To what extent are (should) the states (be) sovereign?

[First]

No I'm making fun of you because you are, apparently (though I can only guess what's going on in that crazy knogin of yours), comparing pre-Civil War black slaves to paid illegal immigrants.

It's just funny seeing someone grasping at straws and, worse, thinking their point is salient. lol.

 

[chucky2]

Got it, you're in one of those categories, and as such, want the gravy train to keep on rolling. Thanks for clearing it up, I can ignore the rest of your posts now. :thumbsup:

 

[bfdd]

He understood, that if the South was allow to secede, that the United States would eventually break into a bunch of squabbling petty states. Only by stopping the secession, and forcing the states to rejoin, could we survive. History so far has proven that his decision has worked.

That didn't make it illegal, what Lincoln did was illegal. Until then the States had all the right to leave.

 

[First]

Got it, you're in one of those categories, and as such, want the gravy train to keep on rolling. Thanks for clearing it up, I can ignore the rest of your posts now. :thumbsup:

lol

 

[First]

That didn't make it illegal, what Lincoln did was illegal. Until then the States had all the right to leave.

Welcome to post Civil War America.

 

[Jaskalas]

I would point you to Lincoln's 1861 inaugural address. Which I think he would have a much better understanding of what states versus federal rights are, since he was facing the issue at the time. Basically he states, that the union is indivisible and secession is not legal, therefore the south's sucession was illegal.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

It is not for man to usurp the natural law declared in the founding of this nation. There is no authority that can do so.

Should a State feel so violated that it should choose to leave, there is nothing you can do to stop it.

 

[Jaskalas]

The Declaration of the Independence does not have the force of law. It simply is not considered at the level of the SCOTUS.

It's an absolutely wonderful document that inspires. But you citing it means, exactly, nothing. It's not the law of the land. Perhaps you should have lived in 1780's pre-Constitution America, or the rural pre-1860's South. That would have likely suited you better than this more modern, civilized age.

You are simply declaring that might makes right, and are making my point. Your only answer would be in blood. If people choose to be free, your only recourse is killing them.

 

[Atreus21]

You are simply declaring that might makes right, and are making my point. Your only answer would be in blood. If people choose to be free, your only recourse is killing them.

The problem here is that now we're all starting to sound like Anarchist. That's essentially an argument against governmental authority in general.

I guess it's confusing. It's hard to establish an objective truth on this issue without being forced to one of two extremes. Ultimately, either you say the federal government has zero power, or you say the federal government has absolute power. I suppose that's why I asked the question in the first place. Neither option is valid, yet they seem to be the only two options available.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem here is that now we're all starting to sound like Anarchist.

I guess it's confusing. It's hard to establish an objective truth on this issue without being forced to one of two extremes. Ultimately, either you say the federal government has zero power, or you say the federal government has absolute power.

I think the real problem here is that Scalia is simply utterly wrong or totally dishonest. Of course the states can't control who is within their borders. Do you think that Pennsylvania is allowed to bar entry into it from citizens of New Jersey? (no matter how appealing that might be) I don't think anyone honestly believes that to be the case. If the ability to control the entry and exit of individuals to your borders is the measure of sovereignty that Scalia wants to use then the answer is simple: the states are not sovereign, they never have been, and they never will be.

I think there aren't really many cases where the states exert significant sovereignty. As I alluded to before, I find it somewhat strange that in rulings released on the same day that Scalia speaks so stridently in favor of state sovereignty for Arizona and then tells another state that it cannot exert standards for conduct of the election of its leaders. That sounds like a pretty important element of sovereignty too.

It seems to me that if the states are sovereign at all it is in a very limited way. There's almost no aspect of governance that is immune from federal influence, at least in practice.

 

[Atreus21]

I think the real problem here is that Scalia is simply utterly wrong or totally dishonest. Of course the states can't control who is within their borders.

Then what do we do about the SC case that he cited that said otherwise?

Do you think that Pennsylvania is allowed to bar entry into it from citizens of New Jersey? (no matter how appealing that might be)

hee hee.

