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

[Atreus21]

I was looking over Scalia's dissent to the Arizona immigration decision yesterday, and his very first sentence is this:

The United States is an indivisible “Union of sovereign States.” Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U. S. 92, 104 (1938).

Incidentally, if anyone wants to read it, National Review has it up in its entirety. It's long, and I haven't finished reading it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/303931/defining-characteristic-sovereignty-antonin-scalia

This might merit being joined to the current thread on this decision, but it does raise a slightly different and larger question. If the states are sovereign, as Scalia's quote says, then what does that portend not just for immigration, but for the whole of the relationship between state governments and the federal government? When Scalia says sovereign, does he mean, you know, really sovereign? No different than a nation's sovereignty? Does that put state sovereignty on the same level as national sovereignty? Are the states to be treated as 50 sovereign nations?

Are there other SC decisions that contradict Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co.'s establishment of state sovereignty?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Dude's got the brain worms.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My view is that states are sovereign in the sense that they have their own governments which are not under the direct control of any other. That does not mean they take precedent over the Federal government however. That makes sense because if the central government has no supremacy then the states have the power to tax another, require passports, indeed make war on another. Obviously that won't work.

The problem however is that the Federal government had a particular role in things which has been expanded by itself to areas which are quite a far stretch from how things were intended. The expansive use of the Commerce Clause and the contorted rationalization of its use is a glaring example.

Regarding immigration the Federal government does have jurisdiction in such matter, but that is not without negative consequences for states. It was admitted that AZ bears a disproportionate burden of negative consequences, but they have no authority to act. Yes police can identify potential illegals, however the Obama administration has already said it does not intend to correct this problem, and effectively ignore AZs situation.

As I think of it there may be a legal remedy to require that be corrected in the Equal protection clause. While AZ cannot claim supremacy it might be able to sue the government because it has been admitted by the SCOTUS that their citizens bear a disproportionate burden and since Obama does not intend to correct that it might be able to make the argument that the Federal government needs to provide effective resources to counter that situation.

 

[thraashman]

Well some people are Constitutional originalists. Some people believe the Constitution is a living document. Scalia is a Constitutional "whatever I feel like at the time-ist". The man has been shown to be the most activist judge on the current supreme court (activist being legislates from the bench and rules against established legal precedence). He should be the last person we listen to as far as the rule of law.

 

[Atreus21]

Well some people are Constitutional originalists. Some people believe the Constitution is a living document. Scalia is a Constitutional "whatever I feel like at the time-ist". The man has been shown to be the most activist judge on the current supreme court (activist being legislates from the bench and rules against established legal precedence). He should be the last person we listen to as far as the rule of law.

How do you rebut his quote from the decision about state sovereignty?

 

[werepossum]

My view is that states are sovereign in the sense that they have their own governments which are not under the direct control of any other. That does not mean they take precedent over the Federal government however. That makes sense because if the central government has no supremacy then the states have the power to tax another, require passports, indeed make war on another. Obviously that won't work.

The problem however is that the Federal government had a particular role in things which has been expanded by itself to areas which are quite a far stretch from how things were intended. The expansive use of the Commerce Clause and the contorted rationalization of its use is a glaring example.

Regarding immigration the Federal government does have jurisdiction in such matter, but that is not without negative consequences for states. It was admitted that AZ bears a disproportionate burden of negative consequences, but they have no authority to act. Yes police can identify potential illegals, however the Obama administration has already said it does not intend to correct this problem, and effectively ignore AZs situation.

As I think of it there may be a legal remedy to require that be corrected in the Equal protection clause. While AZ cannot claim supremacy it might be able to sue the government because it has been admitted by the SCOTUS that their citizens bear a disproportionate burden and since Obama does not intend to correct that it might be able to make the argument that the Federal government needs to provide effective resources to counter that situation.

Well said.

 

[QuantumPion]

If I was Jan Brewer I would eject all FBI, ATF, and DEA agents from the state, and use the Arizona national guard to seal the border round up all illegals they can find.

 

[IGBT]

revert back to territory status and dump all unfunded fed mandates and all the rest that usurp territory/state sovereignty.

 

[Anarchist420]

They should have absolute sovereignty as they did under the u.S. Articles of Confederation.

Hamilton wanted a centralized republic/monarchy with no substates and the Antifederalists wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation.

The Federalists lied and gave fake concessions get a more-centralized-than-not Republic.

