Milt is wrong again-States Sovereignty
Milt
Robin <rsi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> After reading the latest of Milts attempts at intelligent reasoning
> (States Sovereignty), I like many others wonder at his astounding lack
> of lack of knowledge. Perhaps in pity for his failings we should take
> up a collection to pay for a class in research and debate based in
fact
> rather than opinion.
Fact? Here are some FACTS I keep bringing up;
A state cannot declare war.
A state cannot coin money.
A state cannot negotiate a treaty.
A state cannot regulate trade.
A state cannot have a standing army.
A state cannot secure its borders.
A state must honor relationships created by every other state.
ALL state laws are reviewable by federal courts.
All cases decided by state courts can be appealed to a federal court.
All diversity cases must be tried in federal court, no matter which
state the crime/harm occurred.
These are all characteristics of what you claim is a sovereign. Please
explain to us how a state that has all of the above characteristics,
can be seen as a sovereign...
> What Milt apparently doesn’t know is that Supremes only rule in cases
> to be decided under the Constitution. Many cases are declined because
> no Constitutional issue is to be decided.
So. All cases are reviewable, and the FEDERAL court gets to decide what
it will hear, and what it won't. The fact that the states can try a
case, and have it overturned by a federal court, ought to tell you
something. And that's a FACT.
>
> Provided are cites demonstrating the fact of States Sovereignty.
No, they're not. They demonstrate the use of the word. I still think
it's misused...
>
> Alden v. Maine, No. 98-436 (1999)
> Argued March 31, 1999
> Decided June 23, 1999
> Extract:
> 1. The Constitution's structure and history and this Court's
> authoritative interpretations make clear that the States' immunity
from
> suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty they enjoyed before
the
> Constitution's ratification and retain today, except as altered by the
> plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments. Under the
> federal system established by the Constitution, the States retain
> a "residuary and inviolable sovereignty." The Federalist No. 39, p.
> 245. They are not relegated to the role of mere provinces or political
> corporations, but retain the dignity, though not the full authority,
of
> sovereignty.
Read that last sentence very carefully, Robin.
> Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985)
> Argued October 9, 1985
> Decided December 3, 1985
> An extract:
> (a) The dual sovereignty doctrine provides that, when a defendant in a
> single act violates the "peace and dignity" of two sovereigns by
> breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct "offences"
for
> double jeopardy purposes.
Dual sovereignty is an oxymoron. It's not possible, without changing
the definition of Sovereign...
> In applying the doctrine, the crucial
> determination is whether the two entities that seek successively to
> prosecute a defendant for the same course of conduct can be termed
> separate sovereigns. This determination turns on whether the
> prosecuting entities' powers to undertake criminal prosecutions derive
> from separate and independent sources. It has been uniformly held that
> the States are separate sovereigns with respect to the Federal
> Government because each State's power to prosecute derives from its
> inherent sovereignty, preserved to it by the Tenth Amendment, and not
> from the Federal Government. Given the distinct sources of their
powers
> to try a defendant, the States are no less sovereign with respect to
> each other than they are with respect to the Federal Government. Pp.
87-
> 91
Yes, they are. A state court decision can be overridden by a federal
court. The reverse is not true...
<snip>
>
> BTW can anyone remember a discussion where Milt was actually right?
I'm usually correct. (Not right; that's your thing. In fact, I have
just proven you wrong. Not that you'd ever admit it.
BTW, since you think the USSC is infallible, I expect your thesis
supporting a woman's right to an abortion, as well as affirmative
action and busing, right here...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Scott D. Erb
Milt wrote:
> In article <82rstp$ih8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Robin <rsi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > After reading the latest of Milts attempts at intelligent reasoning
> > (States Sovereignty), I like many others wonder at his astounding lack
> > of lack of knowledge. Perhaps in pity for his failings we should take
> > up a collection to pay for a class in research and debate based in
> fact
> > rather than opinion.
>
> Fact? Here are some FACTS I keep bringing up;
>
> A state cannot declare war.
> A state cannot coin money.
> A state cannot negotiate a treaty.
> A state cannot regulate trade.
> A state cannot have a standing army.
> A state cannot secure its borders.
> A state must honor relationships created by every other state.
> ALL state laws are reviewable by federal courts.
> All cases decided by state courts can be appealed to a federal court.
> All diversity cases must be tried in federal court, no matter which
> state the crime/harm occurred.
>
> These are all characteristics of what you claim is a sovereign. Please
> explain to us how a state that has all of the above characteristics,
> can be seen as a sovereign...
You've made your point very well, I think, and its clear that in terms of
the UN, international law, and every other body involving sovereign states,
that the United States is one sovereign country. The component parts are
NOT sovereign.
Now, does that mean that they don't have ANY powers associated with
sovereignty? Of course not! Part of being a sovereign state is the ability
to determine how power is exercised. In a federal system, you can devolve
power to the component parts via a constitution. That is why the Supreme
Court used the word "sovereign" in that context, but it certainly cannot be
used to asserts that the component states of the US are "sovereign
states." Rather, it is the SC's ruling on the division of power within
this one sovereign state, a division called federalism, which we have
chosen.
> > What Milt apparently doesn’t know is that Supremes only rule in cases
> > to be decided under the Constitution. Many cases are declined because
> > no Constitutional issue is to be decided.
>
> So. All cases are reviewable, and the FEDERAL court gets to decide what
> it will hear, and what it won't. The fact that the states can try a
> case, and have it overturned by a federal court, ought to tell you
> something. And that's a FACT.
Exactly -- the SC is a court of final appeal, and tends to only take on
cases that involve constitutional issues. But they decide. We can all
appeal whatever we want to the SC, and let them choose to hear it or not.>
> > Provided are cites demonstrating the fact of States Sovereignty.
>
> No, they're not. They demonstrate the use of the word. I still think
> it's misused...
> >
> > Alden v. Maine, No. 98-436 (1999)
> > Argued March 31, 1999
> > Decided June 23, 1999
> > Extract:
> > 1. The Constitution's structure and history and this Court's
> > authoritative interpretations make clear that the States' immunity
> from
> > suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty they enjoyed before
> the
> > Constitution's ratification and retain today, except as altered by the
Note that this is a fundamental aspect of sovereignty which state
governments retain. That does not make them sovereign states. Many powers
associated with the definition of sovereignty Martin brings up are exercised
by even local governments. I think your use of the term is right, Milt,
because their use would mean that in order to be considered a sovereign
state, ANY aspect of sovereign power can be exercised. That would render
the definition meaningless; individuals have a modicum of sovereignty as
well. Or, they would say that the US is sovereign if and only if it has ALL
power in the central government (parliamentary sovereignty like Britain),
which is a very odd definition indeed.
> > plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments. Under the
> > federal system established by the Constitution, the States retain
> > a "residuary and inviolable sovereignty." The Federalist No. 39, p.
Yes, under the system established by the Constitution, the states are
allowed to retain some sovereign powers. That is how the Sovereign State of
the United States of America decided to determine how the sovereign
authority it has is exercised. We decided to give federal units
considerable power.
> > 245. They are not relegated to the role of mere provinces or political
> > corporations, but retain the dignity, though not the full authority,
> of
> > sovereignty.
>
> Read that last sentence very carefully, Robin.
Yes, it really makes all the difference!
> > Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985)
> > Argued October 9, 1985
> > Decided December 3, 1985
> > An extract:
> > (a) The dual sovereignty doctrine provides that, when a defendant in a
> > single act violates the "peace and dignity" of two sovereigns by
> > breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct "offences"
> for
> > double jeopardy purposes.
>
> Dual sovereignty is an oxymoron. It's not possible, without changing
> the definition of Sovereign...
It can be a legal definition to determine possible conflicts between federal
and state governments concerning how sovereign powers are divided. In that
sense it is a precise legal definition, but certainly not the prevailing and
common one that you, I and most people use when we say sovereignty.
> > In applying the doctrine, the crucial
> > determination is whether the two entities that seek successively to
> > prosecute a defendant for the same course of conduct can be termed
> > separate sovereigns. This determination turns on whether the
> > prosecuting entities' powers to undertake criminal prosecutions derive
> > from separate and independent sources. It has been uniformly held that
> > the States are separate sovereigns with respect to the Federal
> > Government because each State's power to prosecute derives from its
> > inherent sovereignty, preserved to it by the Tenth Amendment, and not
> > from the Federal Government. Given the distinct sources of their
> powers
> > to try a defendant, the States are no less sovereign with respect to
> > each other than they are with respect to the Federal Government. Pp.
> 87-
> > 91
>
> Yes, they are. A state court decision can be overridden by a federal
> court. The reverse is not true...
Whenever the SC has awkward reasoning, it shows in convuluted prose.
Consider: read that carefully and it says that the states are NOT less
sovereign in respect to each other (meaning that they ARE more sovereign in
respect to each other) than they are with respect to the Federal Government
(meaning they are LESS sovereign in respect to the federal government than
they are with each other). At the very least, it simply says that their use
of sovereign powers vis-a-vis each other is no greater than they are
vis-a-vis the federal government.
> > BTW can anyone remember a discussion where Milt was actually right?
>
> I'm usually correct. (Not right; that's your thing. In fact, I have
> just proven you wrong. Not that you'd ever admit it.
>
> BTW, since you think the USSC is infallible, I expect your thesis
> supporting a woman's right to an abortion, as well as affirmative
> action and busing, right here...
Also trying to rely on usage of terms by the SC which are unconventional as
the only definition allowed is to elevate it to the authority akin to that
of the French Academy in determining language usage. Do we really want to
ONLY be able to use legalese definitions as determined by the Supreme
Court???? That gives the SC massive power!
ciao, scott
cayenne
He hasn't made his point "very well," Professor. Some of the things
he mentions properly fall into the sphere of federal sovereignty (war,
treaties, trade). Some relate to the interrelationships between
states (full faith and credit). Some are simply incorrect: state
borders, while open to transit from other states, are also the
geographical borders of separate, distinct, and sovereign
systems of law. And all state laws are not reviewable by
"federal courts." Some very few state laws that raise conflicts
with the federal sphere or Constitutional issues will be reviewed
by the Supreme Court.
The United States *are* one sovereign country within which the
*sovereignty*--the ultimate law-making power--is divided between
a national government and 50 state governments, each with its
own system of sovereign law, well over 90% of which law will be
adjudicated to a finality within those states.
The system created under the Constitution is one of *dual*
sovereignty, and this is not a question that is in dispute.
The states, in fact, are the creators of the federal government,
and they created it with limited enumerated powers to handle
issues that would arise by virtue of, and best be handled
at the level of, the union. *Most* questions are handled at
the state level.
Your contentions about the United Nations and international
law reference national sovereignty as it presents itself to
other nations, not as it is constituted within the United States.
And the differences as to how each nation constitutes its
sovereignty are the crucial differences.
>Now, does that mean that they don't have ANY powers associated with
>sovereignty? Of course not! Part of being a sovereign state is the
ability
>to determine how power is exercised. In a federal system, you can devolve
>power to the component parts via a constitution.
What ignorance. Power has never been "devolved" to the "component
parts" in the United States. The *first* power in the creation of the
Constitution
is that of the states, which vested the federal government with enumerated
powers and retained the bulk of those powers for themselves. That is
historical fact, and not in dispute anywhere in the known universe. Next,
the *final* power with respect to the Constitution is that of the states as
well, which have the sole power to amend it, up to and including amending
it out of existence.
> That is why the Supreme
>Court used the word "sovereign" in that context, but it certainly cannot be
>used to asserts that the component states of the US are "sovereign
>states." Rather, it is the SC's ruling on the division of power within
>this one sovereign state, a division called federalism, which we have
>chosen.
When the Supreme Court uses the word "sovereign" with respect
to the states it is referring to the precise system of dual sovereignty
that has been the design of the United States under the Constitution
since it was written and ratified *by* the states.
Scott D. Erb
says...
(since you snipped much of my post, I presume you don't mind if I do the same
in order to cut to the chase):
>Your contentions about the United Nations and international
>law reference national sovereignty as it presents itself to
>other nations, not as it is constituted within the United States.
It is the conventional definition of sovereignty, and relates directly to what
Milt is talking about. You have to go through word gymnastics to try to say
that individual states are sovereign, when in reality it simply represents the
way power is divided within the sovereign unit -- the USA. Milt's examples
prove the case completely. Ultimately, your argument is really a
non-argument, you simply try to claim that there is an "American" definition
which you find superior to the "international" definition. Yet the "American"
definition is a not oft used legal definition which recognizes that the United
States simply divides its sovereign powers between various units. The state
of New York is not a sovereign state. It isn't recognized as sovereign by the
other nations of the world, and it cannot simply choose to leave the US at
will.
And thats the real clincher: only if a state can simply decide not to go along
with the federal government and choose to leave (not needing agreement from
many other states) can it be seen as sovereign. A few states tried that
awhile ago so that they could get slaves, and they, well, they failed.
Sorry, Martin, your argument by definition is a non-starter. Good try though.
ciao, scott
Steve Canyon
Erb's bootlicking aside, Milt has made no point at all. Milt lists a
bunch of things that states supposedly can't do and then he says, see
a state can't do this, so they aren't sovereign. It would be funny
except that Milt and Erb are serious.
Ace
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>In article <sXc54.1415$W2....@iad-read.news.verio.net>, cay...@nyct.net
>says...
>
>(since you snipped much of my post, I presume you don't mind if I do the same
>in order to cut to the chase):
>
>>Your contentions about the United Nations and international
>>law reference national sovereignty as it presents itself to
>>other nations, not as it is constituted within the United States.
>
>It is the conventional definition of sovereignty, and relates directly to what
>Milt is talking about.
What related to what Milt was talking about is Constitutional Law.
Constitutional law is interpreted and defined by the Supreme Court.
> You have to go through word gymnastics to try to say
>that individual states are sovereign, when in reality it simply represents the
>way power is divided within the sovereign unit -- the USA. Milt's examples
>prove the case completely. Ultimately, your argument is really a
>non-argument, you simply try to claim that there is an "American" definition
>which you find superior to the "international" definition. Yet the "American"
>definition is a not oft used legal definition which recognizes that the United
>States simply divides its sovereign powers between various units. The state
>of New York is not a sovereign state. It isn't recognized as sovereign by the
>other nations of the world, and it cannot simply choose to leave the US at
>will.
>
>And thats the real clincher: only if a state can simply decide not to go along
>with the federal government and choose to leave (not needing agreement from
>many other states) can it be seen as sovereign. A few states tried that
>awhile ago so that they could get slaves, and they, well, they failed.
However if they had constituted a 3/4 majority things would probably
have been significantly different. It wasn't a matter of whether what
they were trying to do was wrong, it was just that they didn't have
enough votes do it within the constraints of Constitutional law.
There is most certainly a way for states to secede, you just need to
have 37 other states agree.
Ace
Milt
wrote:
>Scott D. Erb wrote in message <38555314...@maine.edu>...
>>
>>
>He hasn't made his point "very well," Professor. Some of the things
>he mentions properly fall into the sphere of federal sovereignty (war,
>treaties, trade).
But for a state to be a sovereign, it would necessarily have to have
those powers...
> Some relate to the interrelationships between
>states (full faith and credit). Some are simply incorrect: state
>borders, while open to transit from other states, are also the
>geographical borders of separate, distinct, and sovereign
>systems of law.
"SYSTEMS of law?" Please. Overstating things is not helping your point
at all. All states have the same basic governmental structure, and
that is modeled after the federal structure, because it's required.
The state of Georgia cannot decide to have a communist dictatorship,
for example. Laws vary slightly from state to state. But laws do not
make an entity a sovereign.
>And all state laws are not reviewable by
>"federal courts."
YES THEY ARE.
>Some very few state laws that raise conflicts
>with the federal sphere or Constitutional issues will be reviewed
>by the Supreme Court.
No, ALL laws are REVIEWABLE by the USSC. The fact that they are often
not brought to that level, or that the court does not hear those
cases, does not mean they are not reviewable. They are.
>
>The United States *are* one sovereign country within which the
>*sovereignty*--the ultimate law-making power--is divided between
>a national government and 50 state governments, each with its
>own system of sovereign law, well over 90% of which law will be
>adjudicated to a finality within those states.
The above is an impossibility, under any definition of sovereignty
that currently exists. That means standard or legal definitions.
>
>The system created under the Constitution is one of *dual*
>sovereignty, and this is not a question that is in dispute.
Dual sovereignty is not possible. It is an oxymoron.
>
>The states, in fact, are the creators of the federal government,
A historical fallacy. The continental congress created the state
governments, not the other way around. They created the Articles of
Confederation, and then sent their own delegates to recruit colonial
governments.
>and they created it with limited enumerated powers to handle
>issues that would arise by virtue of, and best be handled
>at the level of, the union. *Most* questions are handled at
>the state level.
But ALL questions that are handled at the state level can be undone at
the federal level.
>
>Your contentions about the United Nations and international
>law reference national sovereignty as it presents itself to
>other nations, not as it is constituted within the United States.
Excuse me, but the definition of sovereignty doesn't change to fit the
situation. It means something very specific...
>
>And the differences as to how each nation constitutes its
>sovereignty are the crucial differences.
Jesus; the word has ONE definition in English. It doesn't vary from
nation to nation...
>
>>Now, does that mean that they don't have ANY powers associated with
>>sovereignty? Of course not! Part of being a sovereign state is the
>ability
>>to determine how power is exercised. In a federal system, you can devolve
>>power to the component parts via a constitution.
>
>What ignorance. Power has never been "devolved" to the "component
>parts" in the United States. The *first* power in the creation of the
>Constitution
>is that of the states, which vested the federal government with enumerated
>powers and retained the bulk of those powers for themselves.
Jesus, your ignorance is amazing, but its your arrogance in it that is
most striking.
The Constitution created a federal government, and gave it every power
a sovereign nation would ever need. The main complaint against the
constitution at the time it was written was that it left the states
without sovereignty. It almost does. States have some sovereign
powers; so does Philadelhia, and so does IBM. Neither one is a
sovereign.
>That is
>historical fact, and not in dispute anywhere in the known universe.
You have got to be the most arrogant ignoramous on Usenet. You're full
of shit; therefore it IS disputed in the "known universe." The
FEDERALISTS created the Constitution. Take your hint form the word
"federalist". That's also a commonly misused word these days...
>Next,
>the *final* power with respect to the Constitution is that of the states as
>well, which have the sole power to amend it, up to and including amending
>it out of existence.
States cannot amend the Constitution, you clod. Congress can. The
states get to ratify it or not. But they have to ratify what they're
given.
>
>> That is why the Supreme
>>Court used the word "sovereign" in that context, but it certainly cannot be
>>used to asserts that the component states of the US are "sovereign
>>states." Rather, it is the SC's ruling on the division of power within
>>this one sovereign state, a division called federalism, which we have
>>chosen.
>
>When the Supreme Court uses the word "sovereign" with respect
>to the states it is referring to the precise system of dual sovereignty
>that has been the design of the United States under the Constitution
>since it was written and ratified *by* the states.
Dual sovereignty is an oxymoron.
You know what's odd? I have demonstrated why the states are NOT
sovereign, and I am open to any argument which says I'm wrong. Scott
has opened up a couple of doors, and all you do is spout revisionist
bullshit, and repeat it over and over. I have given you the
definitions of sovereignty at least a half dozen times, and if you
look at the beginning of this post, I list the powers the state
doesn't have. Now; tell us HOW any state can be sovereign, when it can
do none of those things??
cayenne
Scott D. Erb wrote in message <833pl5$jno$1...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
>In article <sXc54.1415$W2....@iad-read.news.verio.net>, cay...@nyct.net
>says...
>
>(since you snipped much of my post, I presume you don't mind if I do the
same
>in order to cut to the chase):
>
>>law reference national sovereignty as it presents itself to
>>other nations, not as it is constituted within the United States.
>
what
>Milt is talking about.
Back to that again, is it. The briefest and best definition of sovereignty
is "the ultimate law-making power." That is what makes a nation
sovereign in view of other states. In the United States that "ultimate
law-making power" is divided between the states and the federal
government, i.e., there is a federal sphere of sovereignty and state
sphere of sovereignty.
Among those things in the federal sphere is inter-national relations.
Among those things in the state sphere is contract, property, criminal,
family law, trusts and estates, i.e., most of the many things that
people look to the state to establish principles of law about.
> You have to go through word gymnastics to try to say
>that individual states are sovereign,
Quite the opposite. All it requires is a) open your eyes to the
way in which things are constituted, or b) open any number
of books on the framing of the Constituion, or c) heed what
the Supreme Court makes reference to in the many case
involving state sovereignty.
The gymnastics come when you're trying to pretend that
dual sovereignty is not the design of the United States from
the beginning. In your awful ignorance of this design, you prefer
to believe that because the state's do not engage in inter-national
relations (a job that the states logically gave to the federal
government), that they have no sovereignty. It's simply not
true.
> when in reality it simply represents the
>way power is divided within the sovereign unit -- the USA. Milt's examples
>prove the case completely.
Milt is, first of all, an idiot. And there is a reason why there are
individual states, why each has its own government, its own
unique legal system, and why each state will be the final judicial
forum for virtually all cases arising under its law. And the reason
for that is that each state is a sovereign unit, sharing sovereignty
with the federal government in its union with the other states.
This is a principle, again, that is *not* in dispute.
> Ultimately, your argument is really a
>non-argument,
Actually, I'm not so much making an argument as just stating a
well-known fact. This is not a mystery to anyone who knows the
Constitution, how it was framed, or who can simply open his
eyes and take a look at what is real.
>you simply try to claim that there is an "American" definition
>which you find superior to the "international" definition.
There is no "American definition" or "international definition," per
se. There is the "ultimate law-making power" that makes a nation-state
sovereign in the view of other states, and there is the way that
that "ultimate law-making power" is constructed within each
nation-state. In the United States that "ultimate law-making power"
is divided between the states and the United States.
One would not say that Nazi Germany had a form of national
sovereignty that was the same as that of the United States. Each
was sovereign at its borders and operated as such in relation
to other states. But to the citizens of each the internal construction
of the "ultimate law-making power" has a meaning that dwarfs
the meaning it might have in international affairs.
These are not separate things, nor are they equal things. They
are continuous, and the sheer fact that a state is sovereign
vis a vis another state is nearly inconsequential as compared
to the way in which that sovereignty is established within
the state.
And, again, if you reread the excerpt I provided from Forrest
McDonalds "Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins
of the Constitution," you will see, essentially, that you do not
know the history, the theory, the facts about what the United
States *are.* Once again, I'm sorry to be the one to bring
you the bad news.
You can continue to believe as the sorry Milt does, and
show that you are not able to come to grips with a concept--
that of dual sovereignty--that was an innovation of the framers
that made the Union possible in the first place. The concept
that Milt is espousing, that sovereignty cannot be divided,
was, as McDonald says, the *cliche* that the framers confronted
and overcame.
Even a cursory examination of the United States will show you
how *they* are organized into a union and the obvious and
unignorable share of sovereignty *retained* by the individual
states in that arrangement. And that share that the federal
government has of sovereignty was vested to it by the
states, not the other way around.
Finally, this is one of two recent Supreme Court cases
(decided last June) where state sovereignty is acknowledged
by the Court--
COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK, PETITIONER v. FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
EXPENSE BOARD et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third
circuit
[June 23, 1999]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
<snip>
In Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (1793), we asserted jurisdiction
over an action in assumpsit brought by a South Carolina citizen against the
State of Georgia. In so doing, we reasoned that Georgia's sovereign immunity
was qualified by the general jurisdictional provisions of Article III, and,
most specifically, by the provision extending the federal judicial power to
controversies "between a State and Citizens of another State." U. S. Const.,
Art. III, §2, cl. 1. The "shock of surprise" created by this decision,
Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U. S. 313, 325 (1934), prompted
the immediate adoption of the Eleventh Amendment, which provides:
"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."
Though its precise terms bar only federal jurisdiction over suits brought
against one State by citizens of another State or foreign state, we have
long recognized that the Eleventh Amendment accomplished much more: It
repudiated the central premise of Chisholm that the jurisdictional heads of
Article III superseded the sovereign immunity that the States possessed
before entering the Union. This has been our understanding of the Amendment
since the landmark case of Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890). See also
Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 490, 497-498 (1921); Principality of Monaco,
supra at 320-328, Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.
S. 89, 97-98 (1984); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 54,
66-68 (1996).
While this immunity from suit is not absolute, we have recognized only
two circumstances in which an individual may sue a State. First, Congress
may authorize such a suit in the exercise of its power to enforce the
Fourteenth Amendment--an Amendment enacted after the Eleventh Amendment and
specifically designed to alter the federal-state balance. Fitzpatrick v.
Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445 (1976). Second, a State may waive its sovereign
immunity by consenting to suit. Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436, 447-448
(1883). This case turns on whether either of these two circumstances is
present.
Steve Canyon
You're big on making unsubstantiated claims, Milt. That's a neat
list, Milt. Now explain why it would necessarily have to have those
powers to be sovereign.
>> Some relate to the interrelationships between
>>states (full faith and credit). Some are simply incorrect: state
>>borders, while open to transit from other states, are also the
>>geographical borders of separate, distinct, and sovereign
>>systems of law.