I don't think anyone honestly believes that to be the case. If the ability to control the entry and exit of individuals to your borders is the measure of sovereignty that Scalia wants to use then the answer is simple: the states are not sovereign, they never have been, and they never will be.

Well, if people don't believe it, I think it's more to do with the fact they can't imagine the necessity for it. But suppose a zombie apocalypse happened in NJ, and PA wanted to seal its borders against incoming zombies. Or a slightly more realistic example, suppose there were an actual outbreak of Ebola or something. I can see a case for states enforcing their borders.

Granted, it's not fair to compare immigrants to a deadly disease which clearly warrants extreme measures to curtail. But at least it's an example.

I think there aren't really many cases where the states exert significant sovereignty. As I alluded to before, I find it somewhat strange that in rulings released on the same day that Scalia speaks so stridently in favor of state sovereignty for Arizona and then tells another state that it cannot exert standards for conduct of the election of its leaders. That sounds like a pretty important element of sovereignty too.

It seems to me that if the states are sovereign at all it is in a very limited way. There's almost no aspect of governance that is immune from federal influence, at least in practice.

I guess you're referring to Montana's challenge to Citizen's United? I agree that is inconsistent. In defense, however, I'd hold that freedom of speech is a very clearly delegated federal responsibility, and not at the mercy of states to abridge. I assume that, or something akin to that, was their reasoning.

But consistency here would mean saying that states either have supreme power, or no power at all. That's where I get confused. I don't see how a case can be made for a middle ground if one is asked to be perfectly consistent.

 

[fskimospy]

Then what do we do about the SC case that he cited that said otherwise?

Well the first thing that jumps out to me to do is cite this Supreme Court case that he was dissenting from.

Well, if people don't believe it, I think it's more to do with the fact they can't imagine the necessity for it. But suppose a zombie apocalypse happened in NJ, and PA wanted to seal its borders against incoming zombies. Or a slightly more realistic example, suppose there were an actual outbreak of Ebola or something. I can see a case for states enforcing their borders.

Granted, it's not fair to compare immigrants to a deadly disease which clearly warrants extreme measures to curtail. But at least it's an example.

While I agree that such a case would probably be permissible, I believe emergency situations aren't good examples in this case. There are lots of things governments can do in emergencies that aren't permitted in more normal times. More specifically though, I believe that if Pennsylvania chose to seal its borders with New Jersey and the federal government told them to stop, PA would be forced to yield. Sovereignty depends on with whom final authority rests, and I don't think in our current system the final say would rest with the state.

So really I think the answer to all of this is just that the states aren't actually sovereign.

I guess you're referring to Montana's challenge to Citizen's United? I agree that is inconsistent.

But consistency here would mean saying that states either have supreme power, or no power at all. That's where I get confused. I don't see how a case can be made for a middle ground if one is asked to be perfectly consistent.

Well you could have some sort of middle ground where states are sovereign over certain specific issues, exercising a limited form of it. If you are going by the strict terms of the word though (as well as what I believe occurs in practice), the answer is just that they aren't.

 

[Atreus21]

Well the first thing that jumps out to me to do is cite this Supreme Court case that he was dissenting from.

Then I wish the SCOTUS would declare Scalia's source overturned, so as not to have conflicting precedents.

While I agree that such a case would probably be permissible, I believe emergency situations aren't good examples in this case. There are lots of things governments can do in emergencies that aren't permitted in more normal times. More specifically though, I believe that if Pennsylvania chose to seal its borders with New Jersey and the federal government told them to stop, PA would be forced to yield. Sovereignty depends on with whom final authority rests, and I don't think in our current system the final say would rest with the state.

So really I think the answer to all of this is just that the states aren't actually sovereign.

I honestly can't make up my mind on if they are, and if she should be. Scalia's source says they are. Maybe I'll write a letter to him with this question. Maybe I'll get an answer. I actually have good luck with getting answers from prominent figures when I ask thoughtful questions.