to treaties as the fed reserves absolute authority to enter into treaties. Any treaty made by the Executive and ratified by congress, so long as its provisions do not violate the constitution, is supreme and countermands any laws of any individual state.

That portion of the 14th amendment is redundant in that it says basically the same thing as Article 6, quoted above. It was necessary only because Article 6 wasn't being properly followed. Wiki has articles on both, for reference:

The Privileges and Immunities clause has always been interpreted as a remedy for the issue of individual states instituting discriminatory laws and taxes aimed at citizens of others states. This was a major issue under the Confederate States which was never adequately addressed.

The Fourteenth Amendment specifically requires states to recognize the right of its citizens to Due Process of Law and Equal Protection. Until this amendment was instituted the Bill of Rights was considered to only apply to the federal government. Since then the USSC has slowly but surely been defining Due Process and insinuating the various rights of the amendments one by one, a change that has been ongoing even through the last century and still a couple of those rights have not been incorporated.

What does sovereignty really mean in a republic anyway? The whole point of a republic is to allow citizens to self-govern by rule of reason. The branches of government are supposed to check and balance each other and protect the sovereign rights and freedoms of individuals.

This may be my own interpretation or not, I'm not sure, but it seems like the purpose of dividing power between federal and state governments is that they should check and balance each other's power to assure that no individual's rights and freedoms are solely conditional on the power of a single level of authority.

In other words, sovereignty is supposed to be multiple to prevent autocracy. If the point had ever been to delegate absolute sovereignty to any level of society from the president to the landlord, the whole principle of all people being equal and having inalienable rights and freedoms would have been compromised, because a single sovereign government or governor would have a monopoly on the institutional means of claiming those rights for the people within their jurisdiction.

The Constitution has been interpreted as a contract between the states and not of the people so the rights and limitations in the Constitution, unless otherwise specified, are considered to only apply to the federal government and its relationship with its citizens and the states.

 

[brainstorm]

In my perception the confederate states was much like a large scale formalized syndicalist style government. The Federal government was not an autonomous authoritative body but rather more a forum for voicing and resolving grievances. Resolutions arrived at by the fed were to be followed but this hinged on the willingness of the individual states to actually enforce any particular resolution. The problem here, as with most syndicalist style governments, was that those states with greater wealth, resources, and access to shipping lanes and ports necessarily made a far weightier vote than the less wealthy states. The consequence being that few wished to go against them and even if a resolution was made against these states they could easily flout the resolution without much concern that any of those states who rely upon them would actually attempt to enforce it. The effect of course is that the federal government made many resolutions that the governors of individual states were unwilling to abide or enforce.

It seems to me that when you try to resolve this by giving less powerful entities more power, it only ends up magnifying the problem since those more powerful only work harder to buy the power of the "little guys" who have been given more power artificially. In other words, it just gives small players more bargaining power to become subsidiaries of bigger players. What would motivate a less powerful entity to actually utilize its power to stand up to bigger players, instead of just trading its power for a greater portion of the spoils?

The issue here is that the fed was not considered to have the authority to abridge state law through its actions unless the constitution gave it the explicit authority to do so. So congress could pass federal laws only so long as the subject of those laws fell squarely within the domain of the federal government and, assuming this criterion was met, no state law could then countermand the federal law. Mostly it has been invoked with regard to treaties as the fed reserves absolute authority to enter into treaties. Any treaty made by the Executive and ratified by congress, so long as its provisions do not violate the constitution, is supreme and countermands any laws of any individual state.

This reads like something a lawyer would write trying to specify and delimit rights and powers in order to contain them. What about the fact that these entities are supposed to check and balance each other, not just restrain themselves to their defined terrain?

The Constitution has been interpreted as a contract between the states and not of the people so the rights and limitations in the Constitution, unless otherwise specified, are considered to only apply to the federal government and its relationship with its citizens and the states.

So you are saying that state agents have no responsibility to observe the rights and limitations of the constitution? That doesn't make any sense? Why would anyone be immune from observing constitutional rights just because they have the privilege of claiming state authority? That sounds like confederationism.

I think the EU still protects state authority against federal intervention to a large degree. Last I heard, for example, the EU state governments determine citizenship and only people with EU state citizenship can get EU passports, but that may have changed.

 

[mgb_phys]

Last I heard, for example, the EU state governments determine citizenship and only people with EU state citizenship can get EU passports, but that may have changed.

There are no eu passports or eu citizenship. Citizens of each member state can live and work in any member country . Although the eu has 'influnced' a few countries' rules on how they grant citizenship.

I think the EU still protects state authority against federal intervention to a large degree.

Still creates a few interesting political positions - each nations government argues that as much power as possible must be concentrated at national level - less bureaucracy / close to the people / accountable / no super-state etc.
While at the same fighting independance for local regions - because power given out to local areas leads to inefficiencies, unaccountability, less power for people, breakdown of nations etc.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It seems to me that when you try to resolve this by giving less powerful entities more power, it only ends up magnifying the problem since those more powerful only work harder to buy the power of the "little guys" who have been given more power artificially. In other words, it just gives small players more bargaining power to become subsidiaries of bigger players. What would motivate a less powerful entity to actually utilize its power to stand up to bigger players, instead of just trading its power for a greater portion of the spoils?


This reads like something a lawyer would write trying to specify and delimit rights and powers in order to contain them. What about the fact that these entities are supposed to check and balance each other, not just restrain themselves to their defined terrain?


So you are saying that state agents have no responsibility to observe the rights and limitations of the constitution? That doesn't make any sense? Why would anyone be immune from observing constitutional rights just because they have the privilege of claiming state authority? That sounds like confederationism.

I think the EU still protects state authority against federal intervention to a large degree. Last I heard, for example, the EU state governments determine citizenship and only people with EU state citizenship can get EU passports, but that may have changed.

Sorry Brainstorm. I typed out a rather lengthy response to this that was subsequently lost and I do not have the patience to try to reconstruct it fully.

