the Federation CANNOT OWN neither a ""State"" nor any part thereof....
Where do you keep getting this idea of "ownership?" I've never once claimed that the USA "owns" any state
The Federation is LOANED or ALLOWED, but mainly TOLERATED to have small pieces of Land for Forts, Magazines and other needful things, the LAND is still OWNED by the State therein....
Incorrect. Land ceded to the federal government is permanent, unless retroceded, which is debatable as to the constitutionality of such an action. I contend that it would not be constitutional, as the Constitution does not explicitly authorize Congress with any power to retrocede land back to the state, or to any other state for that matter. Giving Congress such an ability would make for a vulnerable situation just waiting for nefarious actors to exploit for gain. Here's a good article looking at such a question about land being ceded and "ownership", in the case of Ft. Sumter. This is a really important matter when applied to the issues with the District of Columbia. I'd argue that the retrocession of the area of DC west of the Potomac back to Virginia in 1847 was unlawful. If you know your history behind the event, you'd know who pushed that action and why... hint, dealt with the issue slavery.
And when it comes to the Federal Constitution, Treaties and such, as being the supreme Law of the Land, those things can be annulled within each State by legislative decree, and there isn't one single thing the U.S. Govt can DO about it....
There is no "state right" of "nullification" in the Constitution. States could of course, conduct a Convention of the states and amend the Constitution to override Congress, but they don't have any such unilateral "veto" power as you imply. States can choose to ignore federally enacted legislation, treaties and other measures taken in accordance with the Constitution, and the federal government can wield the power of the military to enforce the law. See what happened during the Nullification Crisis of 1832, during Reconstruction and desegregation. Ask Governor Wallace about how successful he was at "nullifying" the supremacy of the federal government in the issue of enforcement of the 14th amendment against state governments violating it. What states CAN do, is challenge the legality of federal statutes in court, and they can exercise coalition building with other states to repeal bad legislature or enact new legislation. As far as the theories of "nullification", even the authors of the VA and KY Resolutions (Jefferson and Madison), were very clear that they objected to Calhoun's secession theory of unilateral withdrawal from the Union.
As for whether the Crown Gave up the colonies willingly or otherwise, it is painfully obvious it was done begrudgingly in the Treaty of Paris of 1783,
Well of course the British King would do so begrudgingly. Kind of sucks having to admit to losing a war amirite? Interestingly though, the Crown, or more specifically special interests, didn't actually stop the war to regain the former American colonies. That's how we ended up with America's Second War of Independence from 1812-1815. In reality, we never really stopped being at war with the British, or rather the British never ceased to stop making war upon the USA. The 1783 treaty was more or less a temporary truce.
where he gave them up individually, by name, and not all as just one grouping, he recognized them to be each a Sovereign Nation like France, Spain, etc, and EQUAL to those Nations....
Really have to stop just making things up hoping that people who didn't already know the facts would blindly believe you.... from the Treaty itself:
It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, [...] and of the United States of America, to forget all past Misunderstandings and Differences that have unhappily interrupted the good Correspondence and Friendship which they mutually wish to restore...
Dude literally referred to the new nation BY ITS NAME, as stated by the Articles of Confederation which established it. He did 18 times over the text of the treaty. The listing of the states
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.
viz / adverb: short for the Latin videlicet, meaning "in other words" (used to introduce a gloss or explanation).
He had to acknowledge what the USA included, which at the time and from HIS perspective was 12 "sovereign and independent states." His view of what he thought the nature of the governance of the USA to be, doesn't change what the Declaration of Independence or Articles of Confederation actually state. Even before the Constitution, the principle of dual sovereignty was already declared within the Articles of Confederation:
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Translation: whatever sovereignty IS delegated to the federal government of the USA, would be explicitly stated so in the governing bylaws of the country, which at first was the Articles and then the Constitution. Though the sovereignty delegated to the Confederation Congress wasn't as expansive as it would be in the Constitution, just look at all of those powers granted to the Congress, and all of the prohibitions placed on the "independent" states. It's not hard to read....