>
>"SYSTEMS of law?" Please. Overstating things is not helping your point
>at all. All states have the same basic governmental structure, and
>that is modeled after the federal structure, because it's required.
>The state of Georgia cannot decide to have a communist dictatorship,
>for example. Laws vary slightly from state to state. But laws do not
>make an entity a sovereign.
>
>>And all state laws are not reviewable by
>>"federal courts."
>
>YES THEY ARE.
>
>>Some very few state laws that raise conflicts
>>with the federal sphere or Constitutional issues will be reviewed
>>by the Supreme Court.
>
>No, ALL laws are REVIEWABLE by the USSC. The fact that they are often
>not brought to that level, or that the court does not hear those
>cases, does not mean they are not reviewable. They are.
The Supreme court is only for establishing the constitutionality of
the law or a lower courts decision.
>>The United States *are* one sovereign country within which the
>>*sovereignty*--the ultimate law-making power--is divided between
>>a national government and 50 state governments, each with its
>>own system of sovereign law, well over 90% of which law will be
>>adjudicated to a finality within those states.
>
>The above is an impossibility, under any definition of sovereignty
>that currently exists. That means standard or legal definitions.
Sovereign simply means supreme power. There's lots of different ways
to interpret that. Consider that Iraq is a sovereign country, but the
United States demonstrated that it was superior militarily. The
states, by virtue of the limited power given the federal power and
referenced by Marshall in the McCulloch vs. Maryland opinion, is not
the Supreme Power in all cases. Neither the Federal Government nor
the states governments are supreme in all cases.
>>The system created under the Constitution is one of *dual*
>>sovereignty, and this is not a question that is in dispute.
>
>Dual sovereignty is not possible. It is an oxymoron.
Milt's constitutional knowledge is an oxymoron.
>>The states, in fact, are the creators of the federal government,
>
>A historical fallacy. The continental congress created the state
>governments, not the other way around. They created the Articles of
>Confederation, and then sent their own delegates to recruit colonial
>governments.
The states were there before the federal government, you ignorant
fool. The states did indeed get together and create a union called
the United States. It aint no coincident that the states are called
states and not provinces.
>>and they created it with limited enumerated powers to handle
>>issues that would arise by virtue of, and best be handled
>>at the level of, the union. *Most* questions are handled at
>>the state level.
>
>But ALL questions that are handled at the state level can be undone at
>the federal level.
BULLSHIT The Supreme Court can only resolve Constitutional issues.
>>Your contentions about the United Nations and international
>>law reference national sovereignty as it presents itself to
>>other nations, not as it is constituted within the United States.
>
>Excuse me, but the definition of sovereignty doesn't change to fit the
>situation. It means something very specific...
Excuse me, but the supreme court hasn't made the wrong choice of words
on dozens of opinions over two hundred years.
>>And the differences as to how each nation constitutes its
>>sovereignty are the crucial differences.
>
>Jesus; the word has ONE definition in English. It doesn't vary from
>nation to nation...
Go argue with Erb who seems to think all words have multiple
definitions which vary with the phases of the moon.
>>>Now, does that mean that they don't have ANY powers associated with
>>>sovereignty? Of course not! Part of being a sovereign state is the
>>ability
>>>to determine how power is exercised. In a federal system, you can devolve
>>>power to the component parts via a constitution.
>>
>>What ignorance. Power has never been "devolved" to the "component
>>parts" in the United States. The *first* power in the creation of the
>>Constitution
>>is that of the states, which vested the federal government with enumerated
>>powers and retained the bulk of those powers for themselves.
>
>Jesus, your ignorance is amazing, but its your arrogance in it that is
>most striking.
You're the one arrogantly claiming that the Supreme Court is wrong and
you are right.
>The Constitution created a federal government, and gave it every power
>a sovereign nation would ever need. The main complaint against the
>constitution at the time it was written was that it left the states
>without sovereignty. It almost does. States have some sovereign
>powers; so does Philadelhia, and so does IBM. Neither one is a
>sovereign.
More unsubstantiated rhetoric from Milt. Very unimpressive Milt.
>
>>That is
>>historical fact, and not in dispute anywhere in the known universe.
>
>You have got to be the most arrogant ignoramous on Usenet. You're full
>of shit; therefore it IS disputed in the "known universe." The
>FEDERALISTS created the Constitution. Take your hint form the word
>"federalist". That's also a commonly misused word these days...
Actually I think Milt is the most arrogant ignoramus on Usenet
claiming that the supreme court used the wrong word.
>>Next,
>>the *final* power with respect to the Constitution is that of the states as
>>well, which have the sole power to amend it, up to and including amending
>>it out of existence.
>
>States cannot amend the Constitution, you clod. Congress can. The
>states get to ratify it or not. But they have to ratify what they're
>given.
You'd better check that old Constitution, Milt. A 2/3 majority of the
states legislatures may also propose an amendment. They submit an
application for a convention and the congress, in the words of Article
Five, "shall call a convention. The only thing remaining is the
obligatory 3/4 vote for ratification, you <snicker>clod.
>>> That is why the Supreme
>>>Court used the word "sovereign" in that context, but it certainly cannot be
>>>used to asserts that the component states of the US are "sovereign
>>>states." Rather, it is the SC's ruling on the division of power within
>>>this one sovereign state, a division called federalism, which we have
>>>chosen.
>>
>>When the Supreme Court uses the word "sovereign" with respect
>>to the states it is referring to the precise system of dual sovereignty
>>that has been the design of the United States under the Constitution
>>since it was written and ratified *by* the states.
>
>Dual sovereignty is an oxymoron.
Milt's knowledge is an oxymoron.
>You know what's odd? I have demonstrated why the states are NOT
Well, you're pretty odd. You have demonstrated nothing of the sort,
Milt. You have stated a number of things *you* claim are necessary
for sovereignty, but no one is impressed by your claims. Compared to
my Supreme Court cites, your claim is sort of......limp.
>sovereign, and I am open to any argument which says I'm wrong. Scott
I'd say that it was up to you to prove that the Supreme Court used the
wrong words. You haven't done so as yet.
>has opened up a couple of doors, and all you do is spout revisionist
Erb, like you, is full of shit. You haven't presented an iota of
evidence to dispute that states aren't sovereign. You're claim
doesn't count.
>bullshit, and repeat it over and over. I have given you the
>definitions of sovereignty at least a half dozen times, and if you
Hasn't Erb given you the lesson about using dictionary definitions?
Sovereignty is simply the act of having the supreme power, and the
federal is the supreme power in it's sphere and the states are supreme
in theirs.
>look at the beginning of this post, I list the powers the state
>doesn't have. Now; tell us HOW any state can be sovereign, when it can
>do none of those things??
>
It's your argument, Milt, you tell me why you think those things
define sovereignty? When you get that done, we might have something
to discuss. You're claim that a sovereign *must* be able to do those
things is stupid and worthless.
Ace
Milt
wrote:
>
>Scott D. Erb wrote in message <833pl5$jno$1...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
>>In article <sXc54.1415$W2....@iad-read.news.verio.net>, cay...@nyct.net
>>says...
>>
>>(since you snipped much of my post, I presume you don't mind if I do the
>same
>>in order to cut to the chase):
>>
>>>Your contentions about the United Nations and international
>>>law reference national sovereignty as it presents itself to
>>>other nations, not as it is constituted within the United States.
>>
>>It is the conventional definition of sovereignty, and relates directly to
>what
>>Milt is talking about.
>
>Back to that again, is it. The briefest and best definition of sovereignty
>is "the ultimate law-making power." That is what makes a nation
>sovereign in view of other states. In the United States that "ultimate
>law-making power" is divided between the states and the federal
>government, i.e., there is a federal sphere of sovereignty and state
>sphere of sovereignty.
Except for one crucial aspect you conveniently disregard. State laws
have no effect on other states. Other countries don't see Texas as a
sovereign. If they visit with the governor of Kentucky, it is much
like visiting the mayor of a city. By law, the visit can have no legal
effect, since a state cannot enter into trade negotiations, or a
treaty, or even conduct diplomacy, outside the auspices of the United
States federal government.
And given the actual definition of sovereignty, there can be no such
thing as "dual sovereignty". And you have not provided an alternate
definition to help us out here. You simply keep ranting about
"spheres", whihc are theoretical in nature, anyway. I'm dealing with
practice, and you're dealing with errant theoretical crap.
>
>Among those things in the federal sphere is inter-national relations.
And everything else. Don't look now, but you just contradicted
yourself again. Read your first paragraph again.
See; the problem is, you don't even believe your own horseshit. Either
that, or you want to believe it with all of your heart, but there's no
rational basis for it. I've presented my case, and you have yet to
refute it, with anything other than your "spheres" mantra. Like I
said; what I'm saying is debatable. But you're not even close...
>Among those things in the state sphere is contract, property, criminal,
>family law, trusts and estates, i.e., most of the many things that
>people look to the state to establish principles of law about.
Let's take the above one by one.
In contract law, the practical basis for defining a valid contract is
FEDERAL case law. Any breach of contract case, while it can be decided
in the state courts, can be overturned by federal courts. And
contracts are valid without the consent of the state OR the federal
government.
Property law is the ONLY area in which the state has powers. But then,
Bermuda also has the same thing; is Bermuda sovereign? Queen Elizabeth
would disagree.
Criminal law? Please; how many times must I repeat myself. Any case is
reviewable by the feds, and any trial must be held in accordance with
the FEDERAL constitution.
Family law is an interesting thing. That is an area of primarily state
influence, but only if all aspects are confined to the state.
Trusts and estates? Please; this is almost all federal in nature, if
there is anything besides real property involved. The guidelines come
from federal courts, in almost all cases, not unlike tax law. There
are variances between states, but there are also variances between
municiplaities. But all variances must fall within the guidelines set
by federal case law.
Okay; so we have established that states have power over real property
and some aspects of family law. But it's not absolute. If I spill
toxic waste on my property in Wyoming, the EPA comes in. If I'm
running a sweatshop on my property, OSHA, or possibly the State
Department can come in. If I'm growing pot, the DEA can come in and
seize the property and sell it. Also, ever hear of a HUD home?
>> You have to go through word gymnastics to try to say
>>that individual states are sovereign,
>
>Quite the opposite.
That must be why you keep posting the same crap, and we have to keep
refuting it over and over, eh?
> All it requires is a) open your eyes to the
>way in which things are constituted,
I am. As I stated earlier in this thread;
A state cannot declare war.
A state cannot coin money.
A state cannot negotiate a treaty.
A state cannot regulate trade.
A state cannot have a standing army.
A state cannot secure its borders.
A state must honor relationships created by every other state.
ALL state laws are reviewable by federal courts.
All cases decided by state courts can be appealed to a federal court.
All diversity cases must be tried in federal court, no matter which
state the crime/harm occurred.
That is reality.
> or b) open any number
>of books on the framing of the Constituion,
I do that. Have you? The Constitution was actually the SECOND document
of its type. The Articles of Confederation was the first. The
Constitution was crafted to create a strong, sovereign federal
government, not to create 13 (and more) sovereign states. Imagine if
we had fifty sovereign states; could you imagine the chaos? Having to
show a passport at every border in the East...
>or c) heed what
>the Supreme Court makes reference to in the many case
>involving state sovereignty.
And since the USSC is so absolutely pristine, I expect you to come out
and declare your assent to abortion being the absolute right of a
woman, to affirmative action, and to declare to us that busing was the
wisest course for us to take. Please. People misuse words all of the
time. There is a group of "states' rights" people who use the moniker
"federalist". That's an oxymoron as well. The federalists, who crafted
the constitution, were for a strong federal government, not a
collection of multiple strong state governments...
>
>The gymnastics come when you're trying to pretend that
>dual sovereignty is not the design of the United States from
>the beginning.
It's not. The term is an oxymoron, and was never used back then. One
of the main points of contention, and a major reason why MA and GA
didn't ratify until 1939, was that it took away states sovereignty.
> In your awful ignorance of this design, you prefer
>to believe that because the state's do not engage in inter-national
>relations (a job that the states logically gave to the federal
>government), that they have no sovereignty. It's simply not
>true.
Not just that. It's all of these;
A state cannot declare war.
A state cannot coin money.
A state cannot negotiate a treaty.
A state cannot regulate trade.
A state cannot have a standing army.
A state cannot secure its borders.
A state must honor relationships created by every other state.
ALL state laws are reviewable by federal courts.
All cases decided by state courts can be appealed to a federal court.
All diversity cases must be tried in federal court, no matter which
state the crime/harm occurred.
>> when in reality it simply represents the
>>way power is divided within the sovereign unit -- the USA. Milt's examples
>>prove the case completely.
>
>Milt is, first of all, an idiot.
Funny how this "idiot" is kicking your ass on this. I've made my case,
and I've even told you its arguable. But you're not even close with
the argument. The list above is pretty comprehensive; you have yet to
demonstrate that states HAVE sovereignty. You've demonstrated that
they have power in some areas, but that proves my point. Power is not
sovereignty; the USSC was using the word "sovereignty" when they
should have used the word "power".
> And there is a reason why there are
>individual states, why each has its own government, its own
>unique legal system, and why each state will be the final judicial
>forum for virtually all cases arising under its law.
All counties, cities and towns have their own government, as do most
corporations. Are they all sovereign? Every municiplaity has its own
legal system; are all of them sovereign? And states are NEVER the
final judicial forum for any case under its law. I can appeal ANY CASE
to a federal appeals court. ANY CASE.
ANY CASE!!!!
> And the reason
>for that is that each state is a sovereign unit, sharing sovereignty
>with the federal government in its union with the other states.
Each state, by definition, cannot BE a "sovereign unit".
>
>This is a principle, again, that is *not* in dispute.
Of course it is, you arrogant bastard.
<snip>
Milt
(Steve Canyon) wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 15:12:04 -0500, "Scott D. Erb"
><scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>Erb's bootlicking aside, Milt has made no point at all. Milt lists a
>bunch of things that states supposedly can't do and then he says, see
>a state can't do this, so they aren't sovereign. It would be funny
>except that Milt and Erb are serious.
Here are the definitions. Without snipping my list above, please
explain how a state which has none of the above attributes can fit any
of the definitions below...
Here are the definitions of "sovereignty", yet again...
sov·er·eign·ty (svr-n-t, svrn-)
n., pl. sov·er·eign·ties.
Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or
sovereign
state.
Royal rank, authority, or power.
Complete independence and self-government.
A territory existing as an independent state.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition
Copyright © 1996, 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
sovereignty \Sov"er*eign*ty\, n.; pl. Sovereignties. [OE.
soverainetee,
OF. sovrainet['e], F. souverainet['e].] The quality or state of being
sovereign, or of being a sovereign; the exercise of, or right to
exercise, supreme power; dominion; sway; supremacy; independence;
also,
that which is sovereign; a sovereign state; as, Italy was formerly
divided into many sovereignties.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
sovereignty n 1: government free from external control 2: royal
authority; the dominion of a monarch [syn: reign]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
Milt
Because without them, it has no control over its destiny.
Here again, are the defintions of sovereignty. Please explain to us
how a state can have none of the above powers, and still be
sovereign...
Steve Canyon
>On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 06:36:26 GMT, cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com
>Because without them, it has no control over its destiny.
States, OTOH, do have considerable control over their destiny, as
demonstrated by the simple fact that all are unique, but is control
over your destiny a requirement of sovereignty? Japan was denied
control over their destiny in the 1940's, were they not sovereign
during that time? I could argue that many factors interfere with all
sovereign states control over their destiny, and as I pointed out, the
U.S. government is itself operating under the sanction of the states
power of amending the constitution. The collective states wield more
control of the federal government's destiny than vice versa.
>Here again, are the defintions of sovereignty. Please explain to us
>how a state can have none of the above powers, and still be
>sovereign...
Milt, the federal government supreme powers are limited to a
particular sphere of action. If they are limited, that means that
some other sphere of action exists where the states powers are
supreme.
Milt, repeating the same non-arguments over and over serve no
purpose., You claim that dual sovereignty cannot be. What is
impossible about one government being sovereign over some things, the
Supreme it a sphere of action, and another state being sovereign over
other things?
Ace
Scott D. Erb
says...
>Back to that again, is it. The briefest and best definition of sovereignty
>is "the ultimate law-making power."
Gee, that must be the voter then, since state legislatures have their power
only if the voters give them that power (since state constitutions give power
to the voters to elect the legislature.) Your illogical reductionism falls
down to a claim that every individual is sovereign, since collectively they
can choose state governments which collectively can choose amendments to the
constitution. Cool. See the weird path you take when you go through
definitional hoops to try to win an argument by definition. Milt has you
beat, Marty, you may as well admit it. The states have some of the powers of
a sovereign nation because thats how we set up the constitution. Individuals
have some of the powers as well. But the component states of the U.S. are NOT
sovereign states. Milt listed all the powers they don't have, they don't and
can't take seats on the UN, and most importantly, they can't individually
decide not to go along with the federal government. That power is an
essential aspect of sovereignty.
>Milt is, first of all, an idiot.
Simply because he is right and you're wrong?
Go back to comparing Clinton and Stalin. You've lost this one, Marty.
-rest deleted, all relevant points dealt with above-
-scott
Steve Canyon
>On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:47:57 GMT, cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com
>(Steve Canyon) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 15:12:04 -0500, "Scott D. Erb"
>><scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>Erb's bootlicking aside, Milt has made no point at all. Milt lists a
>>bunch of things that states supposedly can't do and then he says, see
>>a state can't do this, so they aren't sovereign. It would be funny
>>except that Milt and Erb are serious.
>
>Here are the definitions. Without snipping my list above, please
>explain how a state which has none of the above attributes can fit any
>of the definitions below...
Are you suggesting that there are no other definitions? Just
curious, BTW, your list above has not been proven to represent
anything other than a list of stuff.
>Here are the definitions of "sovereignty", yet again...
>
I've asked, and you've ignored, Milt, how, considering your
definitions the U. S. Government can be considered sovereign if 38
other governments can ban together and legally change it's
Constitutional authority?
Ace
Milt
cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com (Steve Canyon) wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 07:10:53 GMT, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:47:57 GMT, cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com
> >(Steve Canyon) wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 15:12:04 -0500, "Scott D. Erb"
> >><scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
a
> >>bunch of things that states supposedly can't do and then he says,
see
> >>a state can't do this, so they aren't sovereign. It would be funny
> >>except that Milt and Erb are serious.
> >
> >Here are the definitions. Without snipping my list above, please
> >explain how a state which has none of the above attributes can fit
any
> >of the definitions below...
>
> Are you suggesting that there are no other definitions?
No, you asshole. In fact, I've challenged you several times to post any
other (cited, of course) defintition your little heart desires...
> Just
> curious, BTW, your list above has not been proven to represent
> anything other than a list of stuff.
"STUFF"? Now we confirm that we're not dealing with a supreme
intellect, that's for damn sure. The above are a list of powers that
the states definitely do not have, and are forbidden from having. They
are powers which they have ceded to the federal government. And you
have yet to post anything that proves, or even suggests strongly, that
a state without such powers, can still be a sovereign.
They can't. Amendments to the constitution originate in Congress. The
calling of a Constitutional Convention is another story, but let's get
real; if they call one, and change the constitution to give themselves
more sovereignty, that does not prove me wrong, it proves me right.
Under our current constitution, states are not sovereign.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>In article <%1f54.6685$W2.1...@iad-read.news.verio.net>, cay...@nyct.net
>says...
>
>>Back to that again, is it. The briefest and best definition of sovereignty
>>is "the ultimate law-making power."
>
>Gee, that must be the voter then, since state legislatures have their power
>only if the voters give them that power (since state constitutions give power
>to the voters to elect the legislature.) Your illogical reductionism falls
We were, however, speaking of sovereign governments.
>down to a claim that every individual is sovereign, since collectively they
>can choose state governments which collectively can choose amendments to the
>constitution. Cool. See the weird path you take when you go through
>definitional hoops to try to win an argument by definition. Milt has you
Hey, wasn't it Erb who was arguing by definition by claiming to have
come up with one of patented "other definitions" of sovereignty?
>beat, Marty, you may as well admit it. The states have some of the powers of
Erb cannot resist trying to tell everyone who won the argument. If
Erb's side has won, how come he's still arguing? How come he needs
to proclaim victory. You don's see winners of sporting events telling
reporters that they won. Winning, especially in this forum, goes
without saying, Erb.
>a sovereign nation because thats how we set up the constitution. Individuals
>have some of the powers as well. But the component states of the U.S. are NOT
>sovereign states. Milt listed all the powers they don't have, they don't and
Erb's and Milt's arguments are always simply that the "states are not
sovereign." I guess if only having some, but not all sovereign powers
disqualifies a government from being sovereign, the U.S. Government,
by Supreme Court Justice Marshall's educated statement about limited
power, would also fall short.
>can't take seats on the UN, and most importantly, they can't individually
Erb, taking seats on the UN is not a yardstick for sovereignty.
Stupidity, perhaps, but not sovereignty.
>decide not to go along with the federal government. That power is an
heh, heh, suddenly the professor acknowledges that the COLLECTIVE
states have big time authority of the feds, so now the arguments refer
to the power of the individual state.
>essential aspect of sovereignty.
>
>
>>Milt is, first of all, an idiot.
Agreed.
Ace
cayenne
Milt, you are without doubt one of the most monumental idiots
I've run across on Usenet, and that includes a pretty fair number
of idiots.
The concept you don't seem able to grasp is that the United
States *are* organized under a system of dual sovereignty.
There is a considerable federal sphere of sovereignty, which
includes all responsibility for inter-national relations. And there
is an even more considerable sphere that belongs to the states.
As my lawyer put it: "The states make the law," which is a
way of saying that most of the law that you will ever come into
contact with is state law, and nearly all cases arising under
that law will be adjudicated to a finality within the particular
state.
The *supremacy* of federal law comes into play when there
are conflicts between state laws and the Constitution or the
enumerated powers of the federal government.
And the Supreme Court has a very specific set of discretionary
criteria that they use before reviewing decisions made in
state courts.
In fact, the *fact* that the Supreme Court does not *have* to take
*any* case should be enough to demonstrate to you that the
supremacy of the federal government is a situational, *not*
a hierarchical relationship.
<delete load of ranting idiocy>
cayenne
Scott D. Erb wrote in message <835kp7$230$1...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
>>is "the ultimate law-making power."
>
>only if the voters give them that power (since state constitutions give
power
>to the voters to elect the legislature.) Your illogical reductionism falls
>can choose state governments which collectively can choose amendments to
the
>constitution. Cool. See the weird path you take when you go through
>definitional hoops to try to win an argument by definition.
Aside from the fact that nothing I have said is new or weird or illogical,
but merely a by-now-several-times restatement of how the United States
*are* organized as a political society, hidden within your sorry point
is a real point. In the theory used to create the United States under
the Constitution, the ultimate source of earthly sovereignty rests with
the people, and the division of that sovereignty between the federal
and state governments is theoretically the work of the people.
That the voters choose the representatives and the executives who
serve in those governments does not change the basic Constitutional
arrangement, which can only be altered by amendment, and, as we
have seen, by the unelected Supreme Court when it interprets the
Constitution
> Milt has you
>beat, Marty, you may as well admit it.
Milt is banging his head against the wall, and has not got even the
faintest idea what he is talking about.
> The states have some of the powers of
>a sovereign nation because thats how we set up the constitution.
Well, as usual, you are taking babysteps toward admitting what
you have been denying, but when doing that you always sound
far sillier than you do when you're simply in the denial stage.
The United States--if you are listening--*are* a sovereign union of
sovereign states. The states do not have "some powers of a
sovereign nation," they in fact have *most* of the law making
power. "The states make the law" is something that law students
find out rather quickly. The federal sphere of sovereignty, though
it includes the area of inter-national relations and other enumerated
powers of *national* interest, the state governments do most
of the heavy lifting, and well beyond 90% of all cases arising
under state law will be adjudicated to a finality within the
particular state.
All you have to do, Scott, is take a look at how it is constituted.
It's kind of funny, though, that you're in the political science
business and you are unfamiliar with how the political society
you are living in is structured, and how it was quite the
innovation--dual sovereignty--when it was established.
Hate to be the one to give you the bad news.
Milt
Um, yeah. DUH!
Read the definitions I have provided repeatedly. Find another
definition of your own that refutes mine. Go for it.
> Japan was denied
> control over their destiny in the 1940's, were they not sovereign
> during that time?
They certainly didn't think so. And I would say that, at that time, no,
they were not. Neither was East Germany, or Poland, etc.
> I could argue that many factors interfere with all
> sovereign states control over their destiny, and as I pointed out, the
> U.S. government is itself operating under the sanction of the states
> power of amending the constitution.
The states cannot amend the constitution. Congress can. The states
ratify what Congress passes with a supermajority.
> The collective states wield more
> control of the federal government's destiny than vice versa.
Then why do all the states have a 21 year old drinking age, eh?? many
of them didn't want it. Have you ever been forced to drive 55? How come
they have to pay you OT if you work over 40 hours in a week? Ever hear
of the Family Leave Act? Please... the statement above is purely stupid.
Not only that, but see above, at the beginning of this post. The feds
have all of the above powers, and the states are forbidden from having
them.
> >Here again, are the definitions of sovereignty. Please explain to us
> >how a state can have none of the above powers, and still be
> >sovereign...