Basically: Yes, it is very much like confederationism. That was the idea back then. You are misplacing the principle of checks and balances. The checks and balances were designed into the federal government; specifically the relationship between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the federal government. The idea was to avoid the perceived rampant abuse of power in the English Parliament of that time. There were not, in fact, any checks and balances designed into the relationship between the state and the federal government. Protection of sovereignty was the aim of the limitations in the constitution which were predominantly leveled at the federal government. The relationship designed between the states and federal government was indeed the limitation of each to their respective domains.

Also remember that we are talking about a time when only white male property owners were allowed to vote. They were the ones that voted on state laws. They did not necessarily have any care for the plight of the poor and underrepresented who were most likely to be abused by state law.

And please note that I am not advocating such a system as I am presenting but only attempting to illustrate the historical precedent. Ed's belief that the relationship between state and federal government has changed drastically over time is correct. The answer to his question of when this happened, where the turning point was, can probably be found in the 14th Amendment and the Reconstruction era after the US Civil War as already noted by other members.

I am currently finishing reading a textbook, an introduction to basic constitutional law, and most everything I have posted is based on my understanding of the information I have gleaned from that source. If you would like any citation I will cite the book or find online accessible sources at your (or anyone's) request.

 

[edpell]

Cite your source or retract your claim.

As I am reading "The Real Lincoln" by DiLorenzo now. I will use that for references.

Hamilton page 89 from "The Federalist Papers" (number 81) he states

"It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of any individual without its consent. This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union."

Marshall page 90 a state can not be "called before the bar of the Federal court."

Webster page 90 'said in 1851 "if the Northern states refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain can not be broken on one side, and still bind the other side."

Adams page 87-88 a quote from a speech in 1839 it is long so I will quote only a small part "Then will be the time for reverting to the precedencts which occurred at the formation and adpotion of the Constitution, to form again a more prefect Union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separate parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center."

Jefferson page 86 quoting DiLorenzo "Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration, was a strong supporter of the Union, but he nevertheless defended the right of any state to secede from it."

from the back page of the book DiLorenzi is professor of economics in the Sellinger School of Business and Management at Loyola College in Maryland. Specializing in economic history and political economy, he is the author of eleven books and is widely published in academic journals and such national pubilcations as The Wall Street Journal, Reader's Digest, USA Today, National Review, and Barron's.

 

[zomgwtf]

]
from the back page of the book DiLorenzi is professor of economics in the Sellinger School of Business and Management at Loyola College in Maryland. Specializing in economic history and political economy, he is the author of eleven books and is widely published in academic journals and such national pubilcations as The Wall Street Journal, Reader's Digest, USA Today, National Review, and Barron's.

I'm pretty sure DiLorenzi's credibility has already been addressed, who cares if on the back of HIS book it praises him and his 'accompishments'.

 

[brainstorm]

There are no eu passports or eu citizenship. Citizens of each member state can live and work in any member country . Although the eu has 'influnced' a few countries' rules on how they grant citizenship.

The fact that EU citizenship is framed in this way is an irritating reminder of the propagandistic culturalism that is infused into EU policies. The idea is to give citizens the benefits of economic unification while protecting their right to ethnically differentiate from each other and practice exclusionist ethnic pluralism.

Despite the hypocrisy and exclusionism of pluralism, at least there is concern for linguistic and other cultural diversity. I just wish diversity was pursued more proactively alongside integration, instead of culturalism always becoming a reaction against migration and interethnicity.

Still creates a few interesting political positions - each nations government argues that as much power as possible must be concentrated at national level - less bureaucracy / close to the people / accountable / no super-state etc.
While at the same fighting independance for local regions - because power given out to local areas leads to inefficiencies, unaccountability, less power for people, breakdown of nations etc.

Usually when I read complaints about EU level government as being undemocratic because its not directly elected, it seems like it's a reactionary argument on the part of people who want greater national autonomy. In fact, it's rare that I read discussion of EU politics that doesn't come across as a politically loaded spin-bomb designed to implicitly insist on one or other perspective.

The most important political-cultural goal of Europe should be to detach culture from ethnic territorialism. Culture preservation and expression are truly important, but they shouldn't be used as a means of practicing the national-socialism of ethnosocial solidarity. Part of the problem is that the ideology of individualism is denounced among many Europeanists as a typically American and therefore anti-European philosophy. In this way, individuals are pressed to identify with group- and sub-group identities and to orient toward culture in terms of conformity instead of individual freedom and independent reason. Independence is derided as a form of egoism, which shames people into subjugating themselves to groupism.

Maintaining a discourse of structural levels and divisions is part of this groupist ideology. The idea is that individuality only exists in the shadow of collective boundaries and regulatory frameworks. Choosing how to be governed from above is emphasized above individuality and reason in self-governance and cultural practice.

 

[brainstorm]

Sorry Brainstorm. I typed out a rather lengthy response to this that was subsequently lost and I do not have the patience to try to reconstruct it fully.

Basically: Yes, it is very much like confederationism. That was the idea back then. You are misplacing the principle of checks and balances. The checks and balances were designed into the federal government; specifically the relationship between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the federal government. The idea was to avoid the perceived rampant abuse of power in the English Parliament of that time. There were not, in fact, any checks and balances designed into the relationship between the state and the federal government. Protection of sovereignty was the aim of the limitations in the constitution which were predominantly leveled at the federal government. The relationship designed between the states and federal government was indeed the limitation of each to their respective domains.

Also remember that we are talking about a time when only white male property owners were allowed to vote. They were the ones that voted on state laws. They did not necessarily have any care for the plight of the poor and underrepresented who were most likely to be abused by state law.

And please note that I am not advocating such a system as I am presenting but only attempting to illustrate the historical precedent. Ed's belief that the relationship between state and federal government has changed drastically over time is correct. The answer to his question of when this happened, where the turning point was, can probably be found in the 14th Amendment and the Reconstruction era after the US Civil War as already noted by other members.