NEXT Articles of Association, at best are a Letter of Intent, and just like any letter of Intent, in Business Law, it cannot be held up in Court, nor can it be forced into any form of Contract, it is only INTENT and not solidified Agreement....
Correct, to an extent. Which is why I say that the Articles of Association of 1774 represent the creation of the Union, while the nation itself was legally created by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Of note, from 1774 to 1776, the colonies did a pretty damn good job honoring the conditions of their agreement.
So after that, comes the Various Constitutions vis., Massachusetts Constitution, written in 1787, Virginia Constitution 1776, etc, ALL of the NEW NATIONS had their own Constitutions BEFORE the U.S. was ratified into a thing/Corporation....
The Continental Congress approved the AoC on November 15, 1777. Even though the obvious delays caused by the war resulted in the states being unable to ratify the AoC until 1781, they functionally governed the new nation. Whatever was stated in the various state constitutions asserting independence from the British Empire and sovereignty, was superseded by the ratification of the AoC and later the Constitution.
So WHY should it be this way for the Counties, but not for the States?? Don't contradict yourself now....
Don't blame me for what the Constitution says and doesn't say. I didn't write it.
Fact is, it is no different, if a State wants OUT, they have the Unenumerated Right to leave with ALL of their Possessions, and the States possessions are few, such as ALL of the LANDS within its Borders, All of the State Citizens (Art IV, Section 2), and it's Govt Intact....
Maybe in your fantasy world, but here in reality, they are two different cases. The states are bound by the terms of the Constitution, and previously the Articles, because they agreed to them. The governing law doesn't explicitly give any state a constitutional right to unilaterally withdraw from the Union and sunder the compact to which all of the other states are equal party. SC doesn't get to tell every other state that the nature of the USA is going to be changed to fit their liking. The Constitution however, says nothing about whether the inhabitants of the individual states are perpetually bound to remain citizens of said state, nor prohibit a state from permitting its inhabitants to approve leaving the state to form a new entity, nor ceding land to the federal government to be established as a new state. Again, land ceded (not "loaned"... words have meaning, use them correctly) to the federal government, is not the property of the state but of the entire national, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.
No, the State is the Sovereign, The People Vs John Doe, ever heard of it??
Such a statement is quite literally the statism of monarchy or communism. It's about as anti-American a claim as one could make. Wrong. The PEOPLE are the ultimate sovereign (subject to God, of course).
Each Individually have Rights, called Individual Rights and Each Right is Singular unto itself, but we all have the exact same Rights, from US these Rights are loaned to our States for Governance, and then the States ALLOW or TOLERATE the Federation to have LIMITED and Enumerated PRIVILEGES, which WE can push our State Govts into amending, by Law...
Given the increase in irrational broken English, I'm slowly beginning to believe that you are either not actually an American, or you're a bot.
Yes, a Voluntary Agreement, to a Voluntary Contract, which means they can LEAVE that Contract any time they wish, that is basic contractual Law....
You can voluntarily enter into a contract with a man to paint his house, under the terms that he pays you a deposit and then you paint the house before he pays the remaining compensation. You are bound by the terms of the contract. You don't get to just say "nah, thanks for the deposit but I'm just going to unilaterally void our contract because you're a meanie poo poo head." That is basic contract law, which it's quite clear that you've never actually studied, let alone practiced.
But there was NO Rebellion by VIRGINIA against anything, they simply wanted OUT of the Contract...
There was rebellion by Virginians (and South Carolinians, Georgians, Texans etc), by Americans, that was aided and abetted by sitting state governments, thus rendering them illegitimate due to their treasonous acts.
to move back under the Articles of Confederation...
Which was quite literally never the stated intention of any rebel. Even if hypothetically somebody actually argued all they wanted was to repeal the Constitution and revert back to the AoC, as evidenced earlier, there's still dual sovereignty enshrined in the AoC! No, what the rebels wanted, was a Constitution that explicitly declared and protected the right of slavery, the right to own human beings in perpetuity, based solely on skin color. The secession officers made that very clear. The rebel Constitution of the so-called Confederacy made it so. In fact, that Constitution ironically gave MORE power to a more centralized national government. Actually makes sense given that the rebels weren't actually fighting over "states rights" but their complaint that the federal government didn't do a strong enough job protecting what they believed was their rights to own people.