The Federal Union wound up getting disproportionately even more power than it started out with for 3 reasons:

the 3/5 clause;
only an absolute majority required to raise the tariff (rather than 2/3);
2/3 of the States via their legislatures were not required to elect Presidents (no JQ Adams, no Jackson, and no Lincoln).

Due to the Federalists going with an absolute majority for nearly everything, the power of the Union really sped up.

 

[fskimospy]

States are only sovereign when it comes to deporting brown people. Deciding campaign finance law to elect their own leaders? Not so much.

Scalia's selective sovereignty is unsurprising.

 

[jstern01]

I think that little dust up call the Civil War pretty much resolved exactly how much sovereignty a state has. The federal government position as outlined in the constitution, is no laws can contradict federal laws, and federal laws trump state laws (The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption ).

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/preemption.htm

 

[jstern01]

More to the point, since illegal immigration is not a local crime, but a crime against the nation, the court rule correctly in this instance based upon (Pennsylvania vs Nelson 350 U.S. 497 (1956)).

 

[QuantumPion]

States are only sovereign when it comes to deporting brown people. Deciding campaign finance law to elect their own leaders? Not so much.

Scalia's selective sovereignty is unsurprising.

Stop being such a racist bigot. Not all hispanics are illegal aliens.

 

[Atreus21]

If I was Jan Brewer I would eject all FBI, ATF, and DEA agents from the state, and use the Arizona national guard to seal the border round up all illegals they can find.

...that's a tad extreme dude.

 

[Atreus21]

They should have absolute sovereignty as they did under the u.S. Articles of Confederation.

Ironically, if you read Scalia's dissent, he specifically mentions how the AoC left more power to the federal government to regulate immigration than does the Constitution.

The Articles of Confederation had provided that “the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.” Articles of Confederation, Art. IV. This meant that an unwelcome alien could obtain all the rights of a citizen of one State simply by first becoming an inhabitant of another. To remedy this, the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause provided that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Art. IV, §2, cl. 1 (emphasis added). But if one State had particularly lax citizenship standards, it might still serve as a gateway for the entry of “obnoxious aliens” into other States. This problem was solved “by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.” The Federalist No. 42, supra, at 271; see Art. I, §8, cl. 4. In other words, the naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it.

 

[Jaskalas]

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

I answer you with the Declaration of Independence.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

By its very existence, as declared, the United States must recognize the right of the people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them. That our States themselves may fully and truly represent us, and in order to do so are completely independent and sovereign if they so choose.

 

[chucky2]

Never happen. The Fed Leaderships (all 3 branches) entire reason for being would be usurped and challenged by any state doing so. Nothing can be allowed that would cause that to happen.

 

[jstern01]

I answer you with the Declaration of Independence.



By its very existence, as declared, the United States must recognize the right of the people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them. That our States themselves may fully and truly represent us, and in order to do so are completely independent and sovereign if they so choose.

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

 

[chucky2]

Ironic, isn't it, Lincoln making that case?

 

[jstern01]

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.

 

[First]

I answer you with the Declaration of Independence.



By its very existence, as declared, the United States must recognize the right of the people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them. That our States themselves may fully and truly represent us, and in order to do so are completely independent and sovereign if they so choose.

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.

 

[chucky2]

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.

Oh no, not ironic in that that sense (the Union is more important than hundreds of thousands of lives, plus many more seriously injured?), ironic in the sense that DC goes to war with states to end slavery (at least that was the primary reason given), then many decades later, works against states to keep the illegal slavery gravy train rolling.

Few things are more ironic than that...

 

[First]

Oh no, not ironic in that that sense (the Union is more important than hundreds of thousands of lives, plus many more seriously injured?), ironic in the sense that DC goes to war with states to end slavery (at least that was the primary reason given), then many decades later, works against states to keep the illegal slavery gravy train rolling.

Few things are more ironic than that...

lol wut?

 

[chucky2]

lol wut?

I can't tell, are you being your funny again like last time, or are you legitly in the White Guilter/Bleeding Hearth/DamnTheMan/Cheaper/Greeder category and as such, simply not capable of understanding what I wrote?

Sorry, it's hard for me to tell with your posts, so I have to ask.

 

[QuantumPion]

...that's a tad extreme dude.

No. What is extreme is Obama's new policy of explicitly releasing known violent criminal illegal aliens in Arizona in order to politically punish Jan Brewer.