I am currently finishing reading a textbook, an introduction to basic constitutional law, and most everything I have posted is based on my understanding of the information I have gleaned from that source. If you would like any citation I will cite the book or find online accessible sources at your (or anyone's) request.

I always hear people say that the constitution is inherently flawed because it was written in a historical context of slavery and subordination of women. My feeling is that the men who wrote it had the right idea in that they were laying a foundation for self-governance through reason instead of submission to the authority of a sovereign. It seems clear to me that this same claim to self-governance through reason is valid for anyone regardless of identity or status. The problem is that people's claims of reason are not always reasonable and you get into power-struggles over who gets to claim the right to self-govern as such and what that does or should entail.

You say that the state governments were not to be checked by the federal government, but how is the federal government supposed to tolerate abridging of rights at the state level? The exercise of state-power is limited by the federal constitution, isn't it? Are you trying to argue that the federal constitution protects state sovereignty over individual rights?

 

[mgb_phys]

Usually when I read complaints about EU level government as being undemocratic because its not directly elected

Of cource if you're scottish and a conservative government gets in then that's pretty much not-directly elected (generally conservatives win no seats in Scotland)

I meant that it's interesting to watch a politician argue against Europe and that decisions shouldn't be made by some distant foreign politicians that you didn't vote for - and then argue that Scotland shouldn't be independent for exactly the same reason.

Ideally the EU should make it easier for small countries/regions to be independent. 50 years it would be difficult for Wales or the Basque country to be independent - are they going to have an army, their own central bank, their own currency , their own passport and embassies - now it should be easy.
That's probably the main reason for most national leaders to be anti-Eu.

 

[brainstorm]

"It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of any individual without its consent. This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union."
Isn't this just an argument against despotism? It's not saying that individual freedom should be subject to consent of state government. It's saying that no individual should exercise sovereignty over others. It's basically an argument against slavery.

Marshall page 90 a state can not be "called before the bar of the Federal court."

So how are state governments supposed to be held accountable to the constitution?

Webster page 90 'said in 1851 "if the Northern states refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain can not be broken on one side, and still bind the other side."

This implies that not only should slavery be allowed, that all authorities would be required to assist in the subjugation of slaves for the owner's benefit. Granted this raises the issue of freedom being protected as a means of gaining wage-laborers in free states, which could be construed as one master stealing the slaves of another by appeal to the slave's free will - but that is a complex argument.

Do you happen to know how and why the war actually started? I remember there was an attack on a fort. I also remember reading the Lincoln refused to attack the confederates, saying that it was up to them to attack if they wanted to. What was the exact request that was made by the confederate leaders that was not honored by the federal government? What did they expect the government to do in response to their claim of independence?

Adams page 87-88 a quote from a speech in 1839 it is long so I will quote only a small part "Then will be the time for reverting to the precedencts which occurred at the formation and adpotion of the Constitution, to form again a more prefect Union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separate parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center."

This is very general and broadly interpretable.

Jefferson page 86 quoting DiLorenzo "Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration, was a strong supporter of the Union, but he nevertheless defended the right of any state to secede from it."

On the other hand, the declaration of independence, freedom, and rights are framed as inalienable rights that are self-evident. So there's an undertone of universality to them. So why would any proponent of the universal liberties and rights of all people created equal ever simply passively allow a group of people to opt for a form of government that abridges the rights of some of the people claimed as citizens (or as non-citizens) of the succeeding government?

If the rights and liberties described in the constitution were only applicable for certain people and not others, why wouldn't they have chosen less universal language?

 

[edpell]

If an EU state secedes will it be "right" for the EU to use military force to make the state rejoin?

How does the EU Constitution compare with the Constitution of these United States?

 

[edpell]

So how are state governments supposed to be held accountable to the constitution?

How is the federal government to be held accountable to the tenth amendment?

Why did Jefferson own slaves his whole life?

Documents and people are contradictory and inconsistent.

Let me be clear I oppose slavery. Including the working conditions that existing in many countries of the world today.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I always hear people say that the constitution is inherently flawed because it was written in a historical context of slavery and subordination of women. My feeling is that the men who wrote it had the right idea in that they were laying a foundation for self-governance through reason instead of submission to the authority of a sovereign. It seems clear to me that this same claim to self-governance through reason is valid for anyone regardless of identity or status. The problem is that people's claims of reason are not always reasonable and you get into power-struggles over who gets to claim the right to self-govern as such and what that does or should entail.

The majority of the framers of the constitution were of a mind, typical of intellectuals in that age, that the poor and uneducated were in need of guidance from wealthier more educated individuals. Wealth generally brought with it better education, which theoretically grants superior judgment, and a state of liberty and well being that, again theoretically, confers the ability to judge without self interest. You might say that this is to some degree true since wealthier people usually are more educated and more educated people tend to be more concerned with the liberty and well being of their less fortunate brethren. The framers though perhaps misjudged the extent of mans avarice and the ability of wealthy educated intellectuals to understand the circumstances and needs of the less fortunate.

The framers apparently considered uniform standards of citizenship and voting rights but due to incredibly varied ideas of standard across the several states they intentionally left this out of the constitution implicitly leaving that right to the states which all required that one own property/land which automatically excluded anyone who was not white and male. Later amendments changed this.

So yes the framers supported self government but on a state level and not on an individual level.

You say that the state governments were not to be checked by the federal government, but how is the federal government supposed to tolerate abridging of rights at the state level? The exercise of state-power is limited by the federal constitution, isn't it? Are you trying to argue that the federal constitution protects state sovereignty over individual rights?

The constitution used to protect sovereignty above all else. It is still protected to quite a degree but the federal government has succeeded in drawing much more power to itself than has previously been the case. Through the protection of sovereignty the federal government implicitly left the general protection of the rights of individual citizens to their respective states.