P.S., it had nothing to do with Lincoln getting [S]Elected, it was ALL about States Rights, and no matter how you look at it, States Rights are Paramount to Federal Rights, it's the same argument as Where your feelings try to stomp on my Rights....
Man, you drank that Lost Cause kool-aid hard. Put down the bottle. Crack open a real book. Read actual primary documents. Jubal Early would be proud
****>Where do you keep getting this idea of "ownership?" I've never once claimed that the USA "owns" any state
You keep saying that the States have no Right to Leave the "Union", this means that the Union specifically OWNS them...
Incorrect. Land ceded to the federal government is permanent, unless retroceded, which is debatable as to the constitutionality of such an action.
Ok, so this is where things SEEM to get muddled a bit, with part of it being in International Law, The Law of Nations, and Contractual Law....
Partially right, but that view is incorrect. as that land was Originally, per the thirteen Colonies, or thirteen NATIONS, was, owned by them Exclusively, IF you are able to apply the Equality Clause to ALL States, and stay within the borders of Law....
"There is no "state right" of "nullification" in the Constitution."
Correct, the States cannot Null any part of the Constitution, but the CAN nullify anything that is outside it, such as Gun laws, Legal Abortion[MURDER], Legalized Invasion, aka DACA, Almost anything by Presidential EO, and soo much other stuff.... It's a 10th Amendment thing....
You keep saying that the States have no Right to Leave the "Union", this means that the Union specifically OWNS them...
No, it doesn't.
Ok, so this is where things SEEM to get muddled a bit, with part of it being in International Law, The Law of Nations, and Contractual Law....
The laws of the USA alone, govern the USA.
as that land was Originally, per the thirteen Colonies, or thirteen NATIONS, was, owned by them Exclusively, IF you are able to apply the Equality Clause to ALL States, and stay within the borders of Law....
Sure, originally state land was state land, the exclusive property of said states. But when states ceded part of their land to the federal government, it became forever the property of the nation, of the USA, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. The District of Columbia is a perfect example. Also, the original or present status of the ownership of land, doesn't change the reality that per the Articles of Confederation, and then the Constitution, the federal government was delegated with exclusive authorities in certain areas in which it would retain and exercise sovereignty.
Correct, the States cannot Null any part of the Constitution, but the CAN nullify anything that is outside it, such as Gun laws, Legal Abortion[MURDER], Legalized Invasion, aka DACA, Almost anything by Presidential EO, and soo much other stuff.... It's a 10th Amendment thing....
Sure, states can attempt to "nullify" (a term you've yet to define), e.g. ignore federal legislation that violates the Constitution. But it's not a "right", like the President has the right to veto legislation he believes to be unconstitutional or imprudent, and the Congress has a right to override that veto. But a single state legislature doesn't have any "right" to "nullify" (what you imply to be akin to a veto) a law they disagree with. John C. Calhoun and Governor Hayne telling the federal government that they weren't allowed to enforce the tariff, didn't force the Congress or President Jackson to just say "okie dokie! SC can ignore it." Governor Wallace and the Alabama legislature telling the federal government it won't desegregate, didn't stop the federal government from forcing them to obey the law. However, what the states can do, and did in many cases, was work together to get more agreeable representatives from other states elected to Congress, who would change the law to their liking, help get a better president elected, and go to the courts to challenge laws believed to be unconstitutional. The states could even convene to ratify amendments to the Constitution. These are all legal, constitutional remedies for checking federal overreach.
I agree that a lot of the items you mentioned, are unconstitutional. Most gun laws are illegal, although originally the 2nd only restricted the Congress from enacting federal gun laws. However, if we apply the incorporation doctrine of the 14th (a favorite of the Left to try and twist), then that prohibition would apply to state governments as well (so much for "sole state sovereignty" eh ;) ). Of course most state gun laws actually violate their own state constitutions, which is where legal challenges should be focused. Yes, abortion is murder. Yes, refusal to enforce immigration and national defense laws, is criminal negligence and a violation of ones constitutional oath. I wish more states would do something about resisting and undoing these abuses. It would seem that many in the Republican establishment don't really care much about these principles eh?