>
> Milt, the federal government supreme powers are limited to a
> particular sphere of action.
Oh, please. In any conflict of powers, the feds win. The states have a
few powers, but then, so do cities and counties. Read the definitions
of "sovereignty, and explain to us how haveing a few powers with regard
to land, and internal affairs is sovereignty, when the entity, the
state, has ceded all of their other powers to the feds...
> If they are limited, that means that
> some other sphere of action exists where the states powers are
> supreme.
I see. But the federal government can't go into Microsoft's board room,
and tell them how to run their company, either. Does that mean MS is a
sovereign? You mean Bill Gates really IS a king??
That's what I keep telling you, and yet you keep repeating them.
> You claim that dual sovereignty cannot be.
Read the definitions. It's an oxymoron.
> What is
> impossible about one government being sovereign over some things, the
> Supreme it a sphere of action, and another state being sovereign over
> other things?
Again; power is not sovereignty. Read the definitions. I have provided
them, and I have provided you with powers that states do NOT have. Now;
please explain to us how a state can cede all of those powers to
another body, and still be called sovereign. If we ceded all those
powers to the UN, would WE be sovereign at that point? I don't think
so. Poland had none of those powers when it was part of the
Soviet "sphere" of influence. How sovereign were they, when they had to
answer to Moscow in order to blow their noses.
A good way to look at this is as follows;
Suppose the president was a dictator, and the courts were packed with
people who were his charges. Now; under that regime, with the states
having the same powers they have now, how much sovereignty would they
have. Every single law they passed, and every single conviction and
sentence is reviewable by that court. They could, conceivably overturn
every single law, and toss out all convictions. Is that your idea of
sovereignty? Under the current constitution, while the above is
unlikely, it is possible. Meaning that states have little or no ability
for self-determination.
Now, what I am saying is debatable. But your simple-minded repetition
of a couple of platitudes is not part of the debate. I suggest you take
a deep breath and read some of the scholarly work on both sides of this
issue, and come back with something more, because you're looking like a
fool. I have presented a list of powers the states do not have, and are
forbidden from having, and I have presented the definitions
of "sovereignty". If you can reconcile those two with somehting besides
the lame shit above, then do so. But what you're saying isn't working...
Steve Canyon
I expect a governor's visit to another state might have some legal
ramifications if they were exploring the possibility of a
constitutional amendment.
>treaty, or even conduct diplomacy, outside the auspices of the United
>States federal government.
>
>And given the actual definition of sovereignty, there can be no such
>thing as "dual sovereignty". And you have not provided an alternate
>definition to help us out here. You simply keep ranting about
>"spheres", whihc are theoretical in nature, anyway. I'm dealing with
>practice, and you're dealing with errant theoretical crap.
We're still not seeing any substantiation for your claim that dual
sovereignty cannot exist, Milt. Just you're very naked and vulnerable
assertion.
>>Among those things in the federal sphere is inter-national relations.
>
>And everything else. Don't look now, but you just contradicted
>yourself again. Read your first paragraph again.
Hardly "everything else," since the federal powers are limited.
>See; the problem is, you don't even believe your own horseshit. Either
>that, or you want to believe it with all of your heart, but there's no
>rational basis for it. I've presented my case, and you have yet to
>refute it, with anything other than your "spheres" mantra. Like I
>said; what I'm saying is debatable. But you're not even close...
Milt has not presented anything resembling a case.
>>Among those things in the state sphere is contract, property, criminal,
>>family law, trusts and estates, i.e., most of the many things that
>>people look to the state to establish principles of law about.
>
>Let's take the above one by one.
>
>In contract law, the practical basis for defining a valid contract is
>FEDERAL case law. Any breach of contract case, while it can be decided
>in the state courts, can be overturned by federal courts. And
>contracts are valid without the consent of the state OR the federal
>government.
>
>Property law is the ONLY area in which the state has powers. But then,
>Bermuda also has the same thing; is Bermuda sovereign? Queen Elizabeth
>would disagree.
>
>Criminal law? Please; how many times must I repeat myself. Any case is
>reviewable by the feds, and any trial must be held in accordance with
>the FEDERAL constitution.
But no case is reviewed to examine anything other than it's
constitutionality and no case may be overturned for any other grounds
other than Constitutionality. If Constitutionality is not involved
the feds cannot touch it.
>Family law is an interesting thing. That is an area of primarily state
>influence, but only if all aspects are confined to the state.
>
>Trusts and estates? Please; this is almost all federal in nature, if
>there is anything besides real property involved. The guidelines come
>from federal courts, in almost all cases, not unlike tax law. There
>are variances between states, but there are also variances between
>municiplaities. But all variances must fall within the guidelines set
>by federal case law.
>
>Okay; so we have established that states have power over real property
>and some aspects of family law. But it's not absolute. If I spill
>toxic waste on my property in Wyoming, the EPA comes in. If I'm
>running a sweatshop on my property, OSHA, or possibly the State
>Department can come in. If I'm growing pot, the DEA can come in and
>seize the property and sell it. Also, ever hear of a HUD home?
>
>>> You have to go through word gymnastics to try to say
>>>that individual states are sovereign,
You're the one going through gymnastics to deny it. Nobody, including
the Supreme Court does so to affirm it.
Your list means nothing, Milt, unless you link it to the issue.
>demonstrate that states HAVE sovereignty. You've demonstrated that
>they have power in some areas, but that proves my point. Power is not
>sovereignty; the USSC was using the word "sovereignty" when they
>should have used the word "power".
>
>> And there is a reason why there are
>>individual states, why each has its own government, its own
>>unique legal system, and why each state will be the final judicial
>>forum for virtually all cases arising under its law.
>
>All counties, cities and towns have their own government, as do most
>corporations. Are they all sovereign? Every municiplaity has its own
>legal system; are all of them sovereign? And states are NEVER the
>final judicial forum for any case under its law. I can appeal ANY CASE
>to a federal appeals court. ANY CASE.
You can appeal on the grounds of it's constitutionality, and they
won't touch it other than to that end.
>ANY CASE!!!!
>
>> And the reason
>>for that is that each state is a sovereign unit, sharing sovereignty
>>with the federal government in its union with the other states.
>
>Each state, by definition, cannot BE a "sovereign unit".
>>
>>This is a principle, again, that is *not* in dispute.
>
>Of course it is, you arrogant bastard.
Milt claims to know more about sovereignty than the Supreme Court
<snicker> and he calls others arrogant.
Ace
cayenne
<38645961...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
and
>
>Erb's and Milt's arguments are always simply that the "states are not
>sovereign." I guess if only having some, but not all sovereign powers
>disqualifies a government from being sovereign, the U.S. Government,
>by Supreme Court Justice Marshall's educated statement about limited
>power, would also fall short.
That, of course, is exactly the point. The federal government has only
a share of the divided sovereignty of the United States, which consists
of those areas wherein the states are united. The greater part of the
law-making power resides with the states, as sovereign political
societies that have ceded a portion of their sovereignty to a federal
government, via enumerated and limited powers, that allows them
to function together in their union.
This is so fundamental to understanding how the United States *are*
organized as a political society that it is indeed surprising to
find someone with a PhD in political science who doesn't, and
apparently *can't*, grasp it.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
I guess I share the UMF regents opinion of Erb's PhD. I wonder how
many people with doctorates don't qualify as full professors. The
real shame is that students at UMF are not getting their education.
Ace
cayenne
Well, there's good news and bad news in that. The bad news
is that, in general, all assistant professors eventually come
up for tenure. The good news is that if they don't get it, they
are out the door.
This is one of the reasons why I recommend to Scott that he
delete his Usenet posts from deja.com archives. They reflect
so badly, not just on his ability to grasp fundamental ideas
within his own field, but on his integrity and temperment as
well. He's not just incompetent, he's a parody of incompetence.
And the narcissism isn't going to help him either.
It could be the case, however, that the *rest* of the social
sciences department at UMF is filled out with similar
types, and that Erb fits in smashingly. It's funny though, I've
never known Mainers to be particularly fond of wasting
money on anything, but maybe they just aren't aware
of this particular waste of their public funds. Who knows?
Kurt Lochner
>
> Fartin' McMartin <cay...@nyct.net> wheezed his way through:
> wrote:
>
> >Sleaze Cannon started drooling again about
[...]
> >This is so fundamental to understanding how the United States *are*
> >organized as a political society that it is indeed surprising to
> >find someone with a PhD in political science who doesn't, and
> >apparently *can't*, grasp it.
> >
>
>I guess I share the UMF regents opinion of Erb's PhD. I wonder how
You don't become a "full professor" until you get 'tenure', idiot..
--And that takes about ten years, usually, you ignorant buffoon..
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>Sleaze Cannon whined the usual envy regarding:
>>
>> Fartin' McMartin <cay...@nyct.net> wheezed his way through:
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Sleaze Cannon started drooling again about
>[...]
>> >This is so fundamental to understanding how the United States *are*
>> >organized as a political society that it is indeed surprising to
>> >find someone with a PhD in political science who doesn't, and
>> >apparently *can't*, grasp it.
>> >
>>
>>I guess I share the UMF regents opinion of Erb's PhD. I wonder how
>>many people with doctorates don't qualify as full professors. /../
>
>You don't become a "full professor/../
.
And you get tenure when the Regents give it to you, idiot. Why hasn't
Erb got it?
Ace
Scott D. Erb
Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
> You don't become a "full professor" until you get 'tenure', idiot..
>
> --And that takes about ten years, usually, you ignorant buffoon..
Ach, its funny watching them vent, unable to grasp that their argument by
definition attempt against Milt is really weak, and that their styles
(name calling, attacks, smears, extremist rants like 'clinton is like
stalin') discredit them. The only way they can feel good about themselves
is if they pretend to be superior to those against whom they debate (hence
"steve's" constant insults of anyone who disagrees, or Marty's attacks on
you, his calling Milt a nitwit and idiot, saying I shouldn't teach, etc.).
That's cool. The internet can be good therapy, and I sure don't take it
personally. The funny thing is, in their desire to attack other posters
they seem oblivious to how their own posts sound. Amazing.
ciao, scott
Scott D. Erb
cayenne wrote:
> Milt, you are without doubt one of the most monumental idiots
> I've run across on Usenet, and that includes a pretty fair number
> of idiots.
You know you're probably beating Marty in an argument when he starts talking
like that ;)
> The concept you don't seem able to grasp is that the United
> States *are* organized under a system of dual sovereignty.
Marty, very early on I dealt with the idea of dual sovereignty and noted that
what this really means is that the sovereign power of the United States
government is divided between various units, allowing states to exercise many of
the powers associated with sovereignty. Most federal systems do that; only
confederal systems allow component states to retain full sovereignty.
Sovereign states cannot be coerced into doing ANYTHING they do not way; if the
component states of the U.S. were sovereign, any one of them could choose to
leave the union at any time. That is not the case.
Sovereignty means: 1) internal sovereignty (control of what happens within
territorial borders); and 2) external sovereignty (able to act on the
international stage; to have an independent foreign policy). If either of these
conditions are not met, you do not have a sovereign state.
Furthermore, legal sovereignty (in the international system) is granted by other
sovereign states, almost like a club in which the members decide if you are a
part of it. Practical sovereignty can exist without legal sovereignty, when the
two conditions above are met (e.g., if the world refuses to recognize a
territory that proclaims independence, but yet they act with a foreign policy
and control of their territory; they are not legally sovereign, however).
Component units of federal systems do not meet these basic qualifications. Your
argument relies on a different definition of sovereignty. But when you argue by
definition, you tend to open up a lot of holes. For instance, its clear that
sovereignty among states is at best collective, they can band together to try to
amend the constitution. And its clear that state constitutions give power to
individuals or counties, making them as sovereign vis-a-vis the state, as the
state is vis-a-vis the feds. Also you have many uses of the term sovereign in
the world -- supreme court usages for particular legal questions involving the
division of sovereign powers within the US, religious definitions ("The Lord is
sovereign, and has a sovereign will"), individualist ("individuals are sovereign
entities, choosing how they act"), and the one Milt and I are using, which is
the one that deals with the sovereignty of nation states.
Now, if you want to argue by definition, you're making a non-argument, because
anyone can change the definition of something and say its different than the
earlier definition.
The problem is that you do so in order to launch a series of insults, making it
appear that you are not serious, but simply trying to attack those who don't
share your idiosyncratic perspective. That's fine, but you discredit yourself.
ciao, scott
Steve Canyon
<scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
>>
>> You don't become a "full professor" until you get 'tenure', idiot..
>>
>> --And that takes about ten years, usually, you ignorant buffoon..
>
>Ach, its funny watching them vent, unable to grasp that their argument by
>definition attempt against Milt is really weak, and that their styles
>(name calling, attacks, smears, extremist rants like 'clinton is like
Of course it's not as though Milt doesn't call people names, and of
course, Erb's name calling had been very well documented.
>stalin') discredit them. The only way they can feel good about themselves
>is if they pretend to be superior to those against whom they debate (hence
>"steve's" constant insults of anyone who disagrees, or Marty's attacks on
>you, his calling Milt a nitwit and idiot, saying I shouldn't teach, etc.).
>
>That's cool. The internet can be good therapy, and I sure don't take it
Heh, heh, Erb says he doesn't take it personally. That's why he's
always offering his little denials. Here's some news for you, Erb,
everybody knows how badly you seek validation. It's more obvious that
Kennemur's ignorance. This post is absolute proof.
>personally. The funny thing is, in their desire to attack other posters
I keep wondering how anybody can be so stupid that they include an
attack on somebody in the same post where they are supposedly
condemning attacking somebody. Oh well, nobody ever claimed that Erb
was a genius.
>they seem oblivious to how their own posts sound. Amazing.
<snort> oblivious to his own posts. <snicker>
Ace
Steve Canyon
<scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>cayenne wrote:
>
>> Milt, you are without doubt one of the most monumental idiots
>> I've run across on Usenet, and that includes a pretty fair number
>> of idiots.
Erb is right in there.
>You know you're probably beating Marty in an argument when he starts talking
>like that ;)
You know you've beaten Erb when he has to proclaim his alleged
victory. <snicker> He wouldn't want to risk having any lurkers draw
their own conclusions.
>> The concept you don't seem able to grasp is that the United
>> States *are* organized under a system of dual sovereignty.
>
>Marty, very early on I dealt with the idea of dual sovereignty and noted that
>what this really means is that the sovereign power of the United States
>government is divided between various units, allowing states to exercise many of
>the powers associated with sovereignty. Most federal systems do that; only
>confederal systems allow component states to retain full sovereignty.
>
>Sovereign states cannot be coerced into doing ANYTHING they do not way; if the
>component states of the U.S. were sovereign, any one of them could choose to
>leave the union at any time. That is not the case.
More undocumented rhetoric by Erb. Can't you do anything but talk?
>Sovereignty means: 1) internal sovereignty (control of what happens within
>territorial borders); and 2) external sovereignty (able to act on the
>international stage; to have an independent foreign policy). If either of these
>conditions are not met, you do not have a sovereign state.
Quiet everyone, Erb is creating new definitions out of thin air.
>Furthermore, legal sovereignty (in the international system) is granted by other
>sovereign states, almost like a club in which the members decide if you are a
>part of it. Practical sovereignty can exist without legal sovereignty, when the
>two conditions above are met (e.g., if the world refuses to recognize a
>territory that proclaims independence, but yet they act with a foreign policy
>and control of their territory; they are not legally sovereign, however).
Erb claims the world is the final authority on sovereignty. I guess
that would mean the world is the only sovereign??????
>Component units of federal systems do not meet these basic qualifications. Your
I guess your substantiation of that assertion is your status as an
assistant professor?
>argument relies on a different definition of sovereignty. But when you argue by
>definition, you tend to open up a lot of holes. For instance, its clear that
>sovereignty among states is at best collective, they can band together to try to
>amend the constitution. And its clear that state constitutions give power to
>individuals or counties, making them as sovereign vis-a-vis the state, as the
>state is vis-a-vis the feds. Also you have many uses of the term sovereign in
>the world -- supreme court usages for particular legal questions involving the
>division of sovereign powers within the US, religious definitions ("The Lord is
Heh, now Erb invokes the bible?
>sovereign, and has a sovereign will"), individualist ("individuals are sovereign
>entities, choosing how they act"), and the one Milt and I are using, which is
>the one that deals with the sovereignty of nation states.
Another undocumented claim by the master of same.
>Now, if you want to argue by definition, you're making a non-argument, because
>anyone can change the definition of something and say its different than the
>earlier definition.
Kind of like what Erb is famous for. Kind of like what he did in this
very post?
>The problem is that you do so in order to launch a series of insults, making it
Do you mean insults like the one you launch here, Erb?
>appear that you are not serious, but simply trying to attack those who don't
>share your idiosyncratic perspective. That's fine, but you discredit yourself.
Erb seems to be obsessed with discrediting himself.
Ace
Steve Canyon
>In article <38625316...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com (Steve Canyon) wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 07:10:53 GMT, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:47:57 GMT, cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com
>> >(Steve Canyon) wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 15:12:04 -0500, "Scott D. Erb"
>> >><scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Milt wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> In article <82rstp$ih8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> >>>> Robin <rsi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >>>> > After reading the latest of Milts attempts at intelligent
>reasoning
>> >>>> > (States Sovereignty), I like many others wonder at his
>astounding lack
>> >>>> > of lack of knowledge. Perhaps in pity for his failings we
>should take
>> >>>> > up a collection to pay for a class in research and debate
>based in
>> >>>> fact
>> >>>> > rather than opinion.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Fact? Here are some FACTS I keep bringing up;
>> >>>>
>> >>>> A state cannot declare war.
>> >>>> A state cannot coin money.
>> >>>> A state cannot negotiate a treaty.
>> >>>> A state cannot regulate trade.
>> >>>> A state cannot have a standing army.
>> >>>> A state cannot secure its borders.
>> >>>> A state must honor relationships created by every other state.
>> >>>> ALL state laws are reviewable by federal courts.
>> >>>> All cases decided by state courts can be appealed to a federal
>court.
>> >>>> All diversity cases must be tried in federal court, no matter
>which
>> >>>> state the crime/harm occurred.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> These are all characteristics of what you claim is a sovereign.
>Please
>> >>>> explain to us how a state that has all of the above
>characteristics,
>> >>>> can be seen as a sovereign...
>> >>>
>> >>>You've made your point very well, I think, and its clear that in
>terms of
>> >>>the UN, international law, and every other body involving
>sovereign states,
>> >>>that the United States is one sovereign country. The component
>parts are
>> >>>NOT sovereign.
>> >>
>> >>Erb's bootlicking aside, Milt has made no point at all. Milt lists
>a
>> >>bunch of things that states supposedly can't do and then he says,
>see
>> >>a state can't do this, so they aren't sovereign. It would be funny
>> >>except that Milt and Erb are serious.
>> >
>> >Here are the definitions. Without snipping my list above, please
>> >explain how a state which has none of the above attributes can fit
>any
>> >of the definitions below...
>>
>> Are you suggesting that there are no other definitions?
>
>No, you asshole. In fact, I've challenged you several times to post any
>other (cited, of course) defintition your little heart desires...
I did, ass hole Sovereignty can be a supreme power. Like the state's
supreme power to amend the Constitution.
>> Just
>> curious, BTW, your list above has not been proven to represent
>> anything other than a list of stuff.
>
>"STUFF"? Now we confirm that we're not dealing with a supreme
>intellect, that's for damn sure. The above are a list of powers that
>the states definitely do not have, and are forbidden from having. They
>are powers which they have ceded to the federal government. And you
>have yet to post anything that proves, or even suggests strongly, that
>a state without such powers, can still be a sovereign.
It's your list and your claim, Bozo. First you have to post something
that proves, or even suggests strongly, that a state without such
powers, cannot still be a sovereign.
<snip milt's tired old definitions>
>>
>> I've asked, and you've ignored, Milt, how, considering your
>> definitions the U. S. Government can be considered sovereign if 38
>> other governments can ban together and legally change it's
>> Constitutional authority?
>
>They can't. Amendments to the constitution originate in Congress. The
Amendments can also originate in a proposal made by 2/3 of the states
legislatures. Why don't you get a copy of the Constitution and read
it so you don't have to guess as to what it says?
>calling of a Constitutional Convention is another story, but let's get
>real; if they call one, and change the constitution to give themselves
>more sovereignty, that does not prove me wrong, it proves me right.
<snort> Sure Milt the fact that states have considerable supreme power
over the federal government really goes a long way to prove the states
don't have sovereignty. maybe you want to rethink that one?
>Under our current constitution, states are not sovereign.
<snicker> says Milt, the Constitutional expert that knows more that
the Supreme Court justices.
Ace
Steve Canyon
I guess DUH is the best you can offer for proof, eh, dope?
>Read the definitions I have provided repeatedly. Find another
>definition of your own that refutes mine. Go for it.
>
>> Japan was denied
>> control over their destiny in the 1940's, were they not sovereign
>> during that time?
>
>They certainly didn't think so. And I would say that, at that time, no,
>they were not. Neither was East Germany, or Poland, etc.
Supremacy is something that has defined areas of action. You might be
able to flap your arms and pick your nose much better me, but I
understand Constitutional law better than you.
>> I could argue that many factors interfere with all
>> sovereign states control over their destiny, and as I pointed out, the
>> U.S. government is itself operating under the sanction of the states
>> power of amending the constitution.
>
>The states cannot amend the constitution. Congress can. The states
>ratify what Congress passes with a supermajority.
Bullshit, read Article Five, the states can propose amendments. How
many time must I tell you that. Read the damned thing, you Clod.
>> The collective states wield more
>> control of the federal government's destiny than vice versa.
>
>Then why do all the states have a 21 year old drinking age, eh?? many
>of them didn't want it. Have you ever been forced to drive 55? How come
>they have to pay you OT if you work over 40 hours in a week? Ever hear
>of the Family Leave Act? Please... the statement above is purely stupid.
The states poses the power to castrate the federal government's power.
One might argue as to who actually poses the power. The one who
sanctions to the guy who executes it and can thus repeal it, or the
guy who must use it carefully enough so as not to cause the sanction
to be revoked.
>Not only that, but see above, at the beginning of this post. The feds
>have all of the above powers, and the states are forbidden from having
>them.
Yeah and the states have powers that the feds cannot touch. Lets see,
I'd call that...... dual sovereignty, yeah that fits.
>> >Here again, are the definitions of sovereignty. Please explain to us
>> >how a state can have none of the above powers, and still be
>> >sovereign...
>>
>> Milt, the federal government supreme powers are limited to a
>> particular sphere of action.
>
>Oh, please. In any conflict of powers, the feds win. The states have a
Oh please, the feds don't interfere unless there is a conflict they
can win.
>few powers, but then, so do cities and counties. Read the definitions
>of "sovereignty, and explain to us how haveing a few powers with regard
>to land, and internal affairs is sovereignty, when the entity, the
>state, has ceded all of their other powers to the feds...
>
>> If they are limited, that means that
>> some other sphere of action exists where the states powers are
>> supreme.
>
>I see. But the federal government can't go into Microsoft's board room,
>and tell them how to run their company, either. Does that mean MS is a
>sovereign? You mean Bill Gates really IS a king??
But then Microsoft can't go into the federal government and tell them
how to run either, but the states can.
You say all this crap, but can't prove it or document it like I can
document my claim with Supreme Court cites. I think your knowledge is
an oxymoron.
>> What is
>> impossible about one government being sovereign over some things, the
>> Supreme it a sphere of action, and another state being sovereign over
>> other things?
>
>Again; power is not sovereignty. Read the definitions. I have provided
>them, and I have provided you with powers that states do NOT have. Now;
>please explain to us how a state can cede all of those powers to
>another body, and still be called sovereign. If we ceded all those
Are you truly in power if you must be concerned that I do not revoke
your power?
>powers to the UN, would WE be sovereign at that point? I don't think
>so. Poland had none of those powers when it was part of the
>Soviet "sphere" of influence. How sovereign were they, when they had to
>answer to Moscow in order to blow their noses.
>
>A good way to look at this is as follows;
says you?
>Suppose the president was a dictator, and the courts were packed with
>people who were his charges. Now; under that regime, with the states
>having the same powers they have now, how much sovereignty would they
>have. Every single law they passed, and every single conviction and
>sentence is reviewable by that court. They could, conceivably overturn
>every single law, and toss out all convictions. Is that your idea of
Bullshit, Prove your claim the feds can toss out any convictions.
>sovereignty? Under the current constitution, while the above is
>unlikely, it is possible. Meaning that states have little or no ability
>for self-determination.
>
>Now, what I am saying is debatable. But your simple-minded repetition
>of a couple of platitudes is not part of the debate. I suggest you take
>a deep breath and read some of the scholarly work on both sides of this
>issue, and come back with something more, because you're looking like a
>fool. I have presented a list of powers the states do not have, and are
>forbidden from having, and I have presented the definitions
>of "sovereignty". If you can reconcile those two with somehting besides
>the lame shit above, then do so. But what you're saying isn't working...
I think it is. You haven't proven your claim. I have the Supreme
Court to back me up, you have what?
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Ace
Scott D. Erb
Steve Canyon wrote:
>
> Yeah and the states have powers that the feds cannot touch. Lets see,
> I'd call that...... dual sovereignty, yeah that fits.