The Bill of Rights was agreed upon as the first order of business for the first Congress even before the Constitution was ratified. It was specifically aimed at limiting the powers of the federal government to infringe upon the rights of individual citizens and through them the states. It was proposed for the purpose of mollifying the antifederalists, many of whom rejected the constitution primarily based on fear of an authoritative federal body abusing the citizens of the states and thereby curtailing state sovereignty.

The limitations on state action in the constitution were aimed at creating a cohesive union. Specifically they are prohibited from printing their own money, entering into treaties or confederacies, raising armies (other than the state militia), levying tariffs, discriminating against citizens of other states, legitimizing freebooters, ect ect. Every enumerated limitation on state action, excepting discrimination against citizens of other states, was to prevent states from infringing on those rights reserved to the federal government.

Edit: sorry. In addendum to the above paragraph the limitations on state action against individuals also includes similar limitations to that of the federal government. Specifically prohibitions against; bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contract. Note though that these are specifically outlined prohibitions against state action where it is elsewhere stated that the federal government is prohibited these actions. I mean to point out that this holds with the interpretation that limitations on state action are only found where specified.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

"It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of any individual without its consent. This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union."

Isn't this just an argument against despotism? It's not saying that individual freedom should be subject to consent of state government. It's saying that no individual should exercise sovereignty over others. It's basically an argument against slavery.

It appears to be a reference to the 11th Amendment...

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

 

[brainstorm]

If an EU state secedes will it be "right" for the EU to use military force to make the state rejoin?

How does the EU Constitution compare with the Constitution of these United States?

The better question, imo, is whether it is ever wrong for any force to intervene in the affairs of another when universal rights and freedoms are being abridged. If you believe that some individual(s) have the right to abridge the rights of others, then you would probably defend the sovereignty of their authority to do so. If you believe that no individual(s) have the right to do so in the name of sovereignty or otherwise, you would support the use of power to intervene.

To be honest, I don't even get what the meaning of "union" is except to the extent that it protects again separatist violence. In principle no union should be a basis for abridging rights and freedoms of individuals. Separatism, therefore, is never resistance to sovereignty unless sovereignty is recognized as legitimate. If freedom is recognized over sovereignty, then separatism is an attempt to create sovereignty by defining boundaries and separation from freedom. Therefore, separatism constitutes an assertion of a right to abridge the freedom and rights of individuals by authority of a sovereign.

Is my logic flawed somehow?

 

[brainstorm]

How is the federal government to be held accountable to the tenth amendment?

Why did Jefferson own slaves his whole life?

Documents and people are contradictory and inconsistent.

Let me be clear I oppose slavery. Including the working conditions that existing in many countries of the world today.

Reality always lags behind ideals. It's no reason to give up pursuit of ideals. Pragmatism is a necessity to the extent that you can't constantly pursue a goal at any cost. When pragmatism becomes the ideal, you've become reactionary.

 

[mgb_phys]

If an EU state secedes will it be "right" for the EU to use military force to make the state rejoin?

There's no problem with Eu states leaving, Greenland did when it got independence from Denmark in the 80s.
It may be a little trickier technically for a euro member to leave, but in general more people are queuing up to join.

Plus the EU doesn't actually have a military.
There is occasionally a call for there to be some sort of eu peacekeeping force, because at the moment by the time you've got the eu+nato, the eu+non-nato, the none-eu+nato countries to all agree the war is generally over.

There is also a problem that of the countries in europe with a significant military, the UK doesn't want to offend the Americans, the Germans don't want to be seen to be starting 4th Riech and the French are all for it as long as they are in charge.
The smaller countries want a joint force - as long as the Brits/Germans/French aren't in charge.
The new member states in the east don't have the money to waste and don't want to risk pissing off the Russians

How does the EU Constitution compare with the Constitution of these United States?

One was written by some of the brightest and best classically trained scholars and political philosophers of the century drawing on 100s of years of British and French oratory. The other is written by 1000s of committees of bureaucrats and failed politicians.

The eu constitution is really more a technical description of which powers to regulate the size of bananas.

 

[brainstorm]

The majority of the framers of the constitution were of a mind, typical of intellectuals in that age, that the poor and uneducated were in need of guidance from wealthier more educated individuals. Wealth generally brought with it better education, which theoretically grants superior judgment, and a state of liberty and well being that, again theoretically, confers the ability to judge without self interest. You might say that this is to some degree true since wealthier people usually are more educated and more educated people tend to be more concerned with the liberty and well being of their less fortunate brethren. The framers though perhaps misjudged the extent of mans avarice and the ability of wealthy educated intellectuals to understand the circumstances and needs of the less fortunate.

Defining who is legitimate in guiding others and who isn't is a status issue. The core question is whether you think that autonomy should be respected when people are acting unreasonably and irrationally, especially when they put themselves or others directly in danger. As long as you're capable of reasoning with people, it is reasonable to do that instead of intervening. When they refuse to reason back, do they have a right to pursue activities that are destructive to themselves or others? To a certain degree, yes, but once it can be established that they are incapable of reasoning or they are directly harming themselves or others, don't you think intervention is required? Or do you recognize them as being sovereign to do harm without providing and defending reason?

The framers apparently considered uniform standards of citizenship and voting rights but due to incredibly varied ideas of standard across the several states they intentionally left this out of the constitution implicitly leaving that right to the states which all required that one own property/land which automatically excluded anyone who was not white and male. Later amendments changed this.

So yes the framers supported self government but on a state level and not on an individual level.

I do not believe that the intention of the constitution was to defend the rights of state governments to abridge the rights and freedoms of individuals according to collective sovereignty. I don't see how you could possibly insist on that.

The constitution used to protect sovereignty above all else. It is still protected to quite a degree but the federal government has succeeded in drawing much more power to itself than has previously been the case. Through the protection of sovereignty the federal government implicitly left the general protection of the rights of individual citizens to their respective states.