It seems the term “law of nations” was commonly used at the time to describe the set of laws, both natural and those established by treaty, between sovereign states. This is reinforced by the context of the clause being crimes committed outside of the United States itself
So again, the laws of the USA alone, govern the USA. Treaties made by the USA with foreign nations, constituting the "law of nations," is a product of the USA, of Congress, of law approved by Congress, in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution.
You do realize how all of this hurts your claim that the states are sole, exclusive sovereigns, right?
Nullify, is a LEGAL Term that is found in LAw Dictionaries, it is used by Congress when they don;t like the effect of a specific Law or Regulation that impacts their Investments in certain Stocks.....
But was previously used to Free Americans of Bad Laws, and Bad Regulations, which did nothing to Spread Freedom and Liberty....
it is used by Congress when they don;t like the effect of a specific Law or Regulation that impacts their Investments in certain Stocks
Sure. Congress repeals laws. Write new laws. That's how the lawmaking process works. The Constitution vests all federal legislative authority in Congress and doesn't grant states any direct veto power (which you conflate as "nullification"). The idea was floated during the Constitutional Convention, to give states veto power, but it was rejected by an overwhelming majority and for good reason.
But was previously used to Free Americans of Bad Laws, and Bad Regulations, which did nothing to Spread Freedom and Liberty.
Sure. Sometimes Congress repealed bad laws. They should. That's how the system was designed to work.
Where do you keep getting this idea of "ownership?" I've never once claimed that the USA "owns" any state
Incorrect. Land ceded to the federal government is permanent, unless retroceded, which is debatable as to the constitutionality of such an action. I contend that it would not be constitutional, as the Constitution does not explicitly authorize Congress with any power to retrocede land back to the state, or to any other state for that matter. Giving Congress such an ability would make for a vulnerable situation just waiting for nefarious actors to exploit for gain. Here's a good article looking at such a question about land being ceded and "ownership", in the case of Ft. Sumter. This is a really important matter when applied to the issues with the District of Columbia. I'd argue that the retrocession of the area of DC west of the Potomac back to Virginia in 1847 was unlawful. If you know your history behind the event, you'd know who pushed that action and why... hint, dealt with the issue slavery.
There is no "state right" of "nullification" in the Constitution. States could of course, conduct a Convention of the states and amend the Constitution to override Congress, but they don't have any such unilateral "veto" power as you imply. States can choose to ignore federally enacted legislation, treaties and other measures taken in accordance with the Constitution, and the federal government can wield the power of the military to enforce the law. See what happened during the Nullification Crisis of 1832, during Reconstruction and desegregation. Ask Governor Wallace about how successful he was at "nullifying" the supremacy of the federal government in the issue of enforcement of the 14th amendment against state governments violating it. What states CAN do, is challenge the legality of federal statutes in court, and they can exercise coalition building with other states to repeal bad legislature or enact new legislation. As far as the theories of "nullification", even the authors of the VA and KY Resolutions (Jefferson and Madison), were very clear that they objected to Calhoun's secession theory of unilateral withdrawal from the Union.
Well of course the British King would do so begrudgingly. Kind of sucks having to admit to losing a war amirite? Interestingly though, the Crown, or more specifically special interests, didn't actually stop the war to regain the former American colonies. That's how we ended up with America's Second War of Independence from 1812-1815. In reality, we never really stopped being at war with the British, or rather the British never ceased to stop making war upon the USA. The 1783 treaty was more or less a temporary truce.
Really have to stop just making things up hoping that people who didn't already know the facts would blindly believe you.... from the Treaty itself:
Dude literally referred to the new nation BY ITS NAME, as stated by the Articles of Confederation which established it. He did 18 times over the text of the treaty. The listing of the states
viz / adverb: short for the Latin videlicet, meaning "in other words" (used to introduce a gloss or explanation).