Hmmm, then given that the Constitution grants individual rights and powers to
citizens which cannot be touched by the feds or the states, then Steve's
definition gives everyone sovereignty.
Oh what silly results when one plays definition games!
Steve Canyon
<scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Steve Canyon wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah and the states have powers that the feds cannot touch. Lets see,
>> I'd call that...... dual sovereignty, yeah that fits.
>
>Hmmm, then given that the Constitution grants individual rights and powers to
>citizens which cannot be touched by the feds or the states, then Steve's
>definition gives everyone sovereignty.
>
>Oh what silly results when one plays definition games!
Not silly at all, as Gail pointed out by quoting Lincoln, but alas,
Erb, this discussion was about sovereign governments. Try to keep up.
Ace
cayenne
>
>
>cayenne wrote:
>
>> Milt, you are without doubt one of the most monumental idiots
>> I've run across on Usenet, and that includes a pretty fair number
>> of idiots.
>
talking
>like that ;)
Not really. I only talk to idiots like that, and Milt is one.
He literally has no idea what he is talking about, and
apparently your fear of admitting that you don't either
has you siding with him. I find that "pleasing" only in
the sense that it puts you closer to a real identification
of your thoroughgoing incompetence.
Just a note on style: I generally inspect each post that
I write before sending it. Often I'll spend some amount of
time writing a post and then just delete it because I don't
think it cuts clearly enough to the point or doesn't
rest on a good foundation.
I can *assure* you, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that
the concept of dual sovereignty is the basic organizing
principle of the United States.
And that Milt is, in fact, an idiot of the first rank.
>> The concept you don't seem able to grasp is that the United
>> States *are* organized under a system of dual sovereignty.
>
>Marty, very early on I dealt with the idea of dual sovereignty and noted
that
>what this really means is that the sovereign power of the United States
>government is divided between various units, allowing states to exercise
many of
>the powers associated with sovereignty. Most federal systems do that; only
>confederal systems allow component states to retain full sovereignty.
Well, you're babystepping closer to the truth, Scotti, and eventually
you'll get there and claim, as you seem to be doing already, that
you were there all along. So here you are admitting again that the
sovereign power of the "United States government is divided among
various units, allowing states to exercise many of the powers associated
with sovereignty." Sorry, not there yet, Professor.
The "United States government's" powers--those of the federal government--
as enumerated are divided among the branches of the federal government.
Those enumerated powers of the federal government are vested there
*by* the states, which retain a sphere of sovereignty much larger in
fact than the sphere of sovereignty that they ceded to the federal
government in order to effectuate their union.
The sovereignty exercised by the federal government is, in fact, the
one that is most truly limited in the design of the Constitution. Even
though "national and inter-national affairs" come with the glamour,
it is the states which retain the greater portion of American sovereignty,
which was in its inception a basic innovation on the then--18th Century--
concept that sovereignty was indivisible.
Now, be careful, Scott, as you move closer to the actual facts (which
are immediately available to you from any number of sources, of
course), Milt is going to be getting very upset. He's not as, as,
*mercurial* as you.
cayenne
>
>
>Steve Canyon wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah and the states have powers that the feds cannot touch. Lets see,
>> I'd call that...... dual sovereignty, yeah that fits.
>
to
>citizens which cannot be touched by the feds or the states, then Steve's
>definition gives everyone sovereignty.
Are you talking about the Bill of Rights, Erb?
The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution at the insistence of
the states as a *further* check on the power of the federal government.
Very much later, and mostly in this century, those rights have been
applied to the states as checks on state power, and this happened
through the use of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment
and other devices within the Constitution.
Nonetheless, it remains true that "the states write the law," and that
virtually all law is state law and will be adjudicated to a finality
within the state forum. The power of the Supreme Court to review
decisions in state courts is discretionary, and the Court applies that
discretion according to a set of very narrow principles that involve
federal questions.
>Oh what silly results when one plays definition games!
These are not definition games, you truculent moron. These concepts
are the very essence of the debate that went into the formation of
the sovereign union of sovereign states that is the United States.
Your monstrous ignorance of the basic organizing theory and principles
of the society in which you live only reinforces the contention made
by myself and others that you are without doubt a living, breathing
fraud among us. Professor of political science, indeed. A terrible
joke, that is.
Scott D. Erb
cayenne wrote:
>These are not definition games, you truculent moron.
(chuckle)
One has to wonder how you would flame me if I started calling people idiots,
morons, nitwits, etc., when I disagreed with them, if I started grading
responses of other posters, and telling them they aren't fit for the particular
jobs they hold.
My, wouldn't a style like that really be arrogant and narcissistic! Ah, but
when you do it, you tend not to notice those faults. One another person makes
any sort of comment you decide is arrogant, you make a bunch of personal
judgements.
The irony, Martin, is not only are you wrong in pursuing the argument by
definition in sovereignty, but you don't seem to see that what you criticize in
my posts is minor compared to the type of things you do in yours. Thats
typical when one has a bias, one is more likely to see anything the "other"
does in the worst light possible, and anything the "self" does as blameless.
Both conclusions are usually wrong no matter who makes them.
Now, as to sovereignty, you still haven't touched the issues I raised. States
cannot choose not to follow the federal government. I *long ago* talked about
dual sovereignty and sharing of sovereign power (you now try to say I'm taking
'baby steps' when I repeat a point I made long ago, which is perhaps an attempt
by you to shift the discourse to make it appear different than it is, or maybe
you just have a short memory), but how that does NOT mean the component states
in any federal system are sovereign any more than each individual is
sovereign. After all, individuals can vote in governments that change the
constitution completely.
You see, Martin, its simple: The USA is a sovereign state, meaning its
legitimate government can govern the territory and act on the world stage.
Sovereign powers according to the philosophy behind the US belong primarily in
the INDIVIDUAL. Thus the choice is to limit what the central government can
do, with a number of various steps. The Feds are limited via the constitution,
and powers are given to states. State constitutions give power to the counties
and towns. But that does not mean any of them are fully sovereign.
Individuals acting collectively can cause the system to change, just as states
acting collectively could change the constitution.
Get it?
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
> >
> > You don't become a "full professor" until you get 'tenure', idiot..
> >
> > --And that takes about ten years, usually, you ignorant buffoon..
>
> Ach, its funny watching them vent, unable to grasp that their argument by
> definition attempt against Milt is really weak, and that their styles
> (name calling, attacks, smears, extremist rants like 'clinton is like
Yeah, if they actually knew how silly they sounded, they'd really be
hacked off at themselves.. Like they really need that insult heaped
upon themselves.. <chuckling>..
> The only way they can feel good about themselves
> is if they pretend to be superior to those against whom they debate (hence
> "steve's" constant insults of anyone who disagrees, or Marty's attacks on
> you, his calling Milt a nitwit and idiot, saying I shouldn't teach, etc.).
Yeah, they've been ranting about every little thing they can find
wrong with my replies, ala Fraud Slobbersome, and Terry Cross with
his latest spelling/grammar flame.. Like I care during finals... /&^)
> That's cool. The internet can be good therapy, and I sure don't take it
> personally. The funny thing is, in their desire to attack other posters
> they seem oblivious to how their own posts sound. Amazing.
Yup, they've avoided examining their own behavior for the moment..
--People who live in stoned houses shouldn't throw glasses...
Bill Bonde
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
> >
> > You don't become a "full professor" until you get 'tenure', idiot..
> >
> > --And that takes about ten years, usually, you ignorant buffoon..
>
> Ach, its funny watching them vent, unable to grasp that their argument by
> definition attempt against Milt is really weak, and that their styles
> (name calling, attacks, smears, extremist rants like 'clinton is like
> stalin') discredit them.
>
I wouldn't say that Milt has exactly left out the name calling and all
that.
> The only way they can feel good about themselves
> is if they pretend to be superior to those against whom they debate (hence
> "steve's" constant insults of anyone who disagrees, or Marty's attacks on
> you, his calling Milt a nitwit and idiot, saying I shouldn't teach, etc.).
>
Have you considered that they may be wrong about the sovereignty thing
but still have a point about the rest?
Milt
wrote:
>Milt wrote in message <3855e1ad...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>treaty, or even conduct diplomacy, outside the auspices of the United
>>States federal government.
>
>Milt, you are without doubt one of the most monumental idiots
>I've run across on Usenet, and that includes a pretty fair number
>of idiots.
>
>The concept you don't seem able to grasp is that the United
>States *are* organized under a system of dual sovereignty.
Jesus Christ. How in the hell do you get the nerve to call me
anything, when you yourself refuse to even deal with the argument I'm
making.
I say that there is no such thing as "dual sovereignty". Either a
stste is or is not sovereign. Therefore, you arguing with me by
stating that the US system is based on "dual sovereignty" is
ludicrous, without establishing that such a thing is possible.
>There is a considerable federal sphere of sovereignty, which
>includes all responsibility for inter-national relations.> And there
>is an even more considerable sphere that belongs to the states.
Give it a break with the spheres. I'm sick of your "sphere" bullshit,
because it's irrelevant. ABSOLUTELY irrelevant. We ALL operate in
different "spheres". My dad works in the public "sphere",a nd my mom
works in the private "sphere", and neither one is sovereign. It
doesn't matter that they have different powers. I concede that they do
have some different powers. I have never said that they didn't. But I
also said that "power" is not a sign of "sovereignty". Many of the
"powers" that you claim demonstrate state sovereignty are also held by
private entities, such as corporations and clubs. Obviously, such
powers alone do not make a sovereign.
>As my lawyer put it: "The states make the law," which is a
>way of saying that most of the law that you will ever come into
>contact with is state law, and nearly all cases arising under
>that law will be adjudicated to a finality within the particular
>state.
You again completely gloss over the point. The exception proves the
rule, genius, not the norm. EVERY SINGLE CASE decided in every single
court in the land, is reviewable in a federal court. Even a goddamned
parking ticket, if you're crazy enough to do that.
>The *supremacy* of federal law comes into play when there
>are conflicts between state laws and the Constitution or the
>enumerated powers of the federal government.
Right. Exactly. If there is no conflict, then there is no supremacy.
However, what proves MY point is that, when there IS conflict, the
feds win. Period.
>
>And the Supreme Court has a very specific set of discretionary
>criteria that they use before reviewing decisions made in
>state courts.
>
Oh, horseshit. You ever hear of the "rule of four"?? The only
requirement for the USSC to hear a case that is brought to them, is if
four justices vote to hear it. there are NO other official criteria.
If four justices want to rule on your parking ticket, guess which case
they're gonna hear??
>In fact, the *fact* that the Supreme Court does not *have* to take
>*any* case should be enough to demonstrate to you that the
>supremacy of the federal government is a situational, *not*
>a hierarchical relationship.
Jesus, your illogic is striking for someone who's so goddamned
arrogant.
The *fact* that the USSC *can* hear any case they want, and can strike
down anything that five of them can agree on ought to be a clue
here...
><delete load of ranting idiocy>
Ranting idiocy? here's my argument again. You know; the one you keep
snipping, because you won't deal with it...
A state cannot declare war.
A state cannot coin money.
A state cannot negotiate a treaty.
A state cannot regulate trade.
A state cannot have a standing army.
A state cannot secure its borders.
A state must honor relationships created by every other state.
ALL state laws are reviewable by federal courts.
All cases decided by state courts can be appealed to a federal court.
All diversity cases must be tried in federal court, no matter which
state the crime/harm occurred.
These are all characteristics of what you claim is a sovereign. Please
explain to us how a state that has all of the above characteristics,
can be seen as a sovereign...
Now, here are the definitions of sovereignty, which, again, you keep
snipping...
As you could see, if you bothered to open your eyes (and your mind) is
that sovereignty is something very specific, and I think we delude
ourselves into believing something that isn't true. As I have pointed
out; states have few sovereign powers, and those few they have can be
taken away at any time. That does NOT fit the definition of
sovereignty, under any stretch of the imagination...
By the way, here's one more example. The federal government has
sovereign immunity, but state governments largely do not.
Now; deal with the arguments. Your ranting is becoming tiresome...
Milt
<scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>cayenne wrote:
>
>> Milt, you are without doubt one of the most monumental idiots
>> I've run across on Usenet, and that includes a pretty fair number
>> of idiots.
>
>You know you're probably beating Marty in an argument when he starts talking
>like that ;)
I'd just like to see him come forward WITH an argument. Instead, he
keeps snipping it all, and repeating the same shit over and over...
>
>> The concept you don't seem able to grasp is that the United
>> States *are* organized under a system of dual sovereignty.
>
>Marty, very early on I dealt with the idea of dual sovereignty and noted that
>what this really means is that the sovereign power of the United States
>government is divided between various units, allowing states to exercise many of
>the powers associated with sovereignty. Most federal systems do that; only
>confederal systems allow component states to retain full sovereignty.
>
>Sovereign states cannot be coerced into doing ANYTHING they do not way; if the
>component states of the U.S. were sovereign, any one of them could choose to
>leave the union at any time. That is not the case.
>
>Sovereignty means: 1) internal sovereignty (control of what happens within
>territorial borders); and 2) external sovereignty (able to act on the
>international stage; to have an independent foreign policy). If either of these
>conditions are not met, you do not have a sovereign state.
Well put. I have not said that states have no sovereign powers. Of
course they have some. But so does every city and town in the country.
And everything can't be sovereign. And the problem with "dual"
sovereignty si that the word "dual" infers equality,and that's simply
not the case at all. Theer is no way you can infer that the states
have anything approaching the sovereignty of the federal government.
Everything they do is subject to federal review.
>
>Furthermore, legal sovereignty (in the international system) is granted by other
>sovereign states, almost like a club in which the members decide if you are a
>part of it. Practical sovereignty can exist without legal sovereignty, when the
>two conditions above are met (e.g., if the world refuses to recognize a
>territory that proclaims independence, but yet they act with a foreign policy
>and control of their territory; they are not legally sovereign, however).
>
>Component units of federal systems do not meet these basic qualifications. Your
>argument relies on a different definition of sovereignty.
With all due respect, Scott, hsi definition of "sovereignty doesn't
seem to exist. I mean, when I first started arguing this thread, I
looked at what I'd said, and I checked every dictionary I could find;
I have ten in my house. Even the legal dictionaries don't define
sovereignty as anything other than completre self-determination.
States in the US are NOT self-determining entities, by any stretch...
> But when you argue by
>definition, you tend to open up a lot of holes. For instance, its clear that
>sovereignty among states is at best collective, they can band together to try to
>amend the constitution. And its clear that state constitutions give power to
>individuals or counties, making them as sovereign vis-a-vis the state, as the
>state is vis-a-vis the feds. Also you have many uses of the term sovereign in
>the world -- supreme court usages for particular legal questions involving the
>division of sovereign powers within the US, religious definitions ("The Lord is
>sovereign, and has a sovereign will"), individualist ("individuals are sovereign
>entities, choosing how they act"), and the one Milt and I are using, which is
>the one that deals with the sovereignty of nation states.
I would also point out that none of the actual cases that these people
have presented actually define the word as they are using it. You have
to determine their meaning by inference, and it is clear that they use
the term "sovereignty" as interchangeable with "power", and that is an
error. Sorry, but having power does not make you a sovereign. If that
were the case, then you'd have a hell of a time dealing with the JP in
Podunk, Alabama...
>
>Now, if you want to argue by definition, you're making a non-argument, because
>anyone can change the definition of something and say its different than the
>earlier definition.
Not only that, but he's REdefining words and phrases, to make his
point. It's a common tactic among the right wing. Look at the current
uses of the word "liberal" and "federalism" in their circles...
>
>The problem is that you do so in order to launch a series of insults, making it
>appear that you are not serious, but simply trying to attack those who don't
>share your idiosyncratic perspective. That's fine, but you discredit yourself.
These guys are more interested in being right, than being correct,
anyway...
Milt
(Steve Canyon) wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:02:23 -0500, "Scott D. Erb"
><scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>cayenne wrote:
>>
>>> Milt, you are without doubt one of the most monumental idiots
>>> I've run across on Usenet, and that includes a pretty fair number
>>> of idiots.
>
>Erb is right in there.
>
>>You know you're probably beating Marty in an argument when he starts talking
>>like that ;)
>
>You know you've beaten Erb when he has to proclaim his alleged
>victory. <snicker> He wouldn't want to risk having any lurkers draw
>their own conclusions.
I would. Lurkers can draw their own conclusions. I haven't yet said
that anything I'm saying is not debatable. But you guys have yet to
actually debate it...
Milt
(Steve Canyon) wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:05:32 GMT, Milt <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Fact? Here are some FACTS I keep bringing up;
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> A state cannot declare war.
>>> >>>>>> A state cannot coin money.
>>> >>>>>> A state cannot negotiate a treaty.
>>> >>>>>> A state cannot regulate trade.
>>> >>>>>> A state cannot have a standing army.
>>> >>>>>> A state cannot secure its borders.
>>> >>>>>> A state must honor relationships created by every other state.
>>> >>>>>> ALL state laws are reviewable by federal courts.
>>> >>>>>> All cases decided by state courts can be appealed to a federal
>>court.
>>> >>>>>> All diversity cases must be tried in federal court, no matter
>>which
>>> >>>>>> state the crime/harm occurred.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> These are all characteristics of what you claim is a
>>sovereign. Please
>>> >>>>>> explain to us how a state that has all of the above
>>characteristics,
>>> >>>>>> can be seen as a sovereign...
>>> >>>>>
<snip>
>>> >>You're big on making unsubstantiated claims, Milt. That's a neat
>>> >>list, Milt. Now explain why it would necessarily have to have those
>>> >>powers to be sovereign.
>>> >>
>>> >Because without them, it has no control over its destiny.
>>>
>>> States, OTOH, do have considerable control over their destiny, as
>>> demonstrated by the simple fact that all are unique, but is control
>>> over your destiny a requirement of sovereignty?
>>
>>Um, yeah. DUH!
>
>I guess DUH is the best you can offer for proof, eh, dope?
I've offered proof. Are you telling us that, even though I have posted
the defintiions for you, you still do not know the defintion of the
word "sovereign"?
>
>>Read the definitions I have provided repeatedly. Find another
>>definition of your own that refutes mine. Go for it.
>>
>>> Japan was denied
>>> control over their destiny in the 1940's, were they not sovereign
>>> during that time?
>>
>>They certainly didn't think so. And I would say that, at that time, no,
>>they were not. Neither was East Germany, or Poland, etc.
>
>Supremacy is something that has defined areas of action. You might be
>able to flap your arms and pick your nose much better me, but I
>understand Constitutional law better than you.
You obviously don't.
>
>>> I could argue that many factors interfere with all
>>> sovereign states control over their destiny, and as I pointed out, the
>>> U.S. government is itself operating under the sanction of the states
>>> power of amending the constitution.
>>
>>The states cannot amend the constitution. Congress can. The states
>>ratify what Congress passes with a supermajority.
>
>Bullshit, read Article Five, the states can propose amendments.
No. they can call a Constitutional Convention. Of course, there are no
rules in place for exactly how that would work. CONGRESS would have to
make those first.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either
Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of
the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the
one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate."
There are other problems with the above, as well. It says "if two
thirds of the several states shall call a convention for proposing
amendments". The problme is, no one knows the details about the
"apllication". Does the application have to be identical in every
state? Must they be contemporaneous, or can they be strung out over
ten years?
> How
>many time must I tell you that. Read the damned thing, you Clod.
I have. I've also included it above, so YOU can read it.
>
>>> The collective states wield more
>>> control of the federal government's destiny than vice versa.
>>
>>Then why do all the states have a 21 year old drinking age, eh?? many
>>of them didn't want it. Have you ever been forced to drive 55? How come
>>they have to pay you OT if you work over 40 hours in a week? Ever hear
>>of the Family Leave Act? Please... the statement above is purely stupid.
>
>The states poses the power to castrate the federal government's power.
Not under our constitution, they don't. Of course, the federal
government doesn't possess the power to castrate the states, either.
But power is not sovereignty...
>One might argue as to who actually poses the power. The one who
>sanctions to the guy who executes it and can thus repeal it, or the
>guy who must use it carefully enough so as not to cause the sanction
>to be revoked.
That has nothing to do with sovereignty. That's about power. They are
separate concepts. Granada is a sovereign; one would hardly argue that
it's powerful...
>
>>Not only that, but see above, at the beginning of this post. The feds
>>have all of the above powers, and the states are forbidden from having
>>them.
>
>Yeah and the states have powers that the feds cannot touch.
So does Microsoft and Ford. Are they sovereigns??
> Lets see,
>I'd call that...... dual sovereignty, yeah that fits.
It's still an oxymoron.
>
>>> >Here again, are the definitions of sovereignty. Please explain to us
>>> >how a state can have none of the above powers, and still be
>>> >sovereign...
>>>
>>> Milt, the federal government supreme powers are limited to a
>>> particular sphere of action.
>>
>>Oh, please. In any conflict of powers, the feds win. The states have a
>
>Oh please, the feds don't interfere unless there is a conflict they
>can win.
But they CAN. And that's the point.
>
>>few powers, but then, so do cities and counties. Read the definitions
>>of "sovereignty, and explain to us how haveing a few powers with regard
>>to land, and internal affairs is sovereignty, when the entity, the
>>state, has ceded all of their other powers to the feds...
>>
>>> If they are limited, that means that
>>> some other sphere of action exists where the states powers are
>>> supreme.
>>
>>I see. But the federal government can't go into Microsoft's board room,
>>and tell them how to run their company, either. Does that mean MS is a
>>sovereign? You mean Bill Gates really IS a king??
>
>But then Microsoft can't go into the federal government and tell them
>how to run either, but the states can.
No, they can't. Calling a convention does not make one a sovereign.
Are the political parties sovereigns? It is entirely possible that the
states could call a convention, they could propose amendments to the
constitution, and they could fail to get the supermajority in Congress
that's needed for ratification. Why? Because, in a federal system,
full sovereignty lies with the FEDERAL government...
I just proved it with the definitions. it's like claimimg that
everyhting's the best. That is not possible. Only one can be the best.
And only one can be the sovereign...
cayenne
Milt wrote in message <38569e50...@news.earthlink.net>...
I've dealt with your argument, about fifty fucking times. The problem
is that you are incapable of checking your premise, which is...
>I say that there is no such thing as "dual sovereignty". Either a
>stste is or is not sovereign. Therefore, you arguing with me by
>stating that the US system is based on "dual sovereignty" is
>ludicrous, without establishing that such a thing is possible.
Milt, one more time: Divided, or dual, sovereignty, is the way that
the United States *are* set up. Why not stop posting all of that
shit and actually open your eyes to the historical facts.
The states and the United States share sovereignty and engage
that sovereignty in their respective spheres of action.
It's not in dispute, you little clown. You misunderstand, among
many other things, the supremacy clause, the nature of state
governments and legal systems, the nature of the federal
government, and the historical facts as to how, why, by whom,
and with what purpose the sovereign union of sovereign states
under the Constitution was created.
How can I possibly help you with it? In the first place, you refuse
to look at the way the society you are living in is organized and
therefore cannot recognize that states have an undisputed
sovereign sphere and that the federal government likewise
has an undisputed sovereign sphere, and that these sometimes
come into conflict, and that when they do, *if* there is a legitimate
federal question that has been treated improperly by a state
court, the Supreme Court has the discretionary authority to
review that and decide whether it needs to be changed, or
not.
This is not a difficult assignment, Milt. And but for your obvious
blazing commitment to a premise--that sovereignty cannot
be divided--that was *confronted* and *overcome* by the
Framers 212 years ago, I think that you can probably handle it.
But not until you stop being an idiot.
Milt
Why is it the most ignorant ones that are the most strident?
I'll give you a hint, genius; Scott's at a STATE school...
Milt
(Steve Canyon) wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:52:33 -0500, "Scott D. Erb"
><scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You don't become a "full professor" until you get 'tenure', idiot..
>>>
>>> --And that takes about ten years, usually, you ignorant buffoon..
>>
>>Ach, its funny watching them vent, unable to grasp that their argument by
>>definition attempt against Milt is really weak, and that their styles
>>(name calling, attacks, smears, extremist rants like 'clinton is like
>
>Of course it's not as though Milt doesn't call people names, and of
>course, Erb's name calling had been very well documented.
Hey; I never said I didn't call people names, shit-for-brains. But I
don't do it as my argument. I simply state the obvious...
>
>>stalin') discredit them. The only way they can feel good about themselves
>>is if they pretend to be superior to those against whom they debate (hence
>>"steve's" constant insults of anyone who disagrees, or Marty's attacks on
>>you, his calling Milt a nitwit and idiot, saying I shouldn't teach, etc.).
>>
>>That's cool. The internet can be good therapy, and I sure don't take it
>
>Heh, heh, Erb says he doesn't take it personally. That's why he's
>always offering his little denials. Here's some news for you, Erb,
>everybody knows how badly you seek validation. It's more obvious that
>Kennemur's ignorance. This post is absolute proof.
And that statement proves your ignorance.
Here's my argument;
Here are some FACTS I keep bringing up;
A state cannot declare war.
A state cannot coin money.
A state cannot negotiate a treaty.
A state cannot regulate trade.