Individual is sovereign over personal property. Conflicts between individual authority have to be resolved by laws and courts. Laws and courts are subject to rights of fair and public trial, etc. No state government is allowed to carry out secret trials without explicit charges, due process, etc.

The Bill of Rights was agreed upon as the first order of business for the first Congress even before the Constitution was ratified. It was specifically aimed at limiting the powers of the federal government to infringe upon the rights of individual citizens and through them the states. It was proposed for the purpose of mollifying the antifederalists, many of whom rejected the constitution primarily based on fear of an authoritative federal body abusing the citizens of the states and thereby curtailing state sovereignty.

In other words, some people were afraid that federalism would limit their sovereignty to be dictators over others at the state level?

The limitations on state action in the constitution were aimed at creating a cohesive union. Specifically they are prohibited from printing their own money, entering into treaties or confederacies, raising armies (other than the state militia), levying tariffs, discriminating against citizens of other states, legitimizing freebooters, ect ect. Every enumerated limitation on state action, excepting discrimination against citizens of other states, was to prevent states from infringing on those rights reserved to the federal government.

Cohesion need not be the motive. It could just have been the limitation of governmental power at the state level in the interest of freedom/republic.

Edit: sorry. In addendum to the above paragraph the limitations on state action against individuals also includes similar limitations to that of the federal government. Specifically prohibitions against; bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contract. Note though that these are specifically outlined prohibitions against state action where it is elsewhere stated that the federal government is prohibited these actions. I mean to point out that this holds with the interpretation that limitations on state action are only found where specified.

I'm very sorry. I am more of a theorist and a philosopher. You sound like a lawyer trying to approach the language in a way that pushes certain implications and interpretations without putting them on the table explicitly for discussion. I hope you realize that people twist these things in different directions by interpreting in one way or another. My interpretation is that the constitution was designed to promote a democracy of multiple free authorities/powers checking and balancing each others at various levels. That is a republic-oriented interpretation, though. There are many people who attempt to interpret any and all language with assumptions of absolute authority wherever possible. I do not subscribe to that ideology because it is anti-democratic and anti-freedom.

Freedom is not absolute. It is subject to checking and balancing, which is what makes it democratic. Defense and respect for the constitution also means defending the spirit of republic and democracy. The problem is that authoritarianism is not ultimately excludable. It is always possible for people to assert absolute authority of a document or institution by claiming it is a prescription of democracy or republic. This is actually the most successful means of undermining freedom and democracy, because it takes some critical work to first recognize that freedom and democracy are being authoritarianized and, second, you have to figure out a way to re-assert freedom and democracy without reproducing more authoritarianism. It is very tricky and I always get confused trying to figure it out.

 

[brainstorm]

There's no problem with Eu states leaving, Greenland did when it got independence from Denmark in the 80s.
It may be a little trickier technically for a euro member to leave, but in general more people are queuing up to join.

Plus the EU doesn't actually have a military.
There is occasionally a call for there to be some sort of eu peacekeeping force, because at the moment by the time you've got the eu+nato, the eu+non-nato, the none-eu+nato countries to all agree the war is generally over.

There is also a problem that of the countries in europe with a significant military, the UK doesn't want to offend the Americans, the Germans don't want to be seen to be starting 4th Riech and the French are all for it as long as they are in charge.
The smaller countries want a joint force - as long as the Brits/Germans/French aren't in charge.
The new member states in the east don't have the money to waste and don't want to risk pissing off the Russians


One was written by some of the brightest and best classically trained scholars and political philosophers of the century drawing on 100s of years of British and French oratory. The other is written by 1000s of committees of bureaucrats and failed politicians.

The eu constitution is really more a technical description of which powers to regulate the size of bananas.

Do you notice how every image in the language of your post refers to some macro-level collective entity? This is typical of Europeanist discourse. Nation-states are narrated like individuals with the assumption that they are unified political bodies without internal conflicts or individuals with individual will.

Even your comparison of the constitutions framed the EU documents as a large collection of "bureaucrats," implying that all European individual will is subordinate to institutional authority. Do you see how your framing is consistent with collectivism and authoritarianism? I'm not claiming that you're consciously propagandizing. I have just noticed that so much literature on this topic frames narratives in the same way. You are probably just describing things in the same terms you have read about them in.

 

[mgb_phys]

Even your comparison of the constitutions framed the EU documents as a large collection of "bureaucrats," implying that all European individual will is subordinate to institutional authority.

No I'm saying that as a work of literature, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Adams, and Hamilton building on the works of Locke, Hobbs and Paine and the writers of the french revolution may have done a better job.

The actual signed treaty of Lisbon is just a series of modifications to the rejected constitution
So the text consists of:

Aticel 1) The preamble shall be amended as follows:

(a) the following text shall be inserted as the second recital:
‘DRAWING INSPIRATION from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law,’;

(b) In the seventh, which shall become the eighth, recital, the words ‘of this Treaty’ shall be replaced by ‘of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,’;

(c) In the eleventh, which shall become the twelfth, recital, the words ‘of this Treaty’ shall be replaced by ‘of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,’.

It reads rather more like the specifications for a network protocol or the rules for a tax loophole than "We hold these truths to be self-evident"

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Defining who is legitimate in guiding others and who isn't is a status issue. The core question is whether you think that autonomy should be respected when people are acting unreasonably and irrationally, especially when they put themselves or others directly in danger. As long as you're capable of reasoning with people, it is reasonable to do that instead of intervening. When they refuse to reason back, do they have a right to pursue activities that are destructive to themselves or others? To a certain degree, yes, but once it can be established that they are incapable of reasoning or they are directly harming themselves or others, don't you think intervention is required? Or do you recognize them as being sovereign to do harm without providing and defending reason?

