****>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?
It also has the word ""IS"", so there, that proves you are correct about the entire thing....
Vattels Law of Nations is by far, the most comprehensive piece of International Law that has ever been compiled, and made into an easy reading format....
It is for that reason, that the Founders had many copies of it made and sent over from France....
I find it interesting that you chose to make a reference to one specific piece and then proclaimed that it proves me Wrong, somehow, and yet chose to completely ignore something even more important further down the page, vis;
""I did find some correspondence about acquiring copies of Vattel’s book, along with a few instances of Vattel being read or used as an example. There are even a few examples of Vattel either being quoted directly or where it is assumed that something someone said was an idea coming from his work. ""
Also::
"" Although, only referenced once in the Constitution it was referenced thirteen times, according to Madison’s notes, by Constitutional Convention delegates during the Constitutional Convention and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution referenced it numerous times when expounding on Constitutional clauses dealing with foreign policy. Additionally, one can also see evidence of the Law of Nations articulated in George Washington’s farewell address, the Monroe Doctrine, in every President’s Congressional request for a declaration of war until the Civil War, and in other writings of our founders. The absence of a declaratory statement identifying the Law of Nations as the foundation of American foreign policy should not be taken to mean that its tenants are any less binding today. Just like English Common Law was the foundation upon which the Constitution was written, so too is the Law of Nations the foundation upon which the framers defined the foreign policy powers delegated to our national government from the people.""
https://americanfoundingprinciples.com/law-of-nations/
The Law of Nations has always been ""International Law"", For 12,000 Years it was International Law, although Kings and such riff raff made Changes or addons to it to better suit their own personal causes, and since the founders were putting together a Federation, they needed the Worlds best compilation of International Laws, to refer to so they could get the best results....
I'm finding it rather baffling how it is that you cannot see that we have Two sets of International Laws, one set is the Obvious External International Law, and then the Constitution is Internal International Law....
Oh well, I'm just some dumb hick bastard trying to speak, and You are the one with the Masters degrees....
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
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?
Oh, I see your game....
It also has the word ""IS"", so there, that proves you are correct about the entire thing....
Vattels Law of Nations is by far, the most comprehensive piece of International Law that has ever been compiled, and made into an easy reading format....
It is for that reason, that the Founders had many copies of it made and sent over from France....
I find it interesting that you chose to make a reference to one specific piece and then proclaimed that it proves me Wrong, somehow, and yet chose to completely ignore something even more important further down the page, vis;
""I did find some correspondence about acquiring copies of Vattel’s book, along with a few instances of Vattel being read or used as an example. There are even a few examples of Vattel either being quoted directly or where it is assumed that something someone said was an idea coming from his work. ""
Also::
"" Although, only referenced once in the Constitution it was referenced thirteen times, according to Madison’s notes, by Constitutional Convention delegates during the Constitutional Convention and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution referenced it numerous times when expounding on Constitutional clauses dealing with foreign policy. Additionally, one can also see evidence of the Law of Nations articulated in George Washington’s farewell address, the Monroe Doctrine, in every President’s Congressional request for a declaration of war until the Civil War, and in other writings of our founders. The absence of a declaratory statement identifying the Law of Nations as the foundation of American foreign policy should not be taken to mean that its tenants are any less binding today. Just like English Common Law was the foundation upon which the Constitution was written, so too is the Law of Nations the foundation upon which the framers defined the foreign policy powers delegated to our national government from the people."" https://americanfoundingprinciples.com/law-of-nations/
The Law of Nations has always been ""International Law"", For 12,000 Years it was International Law, although Kings and such riff raff made Changes or addons to it to better suit their own personal causes, and since the founders were putting together a Federation, they needed the Worlds best compilation of International Laws, to refer to so they could get the best results....
I'm finding it rather baffling how it is that you cannot see that we have Two sets of International Laws, one set is the Obvious External International Law, and then the Constitution is Internal International Law....
Oh well, I'm just some dumb hick bastard trying to speak, and You are the one with the Masters degrees....
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.
Each State, Individually, can nullify any Law made by Congress, they've been doing that....
https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-states-can-nullify-some-federal-laws-not-all