A state cannot have a standing army.
A state cannot secure its borders.
A state must honor relationships created by every other state.
ALL state laws are reviewable by federal courts.
All cases decided by state courts can be appealed to a federal court.
All diversity cases must be tried in federal court, no matter which
state the crime/harm occurred.
These are all characteristics of what you claim is a sovereign. Please
explain to us how a state that has all of the above characteristics,
can be seen as a sovereign...
Why can you not deal with it??
>>personally. The funny thing is, in their desire to attack other posters
>
>I keep wondering how anybody can be so stupid that they include an
>attack on somebody in the same post where they are supposedly
>condemning attacking somebody. Oh well, nobody ever claimed that Erb
>was a genius.
An attack? It's funny how you consider an editorial comment on your
debating skills as an "attack". Says more about your debating skills
than it says about Scott...
>
>>they seem oblivious to how their own posts sound. Amazing.
>
><snort> oblivious to his own posts. <snicker>
Oblivious to the irony...
Of course, you don't know what sovereignty means. You probably don't
know what irony is, either...
Milt
wrote:
>
>
>"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>>
>> Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > You don't become a "full professor" until you get 'tenure', idiot..
>> >
>> > --And that takes about ten years, usually, you ignorant buffoon..
>>
>> Ach, its funny watching them vent, unable to grasp that their argument by
>> definition attempt against Milt is really weak, and that their styles
>> (name calling, attacks, smears, extremist rants like 'clinton is like
>> stalin') discredit them.
>>
>I wouldn't say that Milt has exactly left out the name calling and all
>that.
>
But it's never the entire argument. In fact, it's rarely the argument.
More an observation...
>
>> The only way they can feel good about themselves
>> is if they pretend to be superior to those against whom they debate (hence
>> "steve's" constant insults of anyone who disagrees, or Marty's attacks on
>> you, his calling Milt a nitwit and idiot, saying I shouldn't teach, etc.).
>>
>Have you considered that they may be wrong about the sovereignty thing
>but still have a point about the rest?
Hey, Scott and I have both admitted that our concepts are debatable.
They are. Neither one of us is perfect. (As I know you'll agree,
Bill... :) ) But the arguments they're coming up with are lame, and
they're not well thought out, and they're not even remotely
supportable. And they engaging in that duck-and-cover technique that
so many on the rihgt have developed. You know the one, where they snip
the argument, and then attack things that I didn't say. Look at all of
the posts in this thread that claim that I called the Supreme Court
wrong. I didn't say they were right OR wrong. I simply said that the
use of the word "sovereignty" was probably inaccurate.
Seriously; you should follow this thread; it's a pretty interesting
one, because no one is actually arguing with Scott and I. Theyn simply
keep repeating the same platitudes over and over again...
cayenne
Scott D. Erb wrote in message <3856C4E9...@maine.edu>...
>
>
>cayenne wrote:
>
>>These are not definition games, you truculent moron.
>
>(chuckle)
>
>One has to wonder how you would flame me if I started calling people
idiots,
>morons, nitwits, etc., when I disagreed with them, if I started grading
>responses of other posters, and telling them they aren't fit for the
particular
>jobs they hold.
Clearly, Scott, it's been known for some time that you are not fit to
be a teacher. You are, in a word, *incompetent* in your field, and
in another word, a *fraud,* because of the truly mendacious attitude
you bring to virtually all of your activity on Usenet.
And finding and applying the meaning of sovereignty and how it is
set up in the United States is not a "[word] game," and your saying
so (a ploy you often make use of when you are simply ignorant
of the subject matter) does make you a truculent moron.
There's no other way to describe it. Once you've tried shifting your
position four or five times and you still don't get it, then you start
up with the "word games" stuff. You forget, Scott, that I and
many others have seen it all before. It's old.
cayenne
Scott D. Erb wrote in message <836rur$atq$1...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
>In article <38569e50...@news.earthlink.net>, mi...@law.com says...
>
>-snip excellent reply-
>
>>Now; deal with the arguments. Your ranting is becoming tiresome...
>
>
>Martin's MO is a some arrogant name calling and false bravado about his own
>intelligence. Don't let him irritate you, I don't think he fools anyone.
I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm dealing with fools, which might indeed
make me something of a fool myself. But I have no reason or urge
to *fool* anyone. Everything I've written about the divided sovereignty
of the United States is dead center spot on nailed to a *certainty.*
I didn't make it up *or* wing it. Nor would I want to. It's a subject
that I respect and have taken seriously for a very long time.
Milt doesn't have the faintest notion about what he's writing about,
and you're a political science professor who doesn't know either
generally or specifically how the country he is living
in is organized as a political society.
It's not bravado to tell both of you that you are wildly deficient. It's
the pure and unadulterated truth.
You, Erb, have made *so* *many* completely ignorant statements
about how the United States is organized that keeping track of
them would be a full time job. It's simply incredible.
You don't understand the concept of sovereignty, either, and seem
only comfortable dealing with it in its inter-national use, which is
indeed odd, because inter-national relations are predicated to a
great extent on endogenous political realities, which are a reflection,
particularly in the United States, of how sovereignty is established.
Surely, *any* good Soviet political scientist would have known
exactly what the nature of the political organization of the United
States is all about. And certainly wouldn't have argued at Milt's
side that the Supreme Court is not using the term *sovereignty*
properly, as you have. Incredible.
Steve Canyon
<scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>You see, Martin, its simple: The USA is a sovereign state, meaning its
>legitimate government can govern the territory and act on the world stage.
Erb seems to be obsessed with this world stage, which exists only in
his own feeble mind.
>Sovereign powers according to the philosophy behind the US belong primarily in
>the INDIVIDUAL. Thus the choice is to limit what the central government can
Now Erb has gone from saying only the Feds are sovereign to everybody
and everything is sovereign. Must have been a change in the tides.
>do, with a number of various steps. The Feds are limited via the constitution,
>and powers are given to states. State constitutions give power to the counties
The Federal government and/or the Constitution does not give power to
the states. The states power is that which is not enumerated or
implied by the Constitution.
>and towns. But that does not mean any of them are fully sovereign.
>Individuals acting collectively can cause the system to change, just as states
>acting collectively could change the constitution.
No, Erb, and I am amazed at your ignorance. The structure of state
governments is very different from that of the federal government.
For one thing, the state chief executive is elected directly by the
people, not by other governments For another, the state is not a
union of any other entity other that subdivisions made by the state
government themselves, and most importantly, the counties and cities
have no amending power in the state governments.
Ace
Robin
for hearty laugh.
Since you seem to be an absolutist, is there any such creature as a
sovereign? Can you name an individual or entity, current or historical
that would qualify as a sovereign by your definition?
In article <833hsa$l54$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Milt <mi...@law.com> wrote:
> In article <82rstp$ih8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Robin <rsi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > After reading the latest of Milts attempts at intelligent reasoning
> > (States Sovereignty), I like many others wonder at his astounding
lack
> > of lack of knowledge. Perhaps in pity for his failings we should
take
> > up a collection to pay for a class in research and debate based in
> fact
> > rather than opinion.
>
> Fact? Here are some FACTS I keep bringing up;
>
> A state cannot declare war.
> A state cannot coin money.
> A state cannot negotiate a treaty.
> A state cannot regulate trade.
> A state cannot have a standing army.
> A state cannot secure its borders.
> A state must honor relationships created by every other state.
> ALL state laws are reviewable by federal courts.
> All cases decided by state courts can be appealed to a federal court.
> All diversity cases must be tried in federal court, no matter which
> state the crime/harm occurred.
>
> These are all characteristics of what you claim is a sovereign. Please
> explain to us how a state that has all of the above characteristics,
> can be seen as a sovereign...
>
The Confederacy negated all of those elements for the duration of the
Civil War. So apparently “cannot” is a misuse of the word? Check the
definition and get back to me . he he
> > What Milt apparently doesn’t know is that Supremes only rule in
cases
> > to be decided under the Constitution. Many cases are declined
because
> > no Constitutional issue is to be decided.
>
> So. All cases are reviewable, and the FEDERAL court gets to decide
what
> it will hear, and what it won't. The fact that the states can try a
> case, and have it overturned by a federal court, ought to tell you
> something. And that's a FACT.
>
And the same court can review all Federal laws. Does this mean the
Supreme Court also has supreme authority over the other two branches?
Snicker
All Federal laws be negated by an amendment to the constitution- said
amendment can be proposed by the States and needs no Federal action to
become valid.
So are the States more powerful than the Feds?
> > Provided are cites demonstrating the fact of States Sovereignty.
>
> No, they're not. They demonstrate the use of the word. I still think
> it's misused...
>
> > Alden v. Maine, No. 98-436 (1999)
> > Argued March 31, 1999
> > Decided June 23, 1999
> > Extract:
> > 1. The Constitution's structure and history and this Court's
> > authoritative interpretations make clear that the States' immunity
> from
> > suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty they enjoyed before
> the
> > Constitution's ratification and retain today, except as altered by
the
> > plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments. Under
the
> > federal system established by the Constitution, the States retain
> > a "residuary and inviolable sovereignty." The Federalist No. 39, p.
> > 245. They are not relegated to the role of mere provinces or
political
> > corporations, but retain the dignity, though not the full authority,
> > of sovereignty.
>
> Read that last sentence very carefully, Robin.
>
And of course have an example of an entity that enjoys “the full
authority of sovereignty”.?
> > Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985)
> > Argued October 9, 1985
> > Decided December 3, 1985
> > An extract:
> > (a) The dual sovereignty doctrine provides that, when a defendant
in a
> > single act violates the "peace and dignity" of two sovereigns by
> > breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct "offences"
> for
> > double jeopardy purposes.
>
> Dual sovereignty is an oxymoron. It's not possible, without changing
> the definition of Sovereign...
>
> > In applying the doctrine, the crucial
> > determination is whether the two entities that seek successively to
> > prosecute a defendant for the same course of conduct can be termed
> > separate sovereigns. This determination turns on whether the
> > prosecuting entities' powers to undertake criminal prosecutions
derive
> > from separate and independent sources. It has been uniformly held
that
> > the States are separate sovereigns with respect to the Federal
> > Government because each State's power to prosecute derives from its
> > inherent sovereignty, preserved to it by the Tenth Amendment, and
not
> > from the Federal Government. Given the distinct sources of their
> powers
> > to try a defendant, the States are no less sovereign with respect to
> > each other than they are with respect to the Federal Government. Pp.
> 87-
> > 91
>
> Yes, they are.
I see. Miltie has so stated ,so it has to be true regardless of what
those senile old people had to say.
ROFLMAO
>
> <snip>
> >
> > BTW can anyone remember a discussion where Milt was actually right?
>
> I'm usually correct. (Not right; that's your thing.
I have perused a number of your posts, certainly not all of them. I
haven’t found on yet where you were correct by fact, just lots of
opinion and spurious rhetoric. Perhaps someone else can provide an
example.
> In fact, I have just proven you wrong. Not that you'd ever admit it.
Proven normally indicates a finding by a court. I have provided cites
from the Supreme Court to support my thesis, where are your legal
cites? I would be pleased to argue this with you in an actual court
under standard rules of evidence- set it up and let me know.
Haaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaa
IMHO, in a moderated debate the outcome might be a little more to your
liking- if you could pad the panel with your peers. A random selection
would predispose you to defeat.
>
> BTW, since you think the USSC is infallible, I expect your thesis
> supporting a woman's right to an abortion, as well as affirmative
> action and busing, right here...
>
First, I never stated that the Supremes were infallible.
Second, with the exception of affirmative action, those that you cite
cause me no great heartburn.
IMHO, Affirmative action is a travesty; minorities don’t need it, they
need equal treatment and opportunities. This is a political issue aimed
at isolating people, increasing class envy, and creating victims; all
to provide power for a few elite spokespersons.
As to bussing and abortion; if you can afford the costs do it. However
IMHO, there is a serious problem with forcing those with a moral
conviction to pay for it. Kind of like requiring an atheist to tithe
to the church of the communities choice.
Of course, that’s only my opinion.
Robin
Scott D. Erb
-snip excellent reply-
>Now; deal with the arguments. Your ranting is becoming tiresome...
It certainly is.
Martin's MO is a some arrogant name calling and false bravado about his own
intelligence. Don't let him irritate you, I don't think he fools anyone.
He'll never admit you're right, at some point with people like that you have
to just let them rant, I think, and realize that intelligent posters aren't
going to be swayed by their style. Still, if you have the time and the
patience to keep responding to him point by point and showing the superiority
of your argument, more power to you!
ciao, scott
Scott D. Erb
>With all due respect, Scott, hsi definition of "sovereignty doesn't
>seem to exist. I mean, when I first started arguing this thread, I
>looked at what I'd said, and I checked every dictionary I could find;
>I have ten in my house. Even the legal dictionaries don't define
>sovereignty as anything other than completre self-determination.
>States in the US are NOT self-determining entities, by any stretch...
Definitely. What I meant by his definition game is that he: 1) finds the SC
using the term sovereign; and 2) then extrapolates a definition of sovereignty
that as you note is not only not conventional, but not really used. Now
people can define terms for a debate, but when they try to create new and
non-conventional definitions in order to try to prove their point, they are
arguing illogically. That's what I mean by attacking Martin's argument by
definition.
-snip-
>I would also point out that none of the actual cases that these people
>have presented actually define the word as they are using it. You have
>to determine their meaning by inference, and it is clear that they use
>the term "sovereignty" as interchangeable with "power", and that is an
>error. Sorry, but having power does not make you a sovereign. If that
>were the case, then you'd have a hell of a time dealing with the JP in
>Podunk, Alabama...
Yeah, thats why I consider it a definition game that they are playing.
They'll keep doing it too, they'll never admit to being wrong. I think they'd
consider that a sign of weakness, especially since they've defined liberals as
idiots or "pussies" ("Steve's" word of the week it seems), etc.
-snip-
>Not only that, but he's REdefining words and phrases, to make his
>point. It's a common tactic among the right wing. Look at the current
>uses of the word "liberal" and "federalism" in their circles...
Yeah, its irritating, and unfortunately a tool of propagandists historically.
>These guys are more interested in being right, than being correct,
>anyway...
Good points.
rose...@idt.net
>Everything I've written about the divided sovereignty
>of the United States is dead center spot on nailed to a *certainty.*
You poor loon.
Your past posts have NEVER contained anything "certain" except showing you're a
certifiiable idiot.
>I didn't make it up *or* wing it
"concluding" something, even IF "facts" are correct, that is beyond reason,
credibility, and logic still don't make it "truth".
>It's not bravado to tell both of you that you are wildly deficient. It's
>the pure and unadulterated truth.
"truth" is a actual representation of events. "facts" may, or may not be
interpreted in completely different manners, depending on your perception.
It is a FACT that "ships disappear" far from an observer.
It is a CONCLUSION, (based on FACT) that the ships "fall of the edge of the
earth"
Your CONCLUSIONS, (even though based on some facts) fall as short as "ships
falling off the edge of the earth"
>Surely, *any* good Soviet political scientist would have known
>exactly what the nature of the political organization of the United
>States is all about.
That is a "perception" based on no credible facts.
Moreover, few in The Soviet Union actually knew our system other than a
perfunctory technical overview. Most in the Soviet Union were fed bullshit and
never "understood" our system at all.
But the "proof" of you looniness, is the past posts you have put in the usenet.
You're nothing more than comic relief most of the time.
YOU"RE one of the reasons we laugh at right wing ignorance so much/
Steve Canyon
>On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:02:23 -0500, "Scott D. Erb"
><scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>With all due respect, Scott, hsi definition of "sovereignty doesn't
>seem to exist. I mean, when I first started arguing this thread, I
>looked at what I'd said, and I checked every dictionary I could find;
>I have ten in my house. Even the legal dictionaries don't define
>sovereignty as anything other than completre self-determination.
>States in the US are NOT self-determining entities, by any stretch...
Then I nobody would be sovereign.
Ace
Steve Canyon
>
>"truth" is a actual representation of events. "facts" may, or may not be
>interpreted in completely different manners, depending on your perception.
>
>It is a FACT that "ships disappear" far from an observer.
>
>It is a CONCLUSION, (based on FACT) that the ships "fall of the edge of the
>earth"
>
>Your CONCLUSIONS, (even though based on some facts) fall as short as "ships
>falling off the edge of the earth"
>
<snicker> Roselle takes a wild haymaker swing at understanding logical
conclusions and falls on his dumb ass.
Ace
Steve Canyon
Bullshit.
>"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
>necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
>Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
>shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either
>Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this
>Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of
>the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the
>one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
>Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
>thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
>and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that
>no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
>in the Senate."
Hey, good for you, I knew you could do it.
>There are other problems with the above, as well. It says "if two
>thirds of the several states shall call a convention for proposing
>amendments". The problme is, no one knows the details about the
>"apllication". Does the application have to be identical in every
>state? Must they be contemporaneous, or can they be strung out over
>ten years?
No rules means no rules. Why is that a problem for you? m Do you
think because there is no rules means that it can't be done.
>> How
>>many time must I tell you that. Read the damned thing, you Clod.
>
>I have. I've also included it above, so YOU can read it.
>>
>>>> The collective states wield more
>>>> control of the federal government's destiny than vice versa.
>>>
>>>Then why do all the states have a 21 year old drinking age, eh?? many
>>>of them didn't want it. Have you ever been forced to drive 55? How come
>>>they have to pay you OT if you work over 40 hours in a week? Ever hear
>>>of the Family Leave Act? Please... the statement above is purely stupid.
>>
>>The states poses the power to castrate the federal government's power.
>
>Not under our constitution, they don't. Of course, the federal
>government doesn't possess the power to castrate the states, either.
Of course under the Constitution the states can amend the
Constitution. You mean you still haven't read it.
>But power is not sovereignty...
>
>>One might argue as to who actually poses the power. The one who
>>sanctions to the guy who executes it and can thus repeal it, or the
>>guy who must use it carefully enough so as not to cause the sanction
>>to be revoked.
>
>That has nothing to do with sovereignty. That's about power. They are
>separate concepts. Granada is a sovereign; one would hardly argue that
>it's powerful...
Oh, so now the power to do all those things the state can't do doesn't
constitute sovereignty. You should make up your mind.
>>>Not only that, but see above, at the beginning of this post. The feds
>>>have all of the above powers, and the states are forbidden from having
>>>them.
>>
>>Yeah and the states have powers that the feds cannot touch.
>
>So does Microsoft and Ford. Are they sovereigns??
>
>> Lets see,
>>I'd call that...... dual sovereignty, yeah that fits.
>
>It's still an oxymoron.
Do you think that if you say it enough it will become true?
>>>> >Here again, are the definitions of sovereignty. Please explain to us
>>>> >how a state can have none of the above powers, and still be
>>>> >sovereign...
>>>>
>>>> Milt, the federal government supreme powers are limited to a
>>>> particular sphere of action.
>>>
>>>Oh, please. In any conflict of powers, the feds win. The states have a
>>
>>Oh please, the feds don't interfere unless there is a conflict they
>>can win.
>
>But they CAN. And that's the point.
What's the point? That they don't bother to look at cases where there
is no constitutional conflict because there's nothing they can do
about them anyway.
>>>few powers, but then, so do cities and counties. Read the definitions
>>>of "sovereignty, and explain to us how haveing a few powers with regard
>>>to land, and internal affairs is sovereignty, when the entity, the
>>>state, has ceded all of their other powers to the feds...
>>>
>>>> If they are limited, that means that
>>>> some other sphere of action exists where the states powers are
>>>> supreme.
>>>
>>>I see. But the federal government can't go into Microsoft's board room,
>>>and tell them how to run their company, either. Does that mean MS is a
>>>sovereign? You mean Bill Gates really IS a king??
>>
>>But then Microsoft can't go into the federal government and tell them
>>how to run either, but the states can.
>
>No, they can't. Calling a convention does not make one a sovereign.
>Are the political parties sovereigns? It is entirely possible that the
>states could call a convention, they could propose amendments to the
>constitution, and they could fail to get the supermajority in Congress
Uhmmm, if you'd just read Article Five you wouldn't make all these
dumb mistakes about amendments, Milt. States ratify the amendment, not
Congress.
>that's needed for ratification. Why? Because, in a federal system,
>full sovereignty lies with the FEDERAL government...
heh, heh, Do yourself a favor, read the thing.
Not true, one can be the best at one thing and another can be the best
at something else. It's a lot like dual sovereignty, Milt.
I notice that even Milt is slowly coming around. Both he and Erb have
already learned that the states can amend the constitution which makes
the federal government not quite fit their idealized concept of
sovereignty. I think that was a big step for them to take. I think
that in a few more weeks, Martin and I can actually educate these poor
dumb guys.
Ace
Steve Canyon
>stste is or is not sovereign. Therefore, you arguing with me by
>stating that the US system is based on "dual sovereignty" is
>ludicrous, without establishing that such a thing is possible.
I'd say since the concept is used fairly often in the context of U.S.
Constitutional law, it would be up to you to disprove it.
>>There is a considerable federal sphere of sovereignty, which
>>includes all responsibility for inter-national relations.> And there
>>is an even more considerable sphere that belongs to the states.
>
>Give it a break with the spheres. I'm sick of your "sphere" bullshit,
>because it's irrelevant. ABSOLUTELY irrelevant. We ALL operate in
Heh, heh, if Milt can't argue with it, he claims it's irrelevant.
>different "spheres". My dad works in the public "sphere",a nd my mom
>works in the private "sphere", and neither one is sovereign. It
>doesn't matter that they have different powers. I concede that they do
>have some different powers. I have never said that they didn't. But I
>also said that "power" is not a sign of "sovereignty". Many of the
You've been listing a bunch of powers the states supposedly don't have
and claiming that it proved they weren't sovereign. Now you say it
has nothing to do with sovereignty. You need to take a time out,
Milt.
>"powers" that you claim demonstrate state sovereignty are also held by
>private entities, such as corporations and clubs. Obviously, such
>powers alone do not make a sovereign.
>
Of Course, I doubt that Milt's mom and dad spheres were ever discussed
by Justice Marshall. Here's a clue, Milt. You aren't qualified to
discuss Constitutional spheres of action. You should just read and
see if you can't learn something.
Ace
Steve Canyon
Yeah, I know, a nearly forty year old beginner at an obscure state
school.
Ace
Steve Canyon
>On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:18:16 GMT, cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com
>(Steve Canyon) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:52:33 -0500, "Scott D. Erb"
>><scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't become a "full professor" until you get 'tenure', idiot..
>>>>
>>>> --And that takes about ten years, usually, you ignorant buffoon..
>>>
>>>Ach, its funny watching them vent, unable to grasp that their argument by
>>>definition attempt against Milt is really weak, and that their styles
>>>(name calling, attacks, smears, extremist rants like 'clinton is like
>>
>>Of course it's not as though Milt doesn't call people names, and of
>>course, Erb's name calling had been very well documented.
>
>Hey; I never said I didn't call people names, shit-for-brains. But I
>don't do it as my argument. I simply state the obvious...
How would anyone know? All I've seen you state is unsubstantiated
assertions, Milt. I usually think of arguments as having something
behind them.
>>>stalin') discredit them. The only way they can feel good about themselves
>>>is if they pretend to be superior to those against whom they debate (hence
>>>"steve's" constant insults of anyone who disagrees, or Marty's attacks on
>>>you, his calling Milt a nitwit and idiot, saying I shouldn't teach, etc.).
>>>
>>>That's cool. The internet can be good therapy, and I sure don't take it
>>
>>Heh, heh, Erb says he doesn't take it personally. That's why he's
>>always offering his little denials. Here's some news for you, Erb,
>>everybody knows how badly you seek validation. It's more obvious that
>>Kennemur's ignorance. This post is absolute proof.
>
>And that statement proves your ignorance.
>
>Here's my argument;
>
>Here are some FACTS I keep bringing up;
>
>A state cannot declare war.
>A state cannot coin money.
>A state cannot negotiate a treaty.
>A state cannot regulate trade.
>A state cannot have a standing army.
>A state cannot secure its borders.
>A state must honor relationships created by every other state.
>ALL state laws are reviewable by federal courts.
>All cases decided by state courts can be appealed to a federal court.
>All diversity cases must be tried in federal court, no matter which
>state the crime/harm occurred.
>
>These are all characteristics of what you claim is a sovereign. Please
>explain to us how a state that has all of the above characteristics,
>can be seen as a sovereign...
Those aren't characteristics of what I claim is a sovereign, Milt,
it's your list.
>Why can you not deal with it??
Deal with what, milt. I'm still waiting for you to present some
argument that those items constitute a list of powers required of a
sovereign. You haven't presented anything to deal with.
>>>personally. The funny thing is, in their desire to attack other posters
>>
>>I keep wondering how anybody can be so stupid that they include an
>>attack on somebody in the same post where they are supposedly
>>condemning attacking somebody. Oh well, nobody ever claimed that Erb
>>was a genius.
>
>An attack? It's funny how you consider an editorial comment on your
>debating skills as an "attack". Says more about your debating skills
>than it says about Scott...
I don't consider much of anything that Scott says as actually saying
anything. But yeah, his statement was an attack. You know it as well
as I do, and it *is*pretty stupid to attack someone in the same post
as where he is condemning that activity. Scott isn't known for his
rational behavior.