The federal government is allowed to intervene in state issues when it can show a 'compelling interest' and only to such a degree as is absolutely necessary to rectify the issue. Typically though the state is considered to be made up primarily of competent individuals who can recognize an untenable situation and enact measures to rectify the issue. The federal government need not step in unless the situation is entirely out of hand. Consider the relationship between parent and child. An adult child is free to its own devices. Parents may advise but they have no right to step in until such time as the child has shown themselves to be an eminent danger to their self. Otherwise the child is considered competent enough to make its own decisions and deal with its own mistakes.

I do not believe that the intention of the constitution was to defend the rights of state governments to abridge the rights and freedoms of individuals according to collective sovereignty. I don't see how you could possibly insist on that.

Do you believe that it is the intention of the UN to allow the US, or any other country, to abridge the rights and freedoms of its citizens? The UN has strictly outlined procedures for when intervention is allowable and recognizes the sovereignty of nations. It will not impede the right of any national entity to make its own choices and is not allowed to hold any nation to its own standard of decency through force unless absolutely necessary.

Recognition of sovereignty is not consent to allow any manner of atrocity.

Individual is sovereign over personal property. Conflicts between individual authority have to be resolved by laws and courts. Laws and courts are subject to rights of fair and public trial, etc. No state government is allowed to carry out secret trials without explicit charges, due process, etc.

Due Process is found in the 14th Amendment. It also does not define due process. The courts have been interpreting the exact extent of due process for over a century. Even the federal government before the fourteenth amendment was not held to the same standard of due process that we have today. Civilizations evolve.

In other words, some people were afraid that federalism would limit their sovereignty to be dictators over others at the state level?

Nor is recognition of sovereignty consent to allow dictatorship.
Note that political and philosophical forces led to the eventual institution of a nation standard of rights.

Cohesion need not be the motive. It could just have been the limitation of governmental power at the state level in the interest of freedom/republic.

I can look for sources and cite them later if you like (I need some sleep) but it is the historical reasoning that these limitations on states were to form a more cohesive union. Many of them address issues specific to the failure of the Confederate States. Individual states would print bank notes that were more or less valuable depending upon which state you were in and some would not accept any other currency. The states levied variable taxes and tariffs on one another to reduce out of state competition or just to turn a profit. States would invalidate contracts from out of state lenders to free its citizens of their obligation to consideration.

I'm very sorry. I am more of a theorist and a philosopher. You sound like a lawyer trying to approach the language in a way that pushes certain implications and interpretations without putting them on the table explicitly for discussion. I hope you realize that people twist these things in different directions by interpreting in one way or another. My interpretation is that the constitution was designed to promote a democracy of multiple free authorities/powers checking and balancing each others at various levels. That is a republic-oriented interpretation, though. There are many people who attempt to interpret any and all language with assumptions of absolute authority wherever possible. I do not subscribe to that ideology because it is anti-democratic and anti-freedom.

Freedom is not absolute. It is subject to checking and balancing, which is what makes it democratic. Defense and respect for the constitution also means defending the spirit of republic and democracy. The problem is that authoritarianism is not ultimately excludable. It is always possible for people to assert absolute authority of a document or institution by claiming it is a prescription of democracy or republic. This is actually the most successful means of undermining freedom and democracy, because it takes some critical work to first recognize that freedom and democracy are being authoritarianized and, second, you have to figure out a way to re-assert freedom and democracy without reproducing more authoritarianism. It is very tricky and I always get confused trying to figure it out.

I may respond more to this later. Right now I would just like to say that I am referring primarily to historical interpretation. We are in "History & Humanities" discussing the history of constitutional interpretation and its changes over time. Your posts and arguments seem to be applying a modern interpretation of constitutional principle. I am only saying that this sort of interpretation was not always in force. Realizing and understanding the history of the document, its various interpretations, and the context of its creation and amending is important to our modern perspective.

 

[edpell]

I don't even get what the meaning of "union" is except to the extent that it protects again separatist violence.

So in the union of marriage you would oppose all divorce?

 

[edpell]

The better question, imo, is whether it is ever wrong for any force to intervene in the affairs of another when universal rights and freedoms are being abridged. If you believe that some individual(s) have the right to abridge the rights of others, then you would probably defend the sovereignty of their authority to do so. If you believe that no individual(s) have the right to do so in the name of sovereignty or otherwise, you would support the use of power to intervene.

This is a central and important question.

I suppose women's rights but I would not suppose the U.S. Army invading all countries that have Shiria law (with their population of about a billion). I suppose religious freedom but I would not suppose the U.S. Army invading China (with their 1.3 billion people). This is for pragmatic reasons.

If we had a magic wand that would allow the U.S. Army to impose U.S. values on the whole world I would have to wonder which values would those be? The values of the religious or the non religious? The values of the north or the south? the values of the urban or the rural? The values of those who want to nationalize all industries or the values of those who do not want to nationalize all industries? etc, etc...

 

[brainstorm]

The federal government is allowed to intervene in state issues when it can show a 'compelling interest' and only to such a degree as is absolutely necessary to rectify the issue. Typically though the state is considered to be made up primarily of competent individuals who can recognize an untenable situation and enact measures to rectify the issue. The federal government need not step in unless the situation is entirely out of hand. Consider the relationship between parent and child. An adult child is free to its own devices. Parents may advise but they have no right to step in until such time as the child has shown themselves to be an eminent danger to their self. Otherwise the child is considered competent enough to make its own decisions and deal with its own mistakes.

I think we agree on the principle that intervention should only be undertaken as a last resort and more diplomatic/democratic means pursued first. Where we disagree is in viewing collective sovereigns as deserving the same respect as individual sovereigns. The very idea of collective or state sovereignty presumes the right for some individual(s) to be sovereign over others. So it seems hypocritical to me to say that intervention in the right of some individuals to be sovereign over others should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Power checks sovereignty to protect individuals from state/collectivist tyranny.

Do you believe that it is the intention of the UN to allow the US, or any other country, to abridge the rights and freedoms of its citizens?