He had to acknowledge what the USA included, which at the time and from HIS perspective was 12 "sovereign and independent states." His view of what he thought the nature of the governance of the USA to be, doesn't change what the Declaration of Independence or Articles of Confederation actually state. Even before the Constitution, the principle of dual sovereignty was already declared within the Articles of Confederation:
Translation: whatever sovereignty IS delegated to the federal government of the USA, would be explicitly stated so in the governing bylaws of the country, which at first was the Articles and then the Constitution. Though the sovereignty delegated to the Confederation Congress wasn't as expansive as it would be in the Constitution, just look at all of those powers granted to the Congress, and all of the prohibitions placed on the "independent" states. It's not hard to read....
Correct, to an extent. Which is why I say that the Articles of Association of 1774 represent the creation of the Union, while the nation itself was legally created by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Of note, from 1774 to 1776, the colonies did a pretty damn good job honoring the conditions of their agreement.
The Continental Congress approved the AoC on November 15, 1777. Even though the obvious delays caused by the war resulted in the states being unable to ratify the AoC until 1781, they functionally governed the new nation. Whatever was stated in the various state constitutions asserting independence from the British Empire and sovereignty, was superseded by the ratification of the AoC and later the Constitution.
Don't blame me for what the Constitution says and doesn't say. I didn't write it.
Maybe in your fantasy world, but here in reality, they are two different cases. The states are bound by the terms of the Constitution, and previously the Articles, because they agreed to them. The governing law doesn't explicitly give any state a constitutional right to unilaterally withdraw from the Union and sunder the compact to which all of the other states are equal party. SC doesn't get to tell every other state that the nature of the USA is going to be changed to fit their liking. The Constitution however, says nothing about whether the inhabitants of the individual states are perpetually bound to remain citizens of said state, nor prohibit a state from permitting its inhabitants to approve leaving the state to form a new entity, nor ceding land to the federal government to be established as a new state. Again, land ceded (not "loaned"... words have meaning, use them correctly) to the federal government, is not the property of the state but of the entire national, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.
Such a statement is quite literally the statism of monarchy or communism. It's about as anti-American a claim as one could make. Wrong. The PEOPLE are the ultimate sovereign (subject to God, of course).
Given the increase in irrational broken English, I'm slowly beginning to believe that you are either not actually an American, or you're a bot.
You can voluntarily enter into a contract with a man to paint his house, under the terms that he pays you a deposit and then you paint the house before he pays the remaining compensation. You are bound by the terms of the contract. You don't get to just say "nah, thanks for the deposit but I'm just going to unilaterally void our contract because you're a meanie poo poo head." That is basic contract law, which it's quite clear that you've never actually studied, let alone practiced.
There was rebellion by Virginians (and South Carolinians, Georgians, Texans etc), by Americans, that was aided and abetted by sitting state governments, thus rendering them illegitimate due to their treasonous acts.
Which was quite literally never the stated intention of any rebel. Even if hypothetically somebody actually argued all they wanted was to repeal the Constitution and revert back to the AoC, as evidenced earlier, there's still dual sovereignty enshrined in the AoC! No, what the rebels wanted, was a Constitution that explicitly declared and protected the right of slavery, the right to own human beings in perpetuity, based solely on skin color. The secession officers made that very clear. The rebel Constitution of the so-called Confederacy made it so. In fact, that Constitution ironically gave MORE power to a more centralized national government. Actually makes sense given that the rebels weren't actually fighting over "states rights" but their complaint that the federal government didn't do a strong enough job protecting what they believed was their rights to own people.
Man, you drank that Lost Cause kool-aid hard. Put down the bottle. Crack open a real book. Read actual primary documents. Jubal Early would be proud
****>Where do you keep getting this idea of "ownership?" I've never once claimed that the USA "owns" any state
You keep saying that the States have no Right to Leave the "Union", this means that the Union specifically OWNS them...
Ok, so this is where things SEEM to get muddled a bit, with part of it being in International Law, The Law of Nations, and Contractual Law....