>>>they seem oblivious to how their own posts sound. Amazing.
>>
>><snort> oblivious to his own posts. <snicker>
>
>
>Oblivious to the irony...
heh, heh, yes Erb and you too, Milt.
Ace
Steve Canyon
> Look at all of
>the posts in this thread that claim that I called the Supreme Court
>wrong. I didn't say they were right OR wrong. I simply said that the
>use of the word "sovereignty" was probably inaccurate.
Is this another example of Milt's logic??? He didn't say the Supreme
Court was wrong, he simply said they were inaccurate. Actually,
that's not only stupid, it's a lie. Milt said the Supreme Court used
the wrong word.
>Seriously; you should follow this thread; it's a pretty interesting
>one, because no one is actually arguing with Scott and I. Theyn simply
>keep repeating the same platitudes over and over again...
I especially liked Milt's list of powers that a states supposedly
doesn't have followed by a challenge to show how a state could be
sovereign without them. How many times did you repeat that, Milt, and
how many times did you refuse to provide any argument as to why those
powers were essential to the concept of sovereignty. Of course, now
you're claiming that powers have nothing to do with sovereignty.
Ace
Milt
wrote:
>
>Scott D. Erb wrote in message <836rur$atq$1...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
>>In article <38569e50...@news.earthlink.net>, mi...@law.com says...
>>
>>-snip excellent reply-
>>
>>>Now; deal with the arguments. Your ranting is becoming tiresome...
>>
>>It certainly is.
>>
>>Martin's MO is a some arrogant name calling and false bravado about his own
>>intelligence. Don't let him irritate you, I don't think he fools anyone.
>
>
>I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm dealing with fools, which might indeed
>make me something of a fool myself. But I have no reason or urge
>to *fool* anyone. Everything I've written about the divided sovereignty
>of the United States is dead center spot on nailed to a *certainty.*
Well, your arrogance would be admirable if you had a bit of
intelligence to go along with it. But your arguments are in no way,
shape or form, "certain". Obviously, since I have argued so rationally
against it, and you have come up with nothing in rebuttal but
platitudes and bravado.
>
>I didn't make it up *or* wing it. Nor would I want to. It's a subject
>that I respect and have taken seriously for a very long time.
Then take it seriously and argue the point with facts.
>
>Milt doesn't have the faintest notion about what he's writing about,
>and you're a political science professor who doesn't know either
>generally or specifically how the country he is living
>in is organized as a political society.
Yeah, that's the sum total of your argument; You know shit and we're
stupid. Well, I have demonstrated my point of view, and supported it.
Your argument started with a count of the uses of the word in a few
USSC cases, and has gone downhill from there...
>
>It's not bravado to tell both of you that you are wildly deficient. It's
>the pure and unadulterated truth.
Then prove it. Otherwise, it's bravado.
>
>You, Erb, have made *so* *many* completely ignorant statements
>about how the United States is organized that keeping track of
>them would be a full time job. It's simply incredible.
And you haven't supported your claim that states are sovereign in any
way that hasn't been struck down immediately. The arrogance with whih
you display your ignorance is what's incredible.
>
>You don't understand the concept of sovereignty, either, and seem
>only comfortable dealing with it in its inter-national use, which is
>indeed odd, because inter-national relations are predicated to a
>great extent on endogenous political realities, which are a reflection,
>particularly in the United States, of how sovereignty is established.
Your use of non-sequiter is quite skilled, anyway.
>
>Surely, *any* good Soviet political scientist would have known
>exactly what the nature of the political organization of the United
>States is all about. And certainly wouldn't have argued at Milt's
>side that the Supreme Court is not using the term *sovereignty*
>properly, as you have. Incredible.
I'm not interested in what ONE person says about anything. But there
is a large body of historians and political scientists who agree with
me. There are others who disagree, which I have acknowledged. However,
I have not claimed that my POV is absolute. YOU have, on the other
hand, which is ignorant, and arrogant.
I'm finished with you, unless you can come up with a cogent argument.
I don't care if you insult me; but at least do it without it being
your entire argument...
>
>
Milt
If you ever presented anything logical, he would probably fall on his
ass. We all would...
Scott D. Erb
>
>You are so funny!! You must be a real hit when everyone feels the need
>for hearty laugh.
Actually, the fact you insult Milt at the beginning suggest you are trying to
accomplish via bluster what you could not accomplish in argumentation.
>Since you seem to be an absolutist, is there any such creature as a
>sovereign? Can you name an individual or entity, current or historical
>that would qualify as a sovereign by your definition?
Its not Milt's definition, it is the standard, common, normal definition that
nearly everyone uses. Milt has posted numerous definitions from numerous
sources that go along with that. I'd sum it up this way. Sovereignty is
internal and external. Internally, you have complete control over what
happens on a piece of territory, an external power cannot have say over what
happens without violating your sovereignty (the UN Security Council is the
only body which can legally do that). You also can have a foreign policy, and
act as a unified external actor (a "state"). Now, federal systems are not
made up of sovereign units because they are not able to individually halt the
outside power (federal government) from imposing not just laws and rules, but
even the constitution. States collectively can act to alter it, but the fact
it is collective show sovereignty to be a collective good.
>The Confederacy negated all of those elements for the duration of the
>Civil War. So apparently “cannot” is a misuse of the word? Check the
>definition and get back to me . he he
Confederacies are usually composed of sovereign states; that is usually the
difference in definition between confederacy and federation. The states tried
to leave the union and were forced back in during the Civil War; in a sense
they tried to proclaim their sovereignty and failed.
>And the same court can review all Federal laws. Does this mean the
>Supreme Court also has supreme authority over the other two branches?
> Snicker
For someone with such weak arguments, its amusing you try to bluster them by
"snicker" and other such phrases. Anyway, judges are appointed by the
executive branch with approval from the Legislative, and judges can be
impeached.
>All Federal laws be negated by an amendment to the constitution- said
>amendment can be proposed by the States and needs no Federal action to
>become valid. So are the States more powerful than the Feds?
States cannot do that individually, they must act collectively. And in many
states referenda can overturn state laws, and of course voters can change
state governments. But the key is that sovereignty belongs to the United
States of America. The way powers are exercised is divided through a federal
constitution.
>And of course have an example of an entity that enjoys “the full
>authority of sovereignty”.?
Legally, the states in the United Nations (and Switzerland) are fully
sovereign. Practically, powerful states can infringe on the sovereignty of
ones with less power at various times. The recent bombing of Serbia,
unapproved by the UN, is in example. The no-fly zones in Iraq represent a UN
approved violation of sovereignty.
>> In fact, I have just proven you wrong. Not that you'd ever admit it.
>Proven normally indicates a finding by a court. I have provided cites
Proven does not indicate a finding by a court. Where on earth do you come up
with that kind of criteria????? Proof refers to the use of logic and evidence
to support a proposition. In any event, I think Milt has a much stronger case
than you, your snide "hehe" and "snicker" comments appear only designed to try
to bluster through a very, very, weak post.
>from the Supreme Court to support my thesis, where are your legal
>cites? I would be pleased to argue this with you in an actual court
>under standard rules of evidence- set it up and let me know.
>Haaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaa
The SC does not support your thesis, in fact you do not have a thesis. You
simply are blustering.
>IMHO, in a moderated debate the outcome might be a little more to your
>liking- if you could pad the panel with your peers. A random selection
>would predispose you to defeat.
You are not engaged in pure bluster, but from my experience -- and I've taught
courses in international law and give lectures on sovereignty, which doesn't
prove me right, but does show I've dealt with this concept with some depth --
Milt is pretty much on target, and you've got no real argument. The SC does
discuss how the sovereign powers of the US are divided between state and
federal authorities. But to be really accurate, they are said to reside in
the public. This is called POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY, meaning that the source of
all sovereign authority is the public, not a sovereign or monarch. A federal
system is one way to try to allow the sovereignty of the public to be
expressed in a government.
-rest deleted about affirmative action, busing, etc.-
ciao, scott
Scott D. Erb
>>I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm dealing with fools, which might indeed
>>make me something of a fool myself. But I have no reason or urge
>>to *fool* anyone. Everything I've written about the divided sovereignty
>>of the United States is dead center spot on nailed to a *certainty.*
>
>Well, your arrogance would be admirable if you had a bit of
>intelligence to go along with it. But your arguments are in no way,
>shape or form, "certain". Obviously, since I have argued so rationally
>against it, and you have come up with nothing in rebuttal but
>platitudes and bravado.
Also Marty shows little comprehension of the history of sovereignty. Starting
with the treaty of Westphalia, sovereignty was associated with territoriality,
meaning that a sovereign territory was free from outside interference (hence
federal systems are not made up of sovereign components). With the French and
American revolutions POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY became the primary theory, displacing
the view that the SOVEREIGN (a monarch, thats where the term comes from, a
sovereign was to rule a territory) should not be an individual leader, but
should come from the people.
In short, sovereignty rested at base in the people, as a collective product.
To the extent sovereignty is divided, its divided between all citizens
equally, with governments designed to allow its exercise in a way that allows
government of, by, and for the people. A federal system gives power to
components to keep it closer to the source of sovereignty. But it does not
make these components themselves sovereign, that would, as Milt has correctly
pointed out many times, be a misuse of the term. I think Marty knows this,
he's trying to dance around the issue by asserting that since sovereign powers
can be held by states, they are sovereign. That is incorrect.
>I'm finished with you, unless you can come up with a cogent argument.
>I don't care if you insult me; but at least do it without it being
>your entire argument...
Yeah, with Martin it tends to come down to arrogant insults from him, but no
real argument. At least he's consistent :)
ciao, scott
Milt
cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com (Steve Canyon) wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 21:13:19 GMT, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>
> >(Steve Canyon) wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:52:33 -0500, "Scott D. Erb"
> >><scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Kurt Lochner wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You don't become a "full professor" until you get 'tenure',
idiot..
> >>>>
> >>>> --And that takes about ten years, usually, you ignorant buffoon..
> >>>
> >>>Ach, its funny watching them vent, unable to grasp that their
argument by
> >>>definition attempt against Milt is really weak, and that their
styles
> >>>(name calling, attacks, smears, extremist rants like 'clinton is
like
> >>
> >>Of course it's not as though Milt doesn't call people names, and of
> >>course, Erb's name calling had been very well documented.
> >
> >Hey; I never said I didn't call people names, shit-for-brains. But I
> >don't do it as my argument. I simply state the obvious...
>
> How would anyone know? All I've seen you state is unsubstantiated
> assertions, Milt. I usually think of arguments as having something
> behind them.
Unsubstantiated?? Here's my argument;
A state cannot declare war.
A state cannot coin money.
A state cannot negotiate a treaty.
A state cannot regulate trade.
A state cannot have a standing army.
A state cannot secure its borders.
A state must honor relationships created by every other state.
ALL state laws are reviewable by federal courts.
All cases decided by state courts can be appealed to a federal court.
All diversity cases must be tried in federal court, no matter which
state the crime/harm occurred.
These are all characteristics of what you claim is a sovereign. Please
explain to us how a state that has all of the above characteristics,
can be seen as a sovereign...
Now; are you prepared to tell me that the above is unsubstantiated? The
constitution substamntiates the argument.
I have also included the definitions of sovereignty, and their sources,
in vaious places in this thread.
How can you even begin to claim that my argument is unsubstantiated. I
have supported my claim very well, and have refuted your "claims" (the
ones before you started using insult as your argument, that is), and
you have yet to answer them. Except with the insults, of course...
That is a list of powers that, in my opinion, and the opinions of many
others, a sovereign would have to have to retain sovereignty.
>
> >Why can you not deal with it??
>
> Deal with what, milt. I'm still waiting for you to present some
> argument that those items constitute a list of powers required of a
> sovereign.
Why would they NOT be required. Can you name an unqualified sovereign
anywhere in the history of the world that does not have at least most
of those abilities? And given the defintion of sovereign, I state it
again; please explain to us how a state without these features can be a
sovereign. You have yet to even attempt to answer the question.
You claim that they are sovereign, because they have some sovereign
powers. Well, so does every county, city, town and many large
corporations. Are they ALL sovereign? Please explain to us how an
entity can be sovereign without any of the above powers.
Now, again; here are the definitions of sovereign. You are free to
check other sources and present other defintions, but you don't get to
define it yourself. English doesn't work that way. A cat doesn't become
a dog simply because YOU call it one...
sov·er·eign·ty (svr-n-t, svrn-)
n., pl. sov·er·eign·ties.
Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign
state.
Royal rank, authority, or power.
Complete independence and self-government.
A territory existing as an independent state.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition
Copyright © 1996, 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
sovereignty \Sov"er*eign*ty\, n.; pl. Sovereignties. [OE. soverainetee,
OF. sovrainet['e], F. souverainet['e].] The quality or state of being
sovereign, or of being a sovereign; the exercise of, or right to
exercise, supreme power; dominion; sway; supremacy; independence; also,
that which is sovereign; a sovereign state; as, Italy was formerly
divided into many sovereignties.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
sovereignty n 1: government free from external control 2: royal
authority; the dominion of a monarch [syn: reign]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
> You haven't presented anything to deal with.
Deal with the above. It's all there. Some powers that states don't
have, combined with the defintion of sovereign. Explain to us how an
entity that cannot trade with other sovereigns, or make war, or keep a
standing army, or enter into a treaty with another sovereign, and the
laws of which can be overturned at any time by another government, can
be defined as "government free from external control" or is capab;e of
exercising "supreme power", or "complete independence or self-
government"...
>
> >>>personally. The funny thing is, in their desire to attack other
posters
> >>
> >>I keep wondering how anybody can be so stupid that they include an
> >>attack on somebody in the same post where they are supposedly
> >>condemning attacking somebody. Oh well, nobody ever claimed that
Erb
> >>was a genius.
> >
> >An attack? It's funny how you consider an editorial comment on your
> >debating skills as an "attack". Says more about your debating skills
> >than it says about Scott...
>
> I don't consider much of anything that Scott says as actually saying
> anything. But yeah, his statement was an attack.
So your problem is self-esteem. The only way you could see it as an
attack would be if you knew you were wrong...
> You know it as well
> as I do, and it *is*pretty stupid to attack someone in the same post
> as where he is condemning that activity.
Bullshit. You're an idiot. That's not an attack; it's an observation.
You claim that I'm making unsubstantiated claims, and yet, you don't
even attempt to refute the argument. Your entire rebuttal consists of
insults. If that's your entire argument, then you're hopeless. And then
you tell us that everything you say is without question. That's so
arrogant...
> Scott isn't known for his
> rational behavior.
Oh, I see. And this post is an example of your rationality?
It's not the ignorance that bugs me. It's the arrogance with which you
display it. Someone as poorly prepared for this debate should have
dropped out by now...
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 09:57:52 -0500, "cayenne" <cay...@nyct.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Milt wrote in message <3855e1ad...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>>On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:07:05 -0500, "cayenne" <cay...@nyct.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>I say that there is no such thing as "dual sovereignty". Either a
>stste is or is not sovereign. Therefore, you arguing with me by
>stating that the US system is based on "dual sovereignty" is
>ludicrous, without establishing that such a thing is possible.
http://www.westerncounties.org/legal.htm
A fundamental element of our constitutional form of governance is the
element of dual sovereignty. In the words of James Madison,
(Federalist No. 39) dual sovereignty means that states "retain(ed) a
residuary and inviolable sovereignty" after certain limited and
enumerated powers were granted by "We the People" to the national
sovereign. The notion of dual sovereignty was invoked by the U.S.
Supreme Court as recently as June 1997 in the U.S. Supreme Court
decision Printz v. United States. Here, the court determined by a five
to four majority that the national government could not "impose ...
responsibilities (on state officers) without the State's consent." In
this instance, the national government intended to require local
sheriffs to do background checks on purchasers of guns and report
those checks to the federal government, the "Brady bill." The court
determined that federal dictation to state officers was a usurpation
of state sovereignty repugnant to the Constitution and the principle
of dual sovereignty.
>
>>There is a considerable federal sphere of sovereignty, which
>>includes all responsibility for inter-national relations.> And there
>>is an even more considerable sphere that belongs to the states.
>
>Give it a break with the spheres. I'm sick of your "sphere" bullshit,
>because it's irrelevant. ABSOLUTELY irrelevant. We ALL operate in
>different "spheres". My dad works in the public "sphere",a nd my mom
>works in the private "sphere", and neither one is sovereign.
He never claimed they were. I would like to see your mother's private
employer attempt to fire your father.
JSL
[ snip ]
JSL
Milt
cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com (Steve Canyon) wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 21:21:24 GMT, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>
> > Look at all of
> >the posts in this thread that claim that I called the Supreme Court
> >wrong. I didn't say they were right OR wrong. I simply said that the
> >use of the word "sovereignty" was probably inaccurate.
>
> Is this another example of Milt's logic??? He didn't say the Supreme
> Court was wrong, he simply said they were inaccurate.
Right. The definition had nothing to do with the logic of the decision,
moron. They should have used the word "power", not "sovereignty". The
use of the word would not have changed the decision one iota.
You simply have no logical skills at all, do you???
> Actually,
> that's not only stupid, it's a lie. Milt said the Supreme Court used
> the wrong word.
Right. So? Using the right word would not have changed the decision.
But then, idiots like you wouldn't be able to look up cases and use the
browser's find feture to lazily try and prove a point that is unmakable
by recounting for us the number of times they misused the word...
>
> >Seriously; you should follow this thread; it's a pretty interesting
> >one, because no one is actually arguing with Scott and I. Theyn
simply
> >keep repeating the same platitudes over and over again...
>
> I especially liked Milt's list of powers that a states supposedly
> doesn't have followed by a challenge to show how a state could be
> sovereign without them. How many times did you repeat that, Milt, and
> how many times did you refuse to provide any argument as to why those
> powers were essential to the concept of sovereignty.
I don't have to. I made the statement that a state coould not be
sovereign without them, and provided the defintions of sovereign as
proof. You have yet to answer the challenge, and tell us how a state
without those powers can be a sovereign.
> Of course, now
> you're claiming that powers have nothing to do with sovereignty.
No, I'm not, liar. I'm saying that every entity that has a few
sovereign powers is not a sovereign. As I have demonstrated repeatedly,
most of the powers that states claim, are also claimed by counties and
cities, as well as many large corporations. Are they ALL sovereign?
Steve Canyon
wrote:
Yeah, I think he tried to point out that <snort> the Supreme Court
used the wrong word. I've got to wonder if the kids in Erb's class
let him get away with claiming to know about U.S. Constitutional law
than the Supreme Court. Frankly, I don't think those Maine kids are
that dumb. I'll bet they just all look at each other and wink. Erb
must be a big source of humor at UMF.
>he's trying to dance around the issue by asserting that since sovereign powers
>can be held by states, they are sovereign. That is incorrect.
>
Yeah, Erb, those Supreme Court justices dance around the issue when
they assert the states are sovereign too. That old Rehnquist sure can
cut a rug.
Ace
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>In article <8371de$6e3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, rsi...@my-deja.com says...
>>
>>You are so funny!! You must be a real hit when everyone feels the need
>>for hearty laugh.
>
>Actually, the fact you insult Milt at the beginning suggest you are trying to
>accomplish via bluster what you could not accomplish in argumentation.
>
>>Since you seem to be an absolutist, is there any such creature as a
>>sovereign? Can you name an individual or entity, current or historical
>>that would qualify as a sovereign by your definition?
>
>Its not Milt's definition, it is the standard, common, normal definition that
>nearly everyone uses.
Except the supreme court justices for whom the use of term state
sovereignty seems to be a daily occurrence. You claim that everybody
agrees with you but I don't see any proof. I haven't seen one
contradictory cite that indicated that anybody but you two idiots
thought the states were not sovereign. It's just Marty and me and the
Supreme Court against Erb and Milt and nothing. You seem to really
have a problem when you can't wave a gradebook and quiet any
disagreement.
> Milt has posted numerous definitions from numerous
>sources that go along with that. I'd sum it up this way. Sovereignty is
<snip Erb's worthless summation>
Nobody cares how you'd sum it up, Erb.
>The SC does not support your thesis, in fact you do not have a thesis. You
>simply are blustering.
Good argument Erb. That seems to be Erb's favorite argument. He
thinks the addition of the word "simply" camouflages the fact that he
has nothing to say but, ..... bluster.
>>IMHO, in a moderated debate the outcome might be a little more to your
>>liking- if you could pad the panel with your peers. A random selection
>>would predispose you to defeat.
>
>You are not engaged in pure bluster, but from my experience -- and I've taught
>courses in international law and give lectures on sovereignty, which doesn't
Heh, heh, now Erb resorts to his famous "I've taught courses"
bluster. He alternates this ruse with the equally famous "I've
attended courses." They can be swapped at will, because they're pure
"bluster" and have no meaning.
>prove me right, but does show I've dealt with this concept with some depth --
>Milt is pretty much on target, and you've got no real argument. The SC does
>discuss how the sovereign powers of the US are divided between state and
What the SC discusses is the state's sovereignty. They refer to state
sovereignty many many times.
>federal authorities. But to be really accurate, they are said to reside in
Erb thinks the SC isn't "really accurate."
>the public. This is called POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY, meaning that the source of
Erb introduces a new phrase with a new subdefinition. Erb's gone off
into his own wonderful little world of definition creation. This
means the Erb has entered the weaseling phase. Soon he will declare
himself the victor and accuse anyone who does not acknowledge his
victory of being dishonest.
>all sovereign authority is the public, not a sovereign or monarch. A federal
>system is one way to try to allow the sovereignty of the public to be
>expressed in a government.
>
Erb forgets that the public has no direct connection with the federal
government. The people's sovereignty is reflected in the states, the
states sovereignty in the federal government. Slowly but surely the
professor is being schooled. It's a dirty thankless job but somebody
has to do it.
Ace
Scott D. Erb
-All of "Steve's" typical impotent insults and silly rant deleted-
Looking through bluster, "steve" tries to deny all of the points Milt and I
made about how sovereignty is defined (including the issue of popular
sovereignty, the fact states cannot simply individually choose to disregard
federal law, etc.) by one sole lonely argument. He says the supreme court
used the word "sovereign" and therefore that proves that states are all
sovereign. He doesn't want to say the SC can't be wrong, since he wants to
reserve the right to disagree with them, but in this case he hopes their use
of the term is all that matters.
However, his evidence doesn't support his bluster. It is clear that the SC
was talking about the division of the powers associated with national
sovereignty, powers that the FEDERAL constitution divides between the states
and feds (and which state constitutions divide between the state and counties
or towns). He doesn't deal with the fact that the SC is not asserting pure
soveriegnty for a state, and their quotes do not support his claim. He
doesn't touch all the counter arguments, he just insults the people making
them (a logical fallacy called argumentum ad hominem). Instead, he argues by
insult, hoping to drag people into a flame war of mutual insults where the
real issue gets lost behind the bluster, and he can try to appear victorious
through all the haze and smoke created by mutual insults and personal smears.
It doesn't work. Such playground tactics are useless nowadays on the
internet; such flametroll efforts discredit themselves.
But hey, internet can be good therapy. If you're feeling upset or angry, take
it out on posters you disagree with politically, that's cool. I'm pretty sure
it doesn't convince anyone though ;)
cheers, scott
cayenne
Scott D. Erb wrote in message <838465$k02$2...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
>In article <38574312...@news.earthlink.net>, mi...@law.com says...
>>
>>On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 21:32:21 -0500, "cayenne" <cay...@nyct.net>
>>wrote:
>
>>>I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm dealing with fools, which might indeed
>>>make me something of a fool myself. But I have no reason or urge
>>>to *fool* anyone. Everything I've written about the divided sovereignty
>>>of the United States is dead center spot on nailed to a *certainty.*
>>
>>Well, your arrogance would be admirable if you had a bit of
>>intelligence to go along with it. But your arguments are in no way,
>>shape or form, "certain". Obviously, since I have argued so rationally
>>against it, and you have come up with nothing in rebuttal but
>>platitudes and bravado.
>
>Also Marty shows little comprehension of the history of sovereignty.
Starting
>with the treaty of Westphalia, sovereignty was associated with
territoriality,
>meaning that a sovereign territory was free from outside interference
(hence
>federal systems are not made up of sovereign components).
I haven't been discussing the "history of sovereignty," per se, Mr. Dodge.
I've been discussing the nature of the divided sovereignty as
established in the United States, by the states, with the creation
of the Constitution.
As regards "popular sovereignty," that concept is inherent to
the very nature of the United States and it *became* the
problem of the various states at the moment of the Declaration
of Independence from the sovereignty of King George and
Great Britain, as the states returned to a state of nature and
re-established themselves as sovereign political societies
based on the ultimate sovereignty of the people themselves.
The discussion you are trying to pull your incompetent ass out
of is the one involving the system of divided governmental
sovereignty established under the Constitution, by the states,
where sovereignty is apportioned (by the people through their
13 original states) between the states and the national
government.