I think part of what the UN does is to make it very difficult for anyone to intervene in anyone else's business out of ethical concerns without facing a discourse of submission to authority of sovereignty. In other words, the first thing UN agents do is attempt to preserve sovereignty as long as possible as war-avoidance. Cultural relativism and moral relativism are held as reasons that no one should interfere in the affairs of someone else with "a different culture." The fact is that defining cultural differences and boundaries is itself a relativist power-claim, and there is no reason why national-state authorities should be able to define culture for individual citizens and therefore claim special jurisdiction over intervention in their affairs. Granted, any authority should operate in dialogue with the authority of whosever affairs it is intervening in, but this must occur at the individual level, imo.

The UN has strictly outlined procedures for when intervention is allowable and recognizes the sovereignty of nations. It will not impede the right of any national entity to make its own choices and is not allowed to hold any nation to its own standard of decency through force unless absolutely necessary.

This language assumes that collective self-determination is ontologically possible. I dissect collectivist language-claims and always find that collectivism involves some individuals being subjugated to the will or interests of others. A "national-entity" can't make "its own choices" because "it" doesn't exist except as conflicting interests and individuals. Why should individuals be subject to exclusion from interaction with other individuals on the basis of statism? If one individual is defined as having the same nationality as another, she is free to intervene in the other's affairs but if they are defined as having different nationalities, it can be called an act of war? What kind of nonsense is that?

Collectivist action is a different story. If multiple individuals coordinate their actions to exercise oppressive force over others, shouldn't that be checked, regardless of whether the individuals are defined as having the same or different nationality from the people they are attacking?

Recognition of sovereignty is not consent to allow any manner of atrocity.

Maybe not, but it is itself the means to allow the atrocity of discrimination on the basis of national citizenship.

Due Process is found in the 14th Amendment. It also does not define due process. The courts have been interpreting the exact extent of due process for over a century. Even the federal government before the fourteenth amendment was not held to the same standard of due process that we have today. Civilizations evolve.

I'm afraid that informal trial and punishment occur in various forms regularly and pass as everyday affairs. Employers can investigate and punish or fire employees without due process or even explicit notification. Managers just base their decision on one thing and give a different reason for disciplinary action. Look at media scandals. Was Tiger Woods given the privilege of due process or rights of the accused? No, he was simply subject to public humiliation protected by freedom of speech. I'm not arguing against freedom of speech, of course, just pointing out that people still find informal ways of exercising pre-modern power tactics without giving much thought to the fact that they are acting as judge, jury, and disciplinary agent.

Nor is recognition of sovereignty consent to allow dictatorship.
Note that political and philosophical forces led to the eventual institution of a nation standard of rights.

What is sovereignty except a form of dictatorship?

I can look for sources and cite them later if you like (I need some sleep) but it is the historical reasoning that these limitations on states were to form a more cohesive union. Many of them address issues specific to the failure of the Confederate States. Individual states would print bank notes that were more or less valuable depending upon which state you were in and some would not accept any other currency. The states levied variable taxes and tariffs on one another to reduce out of state competition or just to turn a profit. States would invalidate contracts from out of state lenders to free its citizens of their obligation to consideration.

I suppose standardizing currency can be called a form of cohesion. It can also just be called a convenience for market exchanges. Appropriating governmental institutions for business discrimination is corruption, not incohesion. All of these things sound like abuses of power the way you describe them, but I'm sure their are situations in which they would be a lesser evil of necessary evil to check/balance some other act of corruption. It's always handy for one side to point out the ethics abuses of the other as part of a discourse to claim legitimacy and redress. In reality, democracy like war usually involves some level of ethical shortfalls on the part of both sides. The only hope is de-escalation since allowing them to subject each other to political accountability only adds another dimension to the bickering.

I may respond more to this later. Right now I would just like to say that I am referring primarily to historical interpretation. We are in "History & Humanities" discussing the history of constitutional interpretation and its changes over time. Your posts and arguments seem to be applying a modern interpretation of constitutional principle. I am only saying that this sort of interpretation was not always in force. Realizing and understanding the history of the document, its various interpretations, and the context of its creation and amending is important to our modern perspective.

I don't think you have access to any interpretation except through the lens of your current interpretation. You may believe that you can transparently survey different interpretive frameworks as changing through time, but you seem to ignore that to interpret those frameworks, you have to interpret them from your own perspective. I'm willing to discuss reasoning and evidence that one texts exhibits one interpretive framework and another another, but I disagree that you can assume cohesion among everyone living during a particular time of how they interpreted constitutional passages or anything else. If anything is certain about interpretation, it is that there are always conflicts and dissent.

 

[brainstorm]

So in the union of marriage you would oppose all divorce?

I would say that marriage is a statement of commitment by individuals but not a union, per se, although I say this because I'm uncomfortable with what "union" can or should mean. Divorce is indeed an expression of separatism. Practically it allows people to guarantee parental rights and protect their assets against abuse by a person who may no longer take their interest into consideration.

Personally, I had to study the bible for my perspective on divorce. It says that no believer would ever seek divorce out of the commandment of forgiveness. Yet if an unbeliever seeks to divorce a believer, the believer is supposed to forgive their unforgiveness. The reason given is that by forgiving unforgiveness, the believer is supposed to be offering the unbeliever the chance to experience the gift of forgiveness and thus the opportunity to have faith in its power. Complex but nice.

I suppose women's rights but I would not suppose the U.S. Army invading all countries that have Shia law (with their population of about a billion). I suppose religious freedom but I would not suppose the U.S. Army invading China (with their 1.3 billion people). This is for pragmatic reasons.

Is this the same as saying that you would sacrifice a certain number of individual's rights that you believe into protect others? Is damage-control ethically tenable when it willfully allows victimization of innocents? By comparison, would it have been ethical for the military to have allowed the European holocaust of the 1930s-1940s occur without intervention as a means of avoiding creating war-casualties? It can be disturbing, but I sometimes think that this is the lesson of Christianity with "turning the other cheek," i.e. that it is better to suffer at the mercy of an oppressor than oppressing back. On the other hand, if you can intervene in oppression, why wouldn't you except to avoid committing greater violence? These are hard ethical issues without easy answers.