Partially right, but that view is incorrect. as that land was Originally, per the thirteen Colonies, or thirteen NATIONS, was, owned by them Exclusively, IF you are able to apply the Equality Clause to ALL States, and stay within the borders of Law....
Correct, the States cannot Null any part of the Constitution, but the CAN nullify anything that is outside it, such as Gun laws, Legal Abortion[MURDER], Legalized Invasion, aka DACA, Almost anything by Presidential EO, and soo much other stuff.... It's a 10th Amendment thing....
No, it doesn't.
The laws of the USA alone, govern the USA.
Sure, originally state land was state land, the exclusive property of said states. But when states ceded part of their land to the federal government, it became forever the property of the nation, of the USA, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. The District of Columbia is a perfect example. Also, the original or present status of the ownership of land, doesn't change the reality that per the Articles of Confederation, and then the Constitution, the federal government was delegated with exclusive authorities in certain areas in which it would retain and exercise sovereignty.
Sure, states can attempt to "nullify" (a term you've yet to define), e.g. ignore federal legislation that violates the Constitution. But it's not a "right", like the President has the right to veto legislation he believes to be unconstitutional or imprudent, and the Congress has a right to override that veto. But a single state legislature doesn't have any "right" to "nullify" (what you imply to be akin to a veto) a law they disagree with. John C. Calhoun and Governor Hayne telling the federal government that they weren't allowed to enforce the tariff, didn't force the Congress or President Jackson to just say "okie dokie! SC can ignore it." Governor Wallace and the Alabama legislature telling the federal government it won't desegregate, didn't stop the federal government from forcing them to obey the law. However, what the states can do, and did in many cases, was work together to get more agreeable representatives from other states elected to Congress, who would change the law to their liking, help get a better president elected, and go to the courts to challenge laws believed to be unconstitutional. The states could even convene to ratify amendments to the Constitution. These are all legal, constitutional remedies for checking federal overreach.
I agree that a lot of the items you mentioned, are unconstitutional. Most gun laws are illegal, although originally the 2nd only restricted the Congress from enacting federal gun laws. However, if we apply the incorporation doctrine of the 14th (a favorite of the Left to try and twist), then that prohibition would apply to state governments as well (so much for "sole state sovereignty" eh ;) ). Of course most state gun laws actually violate their own state constitutions, which is where legal challenges should be focused. Yes, abortion is murder. Yes, refusal to enforce immigration and national defense laws, is criminal negligence and a violation of ones constitutional oath. I wish more states would do something about resisting and undoing these abuses. It would seem that many in the Republican establishment don't really care much about these principles eh?
""The laws of the USA alone, govern the USA.""
The This is true, IF you know what you are reading when reading the U.S. Constitution, and within it, you'll find the Law of Nations....
Article I, Section 8, Clause 10
The Congress shall have Power ... To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.... https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/48/offenses-against-the-law-of-nations-clause
The law of nations is the law of sovereigns; free and independent states are moral persons, whose rights and obligations we are to establish in this treatise. https://constitutionstudy.com/2019/09/20/vattels-law-of-nations-and-the-u-s-constitution/
From your own provided link:
So again, the laws of the USA alone, govern the USA. Treaties made by the USA with foreign nations, constituting the "law of nations," is a product of the USA, of Congress, of law approved by Congress, in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution.
You do realize how all of this hurts your claim that the states are sole, exclusive sovereigns, right?
Nullify, is a LEGAL Term that is found in LAw Dictionaries, it is used by Congress when they don;t like the effect of a specific Law or Regulation that impacts their Investments in certain Stocks.....
But was previously used to Free Americans of Bad Laws, and Bad Regulations, which did nothing to Spread Freedom and Liberty....
Sure. Congress repeals laws. Write new laws. That's how the lawmaking process works. The Constitution vests all federal legislative authority in Congress and doesn't grant states any direct veto power (which you conflate as "nullification"). The idea was floated during the Constitutional Convention, to give states veto power, but it was rejected by an overwhelming majority and for good reason.
Sure. Sometimes Congress repealed bad laws. They should. That's how the system was designed to work.