The original question here is "are the states sovereign?" And
the answer is, yes, within their sphere of the divided sovereignty
they are sovereign, just as the national government is sovereign
within its sphere, which is a sphere created by the states to be
limited with enumerated powers, among which is the power
to represent the union in inter-national affairs.
cayenne
Scott D. Erb wrote in message <8389g7$le7$1...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
>
>-All of "Steve's" typical impotent insults and silly rant deleted-
>
>Looking through bluster, "steve" tries to deny all of the points Milt and I
>made about how sovereignty is defined (including the issue of popular
>sovereignty, the fact states cannot simply individually choose to disregard
>federal law, etc.) by one sole lonely argument.
Oh, yes, so *lonely*...
...and take note of the role played
by "popular sovereignty," particularly
in the third section...
Dual Sovereignty for Dummies
A brief primer on the division of
sovereignty between the individual
states and the United States--
"The first difficulty which the
Americans had to face was how to divide
sovereignty so that the various states
of the Union continued to govern
themselves in everything to do with
internal prosperity but so that the
whole nation, represented by the Union,
should still be a unit and should
provide for all general needs. That was
a complicated question and hard to
resolve.
...
"The duties and rights of the federal
government were simple and easy to
define because the Union had been formed
with the object of providing for certain
general needs. But the rights and the
duties of the governments of the states
were many and complicated, for such a
government was involved in all the
details of social life.
"Therefore the attributes of the federal
government were carefully defined, and
it was declared that everything not
contained within that definition
returned to the jurisdiction of state
governments. Hence state authority
remained the rule and the federal
government the exception."
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in
America, Harper & Row, paperback
edition, pp. 114-15.
------
"The course of intellectual, as well as
of political and military, events had
brought into question the entire concept
of a unitary, concentrated, and absolute
governmental sovereignty. It had been
challenged, implicitly or explicitly, by
all those who had sought constitutional
grounds for limiting Parliament's power
in America. In its place had come the
sense, premised on the assumption that
the ultimate sovereignty--ultimate yet
real and effective--rested with the
people, that it was not only conceivable
but in certain circumstances salutary to
divide and distribute the attributes of
governmental sovereignty among different
levels of institutions. The notion had
proved unacceptable as a solution of the
problem of Anglo-American relations, but
it was acted upon immediately and
instinctively in forming the new union
of sovereign states. The problems,
intellectual and political, inherent in
such an arrangement would persist; some
were scarcely glimpsed when the nation
was formed. The belief that 'imperium in
imperio' was a solecism and the
assumption that the 'sovereignty of the
people' and the sovereignty of an organ
of government were of the same order of
things would remain to haunt the efforts
of those who would struggle to build a
stable system of federal government. But
the initial challenge to the traditional
eighteenth-century notion of sovereignty
had been made.
...
"[T]he federalist tradition...survived,
and remains, to justify the distribution
of absolute power among governments no
one of which can claim to be total, and
so to keep the central government from
amassing 'a degree of energy, in order
to sustain itself, dangerous to the
liberties of the people.'"
Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins
of the American Revolution, The Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press,
paperback edition, pp. 228-29.
------
"In an ultimate sense, the Constitution
confirmed the proposition that original
power resided in the people--not,
however, in the people as a whole, but
in them in their capacity as people of
the several states. In 1787 the people
were so divided because, having created
or acquiesced in the creation of state
governments, they were bound by prior
contracts. They could create more local
or more general governments, but only by
agreeing, in their capacity as people of
the several states, to relocate power
previously lodged with the state
governments. All powers not thus
relocated, and not reserved by the
people in explicit state constitutional
limits, remained in the state
governments. In short, national or local
governments, being the creatures of the
states, could exercise only those powers
explicitly or implicitly given them by
the states; each state government could
exercise all powers unless it was
forbidden from doing so by the people of
the state. But in the Constitution, the
states went a step further, and
expressly denied themselves the exercise
of certain powers, such as those
interfering with the obligations of
private contracts, passing ex post facto
laws, and refusing to honor the laws of
other states. This is the essence of the
American federal system: the division of
power along a vertical axis by removing
some of it from the central originating
point, the states, and shifting some of
it up and some of it down the axis."
Forrest McDonald, E Pluribus Unum: The
Formation of the American Republic,
1776-1790, A Liberty Press Edition,
paperback, p. 312.
------
"An entire consolidation of the States
into one complete national sovereignty
would imply an entire subordination of
the parts; and whatever powers might
remain in them would be altogether
dependent on the general will. But as
the plan of the convention aims only at
a partial union or consolidation, the
State governments would clearly retain
all the rights of sovereignty which they
before had, and which were not, by that
act, *exclusively* delegated to the
United States."
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 32.
------
"When the Antifederalists asked, 'How
are two legislatures to coincide, with
powers transcendent, supreme and
omnipotent?' they were raising the
fundamental issue on which the British
empire had broken, an issue that the
Federalists could no more avoid in 1787
than American Whigs could a decade and a
half earlier. Although some Federalists
shared the Antifederalist assumption
that 'two sovereignties can not co-exist
within the same limits' and probably
welcomed, as did Benjamin Rush, 'the
eventual annihilation of state
sovereignties,' most soon realized that
this problem of sovereignty was the most
powerful obstacle to the acceptance of
the new Constitution the opponents could
have erected. Under this Antifederalist
pressure most Federalists were compelled
to concede that if the adoption of the
Constitution would eventually destroy
the states and produce a consolidation,
then the 'objection' was not only 'of
very great force' but indeed
'insuperable.' Both sides in the debate
over the Constitution soon came to focus
on this, 'the principal question,' 'the
source of the greatest objection, which
can be made to its adoption'--'whether
this system proposes a consolidation or
a confederation of the states.'
...
"It was left to James Wilson in the
Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention to
deal most effectively with the
Antifederalist conception of
sovereignty.... The supreme power,
Wilson emphasized, did not rest with the
state governments. 'It resides in the
people, as the fountain of government.'
'They have not parted with it; they have
only dispensed such portions of power as
were conceived necessary for the public
welfare.'
Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the
American Republic, 1776-1787, The
University of North Carolina Press,
paperback, pp. 528-30
------
"The key to the new approach was the
proposition that sovereignty embraced a
large number and a wide variety of
different specific powers: obviously
these specific powers could be assigned
to different governments, to different
branches of the same government, or to
different persons serving within the
same branch of a government. Hamilton
spelled out the implications in his
opinion on the constitutionality of the
Bank of the United States. 'The powers
of sovereignty,' Hamilton wrote, 'are in
this country divided between the
National and State governments,' and
'each of the *portions* of powers
delegated to the one or to the
other...is...sovereign *with regard to
its proper objects.*' It followed from
this 'that each has sovereign power as
to *certain things.* To deny that the
Government of the United States has
sovereign power as to its declared
purposes and trusts, because its power
does not extend to all cases,' Hamilton
continued, would also be to deny that
the states retained sovereignty 'in any
case,' because they were forbidden to do
a number of things."
Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum:
The Intellectual Origins of the
Constitution, University Press of
Kansas, paperback, p. 278.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>
>
>Steve Canyon wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah and the states have powers that the feds cannot touch. Lets see,
>> I'd call that...... dual sovereignty, yeah that fits.
>
>Hmmm, then given that the Constitution grants individual rights and powers to
>citizens which cannot be touched by the feds or the states, then Steve's
>definition gives everyone sovereignty.
Sorry Professor. The Constitution does not grant rights to the
citizens. The Constituion transfers power to the government with the
consent of the governed. It is the Constituion which limits the power
of the federal government from restricting the inherent rights of the
citizen. "Congress shall make no law....."
>
>Oh what silly results when one plays definition games!
Indeed.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>
>
>cayenne wrote:
>
>>These are not definition games, you truculent moron.
>
>(chuckle)
>
>One has to wonder how you would flame me if I started calling people idiots,
>morons, nitwits, etc., when I disagreed with them, if I started grading
>responses of other posters, and telling them they aren't fit for the particular
>jobs they hold.
>
>My, wouldn't a style like that really be arrogant and narcissistic!
Yes it is. Why don't I see you condemning Milt for such behavior?
>Ah, but
>when you do it, you tend not to notice those faults. One another person makes
>any sort of comment you decide is arrogant, you make a bunch of personal
>judgements.
>
>The irony, Martin, is not only are you wrong in pursuing the argument by
>definition in sovereignty, but you don't seem to see that what you criticize in
>my posts is minor compared to the type of things you do in yours. Thats
>typical when one has a bias, one is more likely to see anything the "other"
>does in the worst light possible, and anything the "self" does as blameless.
>Both conclusions are usually wrong no matter who makes them.
>
>Now, as to sovereignty, you still haven't touched the issues I raised. States
>cannot choose not to follow the federal government. I *long ago* talked about
>dual sovereignty and sharing of sovereign power (you now try to say I'm taking
>'baby steps' when I repeat a point I made long ago, which is perhaps an attempt
>by you to shift the discourse to make it appear different than it is, or maybe
>you just have a short memory), but how that does NOT mean the component states
>in any federal system are sovereign any more than each individual is
>sovereign. After all, individuals can vote in governments that change the
>constitution completely.
>
>You see, Martin, its simple: The USA is a sovereign state, meaning its
>legitimate government can govern the territory and act on the world stage.
>Sovereign powers according to the philosophy behind the US belong primarily in
>the INDIVIDUAL. Thus the choice is to limit what the central government can
>do, with a number of various steps. The Feds are limited via the constitution,
>and powers are given to states. State constitutions give power to the counties
>and towns. But that does not mean any of them are fully sovereign.
>Individuals acting collectively can cause the system to change, just as states
>acting collectively could change the constitution.
>
>Get it?
>
JSL
Scott D. Erb
says...
>I haven't been discussing the "history of sovereignty," per se, Mr. Dodge.
Nice dodge, but my point is that the development of sovereignty explains
current usage and definitions.
>I've been discussing the nature of the divided sovereignty as
>established in the United States, by the states, with the creation
>of the Constitution.
But the point is that by trying to ignore the real definition of the term (and
Milt has provided many examples, and I've added some context), you are trying
to simply make sovereignty appear as something it is not, something that is
solely defined in terms of the American constitution. However, even there
your argument fails.
You see, all your insults aside (and due to the insulting nature of your post
I simply deleted it) the facts remain:
Sovereignty means control of a given piece of territory, without having to
adhere to external power or authority.
That is not the case for units of a federal system.
That's why units of a federal system are not recognized as sovereign, not
seated in the United Nations, and do not have the rights of sovereignty.
Your argument is about another issue, one Milt and I have both dealt with.
The US, because of popular sovereignty (an issue much has been written about),
chose to develop a constitution that divided the sovereign powers of the
country to various governmental units. That is a check and balance system
both at the federal level, and between the states and the federal government.
That is opposed to traditional model of a "sovereign" being the sole
legitimate leader of the country, or the British model of Parliamentary
sovereignty, where sovereignty is based solely in the parliament (no judicial
review, no checks and balances, etc.) What the SC does is show that the
powers associated with sovereignty have been divided in the constitution to
reserve certain powers to states. That is one way to organize power within a
sovereign country. However, that does not say the states are sovereign, they
are not. You're trying to come up with a definition that is not standard, not
in use, and based on a misreading and misuse of a few uses of the term
sovereignty by the SC.
You're arguing a losing cause here, Marty. You can insult and smear all you
want, but it won't make your arguments any stronger. You should know by now
that internet insults have absolutely no power or relevance.
ciao, scott
Scott D. Erb
says...
> The Constitution does not grant rights to the
>citizens.
Ah, so individuals have no right to bear arms?
OK, if you say so.
Scott D. Erb
says...
>
>"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>cayenne wrote:
>>
>>>These are not definition games, you truculent moron.
>>
>>(chuckle)
>>
>>One has to wonder how you would flame me if I started calling people idiots,
>>morons, nitwits, etc., when I disagreed with them, if I started grading
>>responses of other posters, and telling them they aren't fit for the
particular
>>jobs they hold.
>>
>>My, wouldn't a style like that really be arrogant and narcissistic!
>
>Yes it is. Why don't I see you condemning Milt for such behavior?
I haven't seen Milt engage in such behavior.
Martin has succeeded in getting Milt to call names back, that seems to be what
Martin wants, to lower the discourse to the level of a flame war so the
arguments get obscured. Milt seems frustrated that Martin ignores his
arguments and instead posts bluster while calling Milt a nitwit and an idiot.
Since Milt's arguments are well constructed and show good thought (which
doesn't mean they are necessarily right -- though so far they've not been
shown wrong), I can't blame him for reacting to Martin that way.
Also Milt has never called me those things. Martin engages in those acts and
seems not to realize that they make all of his insults bounce of their
intended target and stick to him. Amusing.
Scott D. Erb
says...
Looking at the "meat" of Marty's vague quotes:
-snip-
>governments. Hence state authority
>remained the rule and the federal
>government the exception."
>
>Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in
>America, Harper & Row, paperback
>edition, pp. 114-15.
A 19th century author...well, if you want 19th century definitions rather than
current ones, we'd have to change almost our entire lexicon. So if you appear
in a good mood, Martin, I'm sure you wouldn't mind me saying that you are gay?
Still, beyond that, he doesn't mention sovereignty here, and you'd be hard
pressed to prove that the statement above is true. Look at the money, the
programs, the power...do you really want to defend the hypothesis that "state
authority is the rule and federal government the exception"?
I think that quote can be dismissed.
-snip- (look back for the whole quotes, I'm going to where there is a point of
relevance)
>in America. In its place had come the
>sense, premised on the assumption that
>the ultimate sovereignty--ultimate yet
>real and effective--rested with the
>people, that it was not only conceivable
Yes, that's popular sovereignty, the theoretical basis for the form of
sovereignty adopted by democratic states (as well as non-democratic states of
some sorts, like Napoleon, Hitler, etc.)
>but in certain circumstances salutary to
>divide and distribute the attributes of
>governmental sovereignty among different
>levels of institutions. The notion had
Exactly the point I've been making, the powers associated with being a
sovereign nation are distributed between different institutions. That
includes, of course, checks and balances on the federal level, as well as
federal and state governments.
>proved unacceptable as a solution of the
>problem of Anglo-American relations, but
>it was acted upon immediately and
>instinctively in forming the new union
>of sovereign states. The problems,
>intellectual and political, inherent in
>such an arrangement would persist; some
>were scarcely glimpsed when the nation
>was formed. The belief that 'imperium in
>imperio' was a solecism and the
>assumption that the 'sovereignty of the
>people' and the sovereignty of an organ
>of government were of the same order of
>things would remain to haunt the efforts
>of those who would struggle to build a
>stable system of federal government. But
>the initial challenge to the traditional
>eighteenth-century notion of sovereignty
>had been made.
The rest of this adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, but since the word
sovereignty is there, I'll include it. Note that sovereignty is discussed in
an historical context here, and that since it seems sovereignty is a changing
and socially constructed concept, the idea that the current definitions (that
I quoted from much more recent scholarship, and which Milt posted in various
forms) are wrong because there are older ones makes as much since as saying
that the 19th century American notion is wrong because it was different than
the 18th century notion.
>"[T]he federalist tradition...survived,
>and remains, to justify the distribution
>of absolute power among governments no
>one of which can claim to be total, and
>so to keep the central government from
>amassing 'a degree of energy, in order
>to sustain itself, dangerous to the
>liberties of the people.'"
That is directly in line with the point I've been making all along about how
within a sovereign state the powers of sovereignty can be divided via a
constitution or choice of government. That is in line with Milt's point too.
(Next quote eliminated because it reinforces that point, that of divided
powers, which is of course not contended)
This quote is a bit more interesting:
>"An entire consolidation of the States
>into one complete national sovereignty
>would imply an entire subordination of
>the parts; and whatever powers might
>remain in them would be altogether
>dependent on the general will. But as
>the plan of the convention aims only at
>a partial union or consolidation, the
>State governments would clearly retain
>all the rights of sovereignty which they
>before had, and which were not, by that
>act, *exclusively* delegated to the
>United States."
>
>Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 32.
Note this is 18th century, and dealing with the debate about the constitution.
Hamilton is reacting to the 18th century notion of sovereignty above which
centralized it in the hands of one leader or sovereign authority, and argues
that such a system is wrong. State governments are given much of the powers
of sovereignty in a desire to limit abuse of centralized power. That is
precisely in line with what I've been stating. Yet that does not mean that
the states themselves are sovereign, and certainly does not deny the myriad of
definitions provided which, besides being 200 years more recent than this
usage, and besides the fact that above another quote already notes that the
18th century notion has been challenged, remains uncontested. At best this
says that the new sovereign country of the USA preserves rights of sovereignty
to its component parts -- not all the rights of sovereignty, but some. But
there is one country -- e pluribus unum.
-snip to interesting part of the last quote, again dealing with how
sovereignty was used 200 years ago as a term:
>sovereignty.... The supreme power,
>Wilson emphasized, did not rest with the
>state governments. 'It resides in the
>people, as the fountain of government.'
Exactly, that was the point of my bit on popular sovereignty. Ironic how
Martin said he was not interested in the historical development of the term,
yet his quotes are mostly about how the term was used historically.
Apparently he is interested in its historical use, not how its developed!
>'They have not parted with it; they have
>only dispensed such portions of power as
>were conceived necessary for the public
>welfare.'
That is the point of popular sovereignty.
>"The key to the new approach was the
>proposition that sovereignty embraced a
>large number and a wide variety of
>different specific powers: obviously
Exactly! One sovereignty, with a wide variety of powers.
>these specific powers could be assigned
>to different governments, to different
Exactly!
>branches of the same government, or to
>different persons serving within the
>same branch of a government. Hamilton
Exactly!
>spelled out the implications in his
>opinion on the constitutionality of the
>Bank of the United States. 'The powers
>of sovereignty,' Hamilton wrote, 'are in
>this country divided between the
>National and State governments,' and
And, of course, even within the national government.
>'each of the *portions* of powers
>delegated to the one or to the
>other...is...sovereign *with regard to
>its proper objects.*' It followed from
One wonders what the "..." hides ;) But the term, even with the omissions, is
still qualified, sovereign with regard to its proper objects. Or more simply,
it retains some of the powers of sovereignty as limited by the constitution.
But in terms of sovereignty as it is used today, as it is defined, and even
what it in essence meant 200 years ago, there is one sovereign state, with a
myriad of various powers which can be divided within that state and its
component parts. Federalism is an excellent way to do this, I believe.
>this 'that each has sovereign power as
>to *certain things.* To deny that the
>Government of the United States has
>sovereign power as to its declared
>purposes and trusts, because its power
>does not extend to all cases,' Hamilton
>continued, would also be to deny that
>the states retained sovereignty 'in any
>case,' because they were forbidden to do
>a number of things."
Again, this is rather obtuse and deals with 200 year old language. At best
you can say that the way the word was used 200 years ago in debates where one
group was trying to convince the other group that states were not going to
lose out too much (one could argue that they eventually did, since they really
did give up more sovereign rights than they realized), the term sovereignty
was thrown around in various was.
Yet Milt's definitions and mine still stand. They haven't been denied. The
reasons for not seeing states here and now as sovereign entities have not been
addressed. At best you offer a post-modern deconstruction of the term
sovereignty to try to show it can be used in different ways. At best you show
that 200 years ago the division of powers could still be reconciled with
federalists being able to tell anti-federalists states were in some way still
sovereign. That's historically interesting, but doesn't deal with the issues,
evidence, and documentation provided on what sovereignty means and why states
aren't sovereign. You haven't dealt with that yet.
ciao, scott
cayenne
Scott D. Erb wrote in message <838e28$mhv$1...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
>In article <YwO54.10024$W2.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net>, cay...@nyct.net
>says...
>
>>I haven't been discussing the "history of sovereignty," per se, Mr. Dodge.
>
>Nice dodge, but my point is that the development of sovereignty explains
>current usage and definitions.
Then you should have no problem understanding the little primer
that I posted on how sovereignty was dealt with when the
United States was created by the states in 1787.
>
>>I've been discussing the nature of the divided sovereignty as
>>established in the United States, by the states, with the creation
>>of the Constitution.
>
>But the point is that by trying to ignore the real definition of the term
(and
>Milt has provided many examples, and I've added some context), you are
trying
>to simply make sovereignty appear as something it is not, something that is
>solely defined in terms of the American constitution. However, even there
>your argument fails.
You know, quite frankly, it is an abrogation of all common sense and
integrity to even suggest that I have ever attempted to define *sovereignty*
"solely...in terms of the American constitution." It's not only just not so,
it's beyond my imagination as to how you could be so utterly and
contemptibly stupid as to say it.
Your premise being, again, without foundation, I'll just let you go back
and re-read that which I've written and see if you can straighten yourself
out. But I doubt that.
The word "sovereignty" is of modern vintage, but it has application
to all eras of political history (the English princes exacted guarantees
from the sovereignty of the King, for instance, with Magna Carta, which
is the beginning of the legal tradition of the rights of Englishmen). What
I've been discussing is the way that the concept of sovereignty--the
ultimate law-making power--was treated in the creation of the United
States by the individual states, how that ultimate law-making power
was divided, not heirarchically, but between spheres, areas of
concern, and how each state retains a distinct sovereignty over
and against the federal government, which has limited powers in
its sphere of sovereignty. The states and the federal government
are each supreme within their spheres, and when those spheres collide,
as they sometimes do, the federal sphere takes precedence,
but, again, that is a situational supremacy, not a hierarchical
one, and that supremacy is indeed a reference to *those*
*specific* *powers* which the states themselves have
delegated to the national government, not the other way around.
Now, this is not simply a theoretical construction, but an actual
description of the way the United States operate as a sovereign
union of sovereign states. And in that union, the states, not the
federal government, retain the bulk of sovereign power. "The states
make the law."
cayenne
A sorry, sorry response. The Constitution, written by
the states and ratified by the people within each state,
does not *grant* rights. It apportions powers, and in
the Bill of Rights *forbids* the federal government
from exercising its legislative power to encroach upon
the freedom of individuals by establishing a national
religion or limiting the practice of religion or of speech.
These are not rights *granted* by the government; they
are prohibitions *on* the government.
And these were later applied through the equal protection
clause of the 14th Amendment and other Constitutional
devices, gradually, to the states.
cayenne
>In article <3857bc11...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
linde...@osu.edu
>says...
>>
>>"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>cayenne wrote:
>>>
>>>>These are not definition games, you truculent moron.
>>>
>>>(chuckle)
>>>
>>>One has to wonder how you would flame me if I started calling people
idiots,
>>>morons, nitwits, etc., when I disagreed with them, if I started grading
>>>responses of other posters, and telling them they aren't fit for the
>particular
>>>jobs they hold.
>>>
>>>My, wouldn't a style like that really be arrogant and narcissistic!
>>
>>Yes it is. Why don't I see you condemning Milt for such behavior?
>
>I haven't seen Milt engage in such behavior.
Milt is impervious to fact, asserts that the Supreme Court doesn't
know what it means when it uses the term *sovereignty,* claims
that his many-times answered arguments have never been
addressed, and doesn't have the faintest idea about that
of which he "speaks."
He is an idiot. And you, Erb, are apparently incompetent
beyond recognition.
John H. McCloskey
>
> In article <YwO54.10024$W2.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net>, cay...@nyct.net
> says...
>
> >I haven't been discussing the "history of sovereignty," per se, Mr. Dodge.
>
> Nice dodge, but my point is that the development of sovereignty explains
> current usage and definitions.
>
> >established in the United States, by the states, with the creation
> >of the Constitution.
>
> But the point is that by trying to ignore the real definition of the term (and
> Milt has provided many examples, and I've added some context), you are trying
> to simply make sovereignty appear as something it is not, something that is
> solely defined in terms of the American constitution. However, even there
> your argument fails.
>
What you people need is some pictures to liven things up. Try
<< http://www.sos.state.il.us/general/seal.html >>
== Yours, J. H. McPopsov == ... potestas est in populo ... ==
cayenne
Scott D. Erb wrote in message <838fts$mte$1...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
>In article <xCO54.10026$W2.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net>, cay...@nyct.net
>says...
>
>Looking at the "meat" of Marty's vague quotes:
These are not "vague" quotes, Scotti, these are
scholars from three eras describing the political
system of the United States. Alexander Hamilton
is hardly vague. Nor is Tocqueville. Nor is McDonald,
Bailyn or Wood.
They describe what by now should be a very easy
thing for you to understand.
>
>-snip-
>
>>governments. Hence state authority
>>remained the rule and the federal
>>government the exception."
>>
>>Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in
>>America, Harper & Row, paperback
>>edition, pp. 114-15.
>
>A 19th century author...
Five seconds ago you were spilling off about the original
meaning of the term being definitive, which is why you
are known as Dr. Mercury. You never change, Erb.
But here...
>well, if you want 19th century definitions rather than
>current ones, we'd have to change almost our entire lexicon. So if you
appear
>in a good mood, Martin, I'm sure you wouldn't mind me saying that you are
gay?
I wouldn't mind if you called yourself a fraud and got on with
your life.
>Still, beyond that, he doesn't mention sovereignty here,
The subtitle summary of the section from which that is
quoted reads: "Division of sovereign powers between
federal and state authority. State authority is the rule and
federal government the exception."
Next...
>and you'd be hard
>pressed to prove that the statement above is true. Look at the money, the
>programs, the power...do you really want to defend the hypothesis that
"state
>authority is the rule and federal government the exception"?