If we had a magic wand that would allow the U.S. Army to impose U.S. values on the whole world I would have to wonder which values would those be? The values of the religious or the non religious? The values of the north or the south? the values of the urban or the rural? The values of those who want to nationalize all industries or the values of those who do not want to nationalize all industries? etc, etc...

This question is easier for me to answer because I believe in Foucaultian truth-power. Truth/morality/culture is relative but only within the regime that defines it as such. Truth-power is the ability or means of commensurating conflicting truths to generate a reasonable victor. It's not that power defines truth, but that truth is its own unique form of power. So, once you recognize that you are situated in a position to apply truth-power and evaluate conflicting values, you can do that - the only problem being that to claim the truth of what you come up with, you have to engage in truth-power negotiations with others who have their own reasoning and conclusions. It basically comes down to the politics of arguing your reasons and truth against others' and vying for power and influence by doing so.

The big issue isn't "whose truth should win" but whether the battle should be fought with truth-power dominating power or social-power dominating truth. Asking, "whose truth should win" presumes social-power should dominate truth. Asserting that the truest truth should win and gain power presumes that truth-power is a legitimate critical discourse whose outcome is valid insofar as it is a truer truth than whatever truth is invalidated by it. Of course, this also presumes that truth-claims are in good faith and not simply will to social power disguised as truth-claims in the interest of adding legitimacy to social power. Of course, true truth is the ultimate legitimacy, but it can only be truly legitimate when it isn't merely a derivation of social-prerogative.

 

[mheslep]

As I am reading "The Real Lincoln" by DiLorenzo now. I will use that for references.

Hamilton page 89 from "The Federalist Papers" (number 81) he states

"It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of any individual without its consent. This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union."

Marshall page 90 a state can not be "called before the bar of the Federal court."

Webster page 90 'said in 1851 "if the Northern states refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain can not be broken on one side, and still bind the other side."

Adams page 87-88 a quote from a speech in 1839 it is long so I will quote only a small part "Then will be the time for reverting to the precedencts which occurred at the formation and adpotion of the Constitution, to form again a more prefect Union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separate parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center."

Jefferson page 86 quoting DiLorenzo "Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration, was a strong supporter of the Union, but he nevertheless defended the right of any state to secede from it."

from the back page of the book DiLorenzi is professor of economics in the Sellinger School of Business and Management at Loyola College in Maryland. Specializing in economic history and political economy, he is the author of eleven books and is widely published in academic journals and such national pubilcations as The Wall Street Journal, Reader's Digest, USA Today, National Review, and Barron's.

edpell, in your first mention of the sovereignty issue, I had the impression you meant those founders were stating that the US states were sovereign over the US Federal government in all cases. Clearly this is not the case. For the cases detailed in the Constitution, e.g. who runs the Post Office and so on, the Federal government is sovereign. None of the quotes above run counter to that idea. The disagreements stem for those cases not so clearly spelled out in the constitution.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This language assumes that collective self-determination is ontologically possible. I dissect collectivist language-claims and always find that collectivism involves some individuals being subjugated to the will or interests of others. A "national-entity" can't make "its own choices" because "it" doesn't exist except as conflicting interests and individuals. Why should individuals be subject to exclusion from interaction with other individuals on the basis of statism? If one individual is defined as having the same nationality as another, she is free to intervene in the other's affairs but if they are defined as having different nationalities, it can be called an act of war? What kind of nonsense is that?

I see this not as ontological claims but practical claims. Intervention into 'sovereign' relationships carries with it the danger of imposing only an alternate form of oppression and 'dictatorship'. Even with only the best of intentions and the most careful consideration any intervention at all may only cause strife and suffering either directly or indirectly. Regardless of ontological correctness the perception of collective will is rather thoroughly ingrained and presents issues for practical consideration.

What is sovereignty except a form of dictatorship?

I believe that even at its most broad interpretation "dictatorship" is defined as the rule of the minority over the majority. Sovereignty in itself does not equate to this.

I suppose standardizing currency can be called a form of cohesion. It can also just be called a convenience for market exchanges. Appropriating governmental institutions for business discrimination is corruption, not incohesion. All of these things sound like abuses of power the way you describe them, but I'm sure their are situations in which they would be a lesser evil of necessary evil to check/balance some other act of corruption. It's always handy for one side to point out the ethics abuses of the other as part of a discourse to claim legitimacy and redress. In reality, democracy like war usually involves some level of ethical shortfalls on the part of both sides. The only hope is de-escalation since allowing them to subject each other to political accountability only adds another dimension to the bickering.

Corruption leads to incohesion. Being in a depressed community and traveling to another to find resources only to find that the depression of my community has led to my currency being worth even less anywhere else creates disparity and incohesion. Doing business with persons in another community only to find that that community has decided I am owed no consideration and will use force to prevent me from recuperation of my losses creates incohesion. "To form a more perfect union" one may see fit to mitigate these issues.

I don't think you have access to any interpretation except through the lens of your current interpretation. You may believe that you can transparently survey different interpretive frameworks as changing through time, but you seem to ignore that to interpret those frameworks, you have to interpret them from your own perspective. I'm willing to discuss reasoning and evidence that one texts exhibits one interpretive framework and another another, but I disagree that you can assume cohesion among everyone living during a particular time of how they interpreted constitutional passages or anything else. If anything is certain about interpretation, it is that there are always conflicts and dissent.

I am referring primarily to interpretation by the court. There has rarely been a strong consensus of interpretation of the constitution but it is the function of the Supreme Court to make such determinations and their interpretation affects the practical application of the law. For a historical and legal perspective their interpretations are authoritative. I am sure that my own biases of perception may colour my presentation of those interpretations to some degree or another but I assume an ability on the part of readers to filter any bias and glean useful information for discussion from my communications.