Absolutely. The "money, the programs, the power" of the federal government
consist essentially of some very large ticket items. Most of the law
that you or anyone in this country will ever face is state law. This is
a concept so unavoidable and basic that the only argument that
can be brought against it is the one you just have, and it doesn't
wash. Your property, your relationship with criminal justice, virtually
all of your civil recourse, and most of the rest of the *authority* you
will ever face is manifested under state law. And, you are also
a citizen of the United States, and have a relationship with that
government as well, which consists mostly of paying taxes to
it and seeing certain things in return for that. The redistribution
of wealth in giant social welfare programs like social security and
medicare hasn't changed the fact that most of the authority you
will ever come face to face with or have recourse through or
be prosecuted by is that of the states.
And the increasing power of the federal government has not
changed that, mostly because it is extremely difficult for it
to do so. And for that we should thank our lucky stars, and
the Framers, who chose wisely when they gave the federal
government limited and enumerated powers.
>
>I think that quote can be dismissed.
>
>-snip- (look back for the whole quotes, I'm going to where there is a point
of
>relevance)
>
>>in America. In its place had come the
>>sense, premised on the assumption that
>>the ultimate sovereignty--ultimate yet
>>real and effective--rested with the
>>people, that it was not only conceivable
>
>Yes, that's popular sovereignty, the theoretical basis for the form of
>sovereignty adopted by democratic states (as well as non-democratic states
of
>some sorts, like Napoleon, Hitler, etc.)
*Yes,* that's popular sovereignty, which I've
repeatedly alluded to in this discussion, and
here again presented in the context of the
discussion of how sovereignty came to be
divided in the United States between the
states and the federal government.
>>but in certain circumstances salutary to
>>divide and distribute the attributes of
>>governmental sovereignty among different
>>levels of institutions. The notion had
>
>Exactly the point I've been making, the powers associated with being a
>sovereign nation are distributed between different institutions. That
>includes, of course, checks and balances on the federal level, as well as
>federal and state governments.
I'll leave that there as testimony to your strange interludes
of proclaiming your on-the-ballness when in the larger
moment you've never been seen anywhere near a
ball.
You go on to claim, mercurially, in the sections below
(which I've deleted out of mercy) that some of these
defintions of sovereignty are too old, that I have refused
to pay attention to the historical meaning of sovereignty,
which you earlier proclaimed to be definitive, and that
your and Milt's definitions, over and against these scholars,
the Supreme Court, the historical facts, and the very
structure of the country in which you live, are more
modern and therefore correct. Now I expect you to
go on at some length about how none of this is
contradictory because you've connected the original
meaning with the modern meaning and thereby
eliminated the "old meaning" that, what, came
in between?
I feel very sorry for you, but I just cannot give you the
micro-attention that you need. And I can't give it to
you because it won't do any good.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:18:16 GMT, cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com
>(Steve Canyon) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:52:33 -0500, "Scott D. Erb"
>><scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't become a "full professor" until you get 'tenure', idiot..
>>>>
>>>> --And that takes about ten years, usually, you ignorant buffoon..
>>>
>>>Ach, its funny watching them vent, unable to grasp that their argument by
>>>definition attempt against Milt is really weak, and that their styles
>>>(name calling, attacks, smears, extremist rants like 'clinton is like
>>
>>Of course it's not as though Milt doesn't call people names, and of
>>course, Erb's name calling had been very well documented.
>
>Hey; I never said I didn't call people names, shit-for-brains. But I
>don't do it as my argument. I simply state the obvious...
>>
The USSC and other scholars seem to disagree Milt.
In Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959), the United States
Supreme Court discussed the doctrine of dual sovereignty, observing:
We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources,
capable of dealing with the same subject-matter within the same
territory . . . . Each government in determining what shall be an
offense against its peace and dignity is exercising its own
sovereignty, not that of the other.
http://www.brooklaw.edu/law/journals/bjlp/abstracts/hellman.shtml
THE FALLACY OF DUELING SOVEREIGNTIES: WHY THE SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO
ELIMINATE THE DUAL SOVEREIGNTY DOCTRINE
Kevin J. Hellmann
2 J. L. & Pol'y 149 (1994)
This Note addresses the potential for a criminal defendant to lose
constitutional protection from double jeopardy prosecutions. By having
to face prosecutions in both state and federal courts for crimes
arising under the same act under the doctrine of dual sovereignty, it
allows the government to reprosecute a defendant whose conduct has
violated both state and federal law irrespective of which level of
government conducted the initial prosecution and regardless of the
result of that initial prosecution.
The Note examines the historical precedent for this doctrine and
analyzes the Supreme Court's reasoning for adherence to it in modern
times. He finds that primarily the Court has been concerned that if
the doctrine was abandoned that it would lead to state and federal
governments competing for the exclusive opportunity to prosecute
certain defendants. Mr. Hellmann concludes that the historical reasons
for the doctrine no longer exist, that continuing to uphold the
doctrine will lead to decreased public faith in the judicial system,
and that individual's rights outweigh any remaining policy reasons for
continuing to uphold this doctrine.
http://www.naspl.org/smolla/smolla.html
Thus in New York the Court admonished that "the Constitution divides
authority between federal and state governments for the protection of
individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: 'Rather,
federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the
diffusion of sovereign power.'" New York, 505 U.S. at 18 1. And in
Printz the Court spoke of the sovereignty of the states in ringing
terms:
[Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 98, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (1997)]
It is incontestible that the Constitution established a system of
"dual sovereignty." . . . Residual state sovereignty was also
implicit, of course, in the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of
not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones, Alt.
1, § 8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth
Amendment's assertion that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Framers' experience under the Articles of Confederation had
persuaded them that using the States as the instruments of federal
governance was both ineffectual and provocative of federal-state
conflict. See The Federalist No. 15. Preservation of the States as
independent political entities being the price of union, and "[t]he
practicality of making laws, with coercive sanctions, for the States
as political bodies" having been, 'in Madison's words, "exploded on
all hands," 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 9 (M.
Farrand ed. 1911), the Framers rejected the concept of a central
government that would act upon and through the States, and instead
designed a system in which the state and federal governments would
exercise concurrent authority over the people--who were, in Hamilton's
words, "the only proper objects of government" The Federalist No. 15,
at 109. . . "The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers
upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States." . . .
The great innovation of this design was that "our citizens would have
two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected
from incursion by the other" -- " a legal system unprecedented in form
and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own
direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and
obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it."
. . . The Constitution thus contemplates that a State's government
will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens . . . .. As
Madison expressed it: "[T]he local or municipal authorities form
distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject,
within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the
general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The
Federalist No. 39, at 245.
Because we are in an historical period in which Tenth Amendment
principles are rapidly evolving, no one can speak with absolute
certitude on these questions. But the momentum of cases such as Lopez,
New York, and Printz, coupled with the larger movement in the
federalism arena discussed throughout this Memorandum, would lead the
Supreme Court to look with great skepticism at such federal
legislation. I am confident that the Court would see such an effort as
an affront to the sovereignty of the states. While the mechanism of
federal encroachment might be different from that in New York or
Printz, I believe the principles articulated in those cases are
sufficiently powerful to prevent the national government from barring
a state, as a sovereign government within our federal system of dual
sovereignty, from promoting its own state programs.
>
>Why can you not deal with it??
Indeed.
[ snip ]
JSL
zepp, a weasel
wrote:
>Scott D. Erb wrote in message <838ehc$mm3$1...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
>>In article <3857bb65...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
>linde...@osu.edu
>>says...
>>
>>> The Constitution does not grant rights to the
>>>citizens.
>>
>>Ah, so individuals have no right to bear arms?
>>
>>OK, if you say so.
>
>
>A sorry, sorry response. The Constitution, written by
>the states and ratified by the people within each state,
>does not *grant* rights. It apportions powers, and in
>the Bill of Rights *forbids* the federal government
>from exercising its legislative power to encroach upon
>the freedom of individuals by establishing a national
>religion or limiting the practice of religion or of speech.
>
>These are not rights *granted* by the government; they
>are prohibitions *on* the government.
And in what are are the enumerations of powers "prohitions on the
government"? You right wing bozos really can't think.
It's fun watching Jeffery clam up when asked from where rights derive.
Care to take a crack at it?
>
>And these were later applied through the equal protection
>clause of the 14th Amendment and other Constitutional
>devices, gradually, to the states.
>
>
**********************************************************
[Krow]>Everything? Really, Knickers, you're not one of those "Mathematics is a
>religion" or "Science is a religion" whackos, are you?
[Knickers] Yes [...]
http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Also mirrored at: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
http://www.wtrt.net/~blarson/institute.htm
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
http://resurgent.virtualave.net
Warning: Contains ideas
************************************************************
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Scott D. Erb
says...
>A sorry, sorry response. The Constitution, written by
>the states and ratified by the people within each state,
>does not *grant* rights. It apportions powers, and in
>the Bill of Rights *forbids* the federal government
>from exercising its legislative power to encroach upon
>the freedom of individuals by establishing a national
>religion or limiting the practice of religion or of speech.
In most circles one would say that this grants the right to bear arms, the
right to free speech, the right to choose a religion, rights that don't exist
in many other countries without those guarantees. And, of course, it applies
to state governments as well as federal governments.
Ah, yes, but Martin-speak focuses on argument by definition, defining terms
away from conventional usage in order to try to save a dying argument.
shaking my head smiling, scott
Scott D. Erb
says...
>
>These are not "vague" quotes, Scotti,
They don't address the issues at hand, marti
>these are
>scholars from three eras describing the political
>system of the United States. Alexander Hamilton
Mostly from politicians, and mostly out of date.
>is hardly vague. Nor is Tocqueville. Nor is McDonald,
>Bailyn or Wood.
>
>They describe what by now should be a very easy
>thing for you to understand.
Oh believe me, I understand this stuff, I'm trying to help you understand as
well. If you would put aside your arrogant and abusive style and actually
recognize that a polite give and take is the best way to learn and mutually
deal with disagreements, you may find that, after all, you are not infallible!
>Five seconds ago you were spilling off about the original
>meaning of the term being definitive, which is why you
>are known as Dr. Mercury. You never change, Erb.
No, I have never stated that the original meaning of the term was definitive.
That is a lie, Marti. In fact, I noted how the meaning involved, and the
quote I posted from "Beyond Sovereignty" also notes how the concept has
changed over time. I have stated and argued the exact opposite from what you
claim above.
In other words, you are simply dishonest.
>The subtitle summary of the section from which that is
>quoted reads: "Division of sovereign powers between
>federal and state authority. State authority is the rule and
>federal government the exception."
Do you really believe that? In any event, things may have actually been that
way about two hundred years ago. None of that addresses any of the arguments
concerning whether it is proper today to consider the component states of
federal systems sovereign.
>Absolutely. The "money, the programs, the power" of the federal government
>consist essentially of some very large ticket items. Most of the law
>that you or anyone in this country will ever face is state law. This is
Exactly my point, I clearly noted that the powers were divided, not only
between the federal and state levels, but also within the federal government
(legislative, executive and judicial), and within states (state to county and
local), with many powers left to individuals. That was my point, the powers
of sovereignty are divided.
Remember, I'm pointing out that the argument you make is one that does not
support your conclusion. No one contends the FACT that the powers and
attributes of sovereignty are divided within various component parts of the
United States government (including federal, state and local aspects). The
point is that this is NOT sufficient to label component states, who cannot
control their own destiny individually and cannot simply choose to go against
federal authority, sovereign. You're obfuscating, trying to change the
subject.
I will not let you.
>a concept so unavoidable and basic that the only argument that
>can be brought against it is the one you just have, and it doesn't
>wash. Your property, your relationship with criminal justice, virtually
>all of your civil recourse, and most of the rest of the *authority* you
>will ever face is manifested under state law. And, you are also
>a citizen of the United States, and have a relationship with that
>government as well, which consists mostly of paying taxes to
>it and seeing certain things in return for that. The redistribution
>of wealth in giant social welfare programs like social security and
>medicare hasn't changed the fact that most of the authority you
>will ever come face to face with or have recourse through or
>be prosecuted by is that of the states.
As it should be.
But that does not have anything to do with the issue of whether or not states
are accurately labeled sovereign.
>And the increasing power of the federal government has not
>changed that, mostly because it is extremely difficult for it
>to do so. And for that we should thank our lucky stars, and
>the Framers, who chose wisely when they gave the federal
>government limited and enumerated powers.
Agreed.
Yet that does not have anything to do with the issue of whether or not states
are accurately labeled sovereign.
>*Yes,* that's popular sovereignty, which I've
>repeatedly alluded to in this discussion, and
>here again presented in the context of the
>discussion of how sovereignty came to be
>divided in the United States between the
>states and the federal government.
No, sovereignty is not divided. Sovereignty rests in the entire collective
United States of America. The powers associated with sovereignty are divided,
and that division can change. Every sovereign country divides powers; in some
places, like Russia, many of the actual powers seem outside of government
hands and in mafias and the like. But there is only one sovereign state
according to really all current definitions, and certainly the ones Milt and I
posted.
>You go on to claim, mercurially, in the sections below
>(which I've deleted out of mercy) that some of these
>defintions of sovereignty are too old, that I have refused
>to pay attention to the historical meaning of sovereignty,
>which you earlier proclaimed to be definitive, and that
>your and Milt's definitions, over and against these scholars,
>the Supreme Court, the historical facts, and the very
You're lying Milt. I've always focused on the current definition, and
explained *how it developed* historically, how it *changed* over time. That
was to help *teach* you a bit about the concept. Your response was that you
were not interested in the historical development of the concept. I agree
with your points about much of the historical debate, and found the quotes
interesting, but they are NOT definitive of what sovereignty means, and how it
applies in the current context.
>structure of the country in which you live, are more
>modern and therefore correct. Now I expect you to
>go on at some length about how none of this is
>contradictory because you've connected the original
>meaning with the modern meaning and thereby
>eliminated the "old meaning" that, what, came
>in between?
Now, I've noted, with the cite from *Beyond Westphalia* that the original
idea, going back to Grotius, has evolved. I've also noted that all the
"facts" about the American system are in line with the argument Milt makes,
and I make, about how the component states are not sovereign, but are able to
exercise some sovereign powers. You've tried to obfuscate around this, and
your insults and abuse has apparently got Milt to decide you aren't worth
debating with. I suspect thats your goal -- if you can insult, intimidate,
and abuse, then people will give up, and you can state victory. Am I right?
Well, I think people are smarter than that. In this case you are so hung up
and trying to win a battle of what definition is right, you don't even go into
discussing the actual issues.
>I feel very sorry for you, but I just cannot give you the
>micro-attention that you need. And I can't give it to
>you because it won't do any good.
(smile) A classic example of your style, Martin. Do you think it really
impresses anyone?
sigh, scott
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>In article <3857bc11...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>, linde...@osu.edu
>says...
>>
>>"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>cayenne wrote:
>>>
>>>>These are not definition games, you truculent moron.
>>>
>>>(chuckle)
>>>
>>>One has to wonder how you would flame me if I started calling people idiots,
>>>morons, nitwits, etc., when I disagreed with them, if I started grading
>>>responses of other posters, and telling them they aren't fit for the
>particular
>>>jobs they hold.
>>>
>>>My, wouldn't a style like that really be arrogant and narcissistic!
>>
>>Yes it is. Why don't I see you condemning Milt for such behavior?
>
>I haven't seen Milt engage in such behavior.
>
>Martin has succeeded in getting Milt to call names back, that seems to be what
>Martin wants, to lower the discourse to the level of a flame war so the
That's cute, It's Martin's responsibility that Milt calls him names.
Isn't that another version of "the devil made him do it." <snicker>
>arguments get obscured. Milt seems frustrated that Martin ignores his
>arguments and instead posts bluster while calling Milt a nitwit and an idiot.
>Since Milt's arguments are well constructed and show good thought (which
>doesn't mean they are necessarily right -- though so far they've not been
>shown wrong), I can't blame him for reacting to Martin that way.
Milt has not shown his arguments to be correct. Why should anyone
bother to dispute mere assertions?
Ace
Steve Canyon
Like I've and asked and asked again. Prove these thing are in any way
related to sovereignty.
>explain to us how a state that has all of the above characteristics,
>can be seen as a sovereign...
>
>Now; are you prepared to tell me that the above is unsubstantiated? The
>constitution substamntiates the argument.
Ok, so please provide the location in the Constitution of where the
substantiation that those characteristics are essential to a state
being called sovereign.
You imply that those things are essential to sovereignty and ask me to
provide proof that they are not. Why should I even bother to read
your list unless you first provide an argument as to why you think
they are essential to sovereignty. Something you have not done.
>I have also included the definitions of sovereignty, and their sources,
>in vaious places in this thread.
My dictionary's definition of sovereign is "having supreme rank or
power" Either both the feds and the states fit that definition or
neither does.
>How can you even begin to claim that my argument is unsubstantiated. I
>have supported my claim very well, and have refuted your "claims" (the
>ones before you started using insult as your argument, that is), and
>you have yet to answer them. Except with the insults, of course...
Bullshit I've asked you to substantiate the your list of "cannots" is
essential to sovereignty. You have not done so. I must assume that
you cannot or you would have done so a week ago.
Heh, heh, opinions of guys named Milt are a penny a hundred, even less
when they disagree with the opinions of the Supreme Court?
>> >Why can you not deal with it??
>
>> Deal with what, milt. I'm still waiting for you to present some
>> argument that those items constitute a list of powers required of a
>> sovereign.
>
>Why would they NOT be required. Can you name an unqualified sovereign
>anywhere in the history of the world that does not have at least most
Heh, yeah, I can name 50.
>of those abilities? And given the defintion of sovereign, I state it
>again; please explain to us how a state without these features can be a
Here's another... Can you name an unqualified sovereign anywhere in
the history of the world that does not have the sun rise? Does that
make it essential to sovereignty? I don't see that in your list of
definition.
>sovereign. You have yet to even attempt to answer the question.
You have not even attempted to prove that your list is essential for
sovereignty. If and when you do, I'll address it.
Sound more like your argument to me. I simply say you have to offer
something besides your stupid opinion that the Supreme Court <snicker>
uses the wrong word.
>> Scott isn't known for his
>> rational behavior.
>
>Oh, I see. And this post is an example of your rationality?
>
>It's not the ignorance that bugs me. It's the arrogance with which you
>display it. Someone as poorly prepared for this debate should have
>dropped out by now...
I've been waiting for you to present an argument. Something a little
stronger than your opinion. <chuckle, snort>
Ace
Steve Canyon
>In article <38624de9...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com (Steve Canyon) wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 21:21:24 GMT, mi...@law.com (Milt) wrote:
>>
>> > Look at all of
>> >the posts in this thread that claim that I called the Supreme Court
>> >wrong. I didn't say they were right OR wrong. I simply said that the
>> >use of the word "sovereignty" was probably inaccurate.
>>
>> Is this another example of Milt's logic??? He didn't say the Supreme
>> Court was wrong, he simply said they were inaccurate.
>
>Right. The definition had nothing to do with the logic of the decision,
>moron. They should have used the word "power", not "sovereignty". The
>use of the word would not have changed the decision one iota.
...and that's not calling the Supreme Court wrong?
>You simply have no logical skills at all, do you???
Heh, heh....see above
>> Actually,
>> that's not only stupid, it's a lie. Milt said the Supreme Court used
>> the wrong word.
>
>Right. So? Using the right word would not have changed the decision.
>But then, idiots like you wouldn't be able to look up cases and use the
>browser's find feture to lazily try and prove a point that is unmakable
>by recounting for us the number of times they misused the word...
Here's a hint, Milt, no one believes that the Supreme Court misused
the word for two hundred years. You need a reality check here.
>> >Seriously; you should follow this thread; it's a pretty interesting
>> >one, because no one is actually arguing with Scott and I. Theyn
>simply
>> >keep repeating the same platitudes over and over again...
>>
>> I especially liked Milt's list of powers that a states supposedly
>> doesn't have followed by a challenge to show how a state could be
>> sovereign without them. How many times did you repeat that, Milt, and
>> how many times did you refuse to provide any argument as to why those
>> powers were essential to the concept of sovereignty.
>
>I don't have to. I made the statement that a state coould not be
>sovereign without them, and provided the defintions of sovereign as
>proof. You have yet to answer the challenge, and tell us how a state
>without those powers can be a sovereign.
Ok, so you make an unsubstantiated assertion, and I can make an
unsubstantiated denial. Those items are not essential for a state to
be sovereign. Ok now it's your turn, Bozo.
>> Of course, now
>> you're claiming that powers have nothing to do with sovereignty.
>
>No, I'm not, liar. I'm saying that every entity that has a few
>sovereign powers is not a sovereign. As I have demonstrated repeatedly,
>most of the powers that states claim, are also claimed by counties and
>cities, as well as many large corporations. Are they ALL sovereign?
>
Are you now asking me to disprove that powers have anything to do with
sovereignty? This power/sovereignty relationship claim is all yours
Milt.
Ace
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>
>-All of "Steve's" typical impotent insults and silly rant deleted-
>
>Looking through bluster, "steve" tries to deny all of the points Milt and I
>made about how sovereignty is defined (including the issue of popular
<snicker> What issue of popular sovereignty? Here's a clue, Erb, your
brains farts don't comprise an issue in my mind.
>sovereignty, the fact states cannot simply individually choose to disregard
>federal law, etc.) by one sole lonely argument. He says the supreme court
>used the word "sovereign" and therefore that proves that states are all
>sovereign. He doesn't want to say the SC can't be wrong, since he wants to
>reserve the right to disagree with them, but in this case he hopes their use
>of the term is all that matters.
Hell yes, I can disagree with them, but I'm not a dope like you and
Milty to offer my disagreement as proof that they don't know what they
are talking about. Opinions are opinions, Erb, and your's, mine and
Milt's are a dime a dozen, but a Supreme Court cite is something else.
Sure the SC could be wrong, but I'll need one hell of a lot better
proof than your stupid opinion, Erb, before I'm convinced. I'm pretty
comfortable that most people share that belief.
>However, his evidence doesn't support his bluster. It is clear that the SC
>was talking about the division of the powers associated with national
>sovereignty, powers that the FEDERAL constitution divides between the states
>and feds
Uhmmm, yeah, Erb, that is everybody understands, except for you and
Milt.
>(and which state constitutions divide between the state and counties
>or towns).
Uhmmm, no Erb that is not true. You should take a course in
government.
>He doesn't deal with the fact that the SC is not asserting pure
>soveriegnty for a state, and their quotes do not support his claim. He
Oh, now we have another of Erb's famous definition qualifiers, "pure
sovereignty." Now erb is claiming that he and Milty were not talking
about sovereignty, but "pure sovereignty." Heh, heh, and Erb claims
others are jumping through hoops.
>doesn't touch all the counter arguments, he just insults the people making
>them (a logical fallacy called argumentum ad hominem). Instead, he argues by
>insult, hoping to drag people into a flame war of mutual insults where the
>real issue gets lost behind the bluster, and he can try to appear victorious
>through all the haze and smoke created by mutual insults and personal smears.
You you're not sure what bluster means, see above.
>It doesn't work. Such playground tactics are useless nowadays on the
>internet; such flametroll efforts discredit themselves.
More Bluster, no content, typical Erb.
>But hey, internet can be good therapy. If you're feeling upset or angry, take
>it out on posters you disagree with politically, that's cool. I'm pretty sure
>it doesn't convince anyone though ;)
More Bluster, no content, typical Erb. <snicker> You discredit
yourself, Erb.
>cheers, scott
Ace
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>In article <xCO54.10026$W2.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net>, cay...@nyct.net
>says...
>
>Looking at the "meat" of Marty's vague quotes:
>
>-snip-
>
>>governments. Hence state authority
>>remained the rule and the federal
>>government the exception."
>>
>>Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in
>>America, Harper & Row, paperback
>>edition, pp. 114-15.
>
>A 19th century author...well, if you want 19th century definitions rather than
>current ones, we'd have to change almost our entire lexicon. So if you appear
>in a good mood, Martin, I'm sure you wouldn't mind me saying that you are gay?
>
>Still, beyond that, he doesn't mention sovereignty here, and you'd be hard
>pressed to prove that the statement above is true. Look at the money, the
>programs, the power...do you really want to defend the hypothesis that "state
>authority is the rule and federal government the exception"?
But I'd say that it was up to you to disprove it.
>I think that quote can be dismissed.
Your thoughts are of no value, Erb.
>-snip- (look back for the whole quotes, I'm going to where there is a point of
>relevance)
>
>>in America. In its place had come the
>>sense, premised on the assumption that
>>the ultimate sovereignty--ultimate yet
>>real and effective--rested with the
>>people, that it was not only conceivable
>
>Yes, that's popular sovereignty, the theoretical basis for the form of
>sovereignty adopted by democratic states (as well as non-democratic states of
>some sorts, like Napoleon, Hitler, etc.)
Here's Erb's "popular sovereignty" again, with more undocumented
opinion that means nothing.
>>but in certain circumstances salutary to
>>divide and distribute the attributes of
>>governmental sovereignty among different
>>levels of institutions. The notion had
>
>Exactly the point I've been making, the powers associated with being a
>sovereign nation are distributed between different institutions. That
>includes, of course, checks and balances on the federal level, as well as
>federal and state governments.
Hehe, heh, Erb says now that he's been making the point of dual
sovereignty.
I think Erb's realized how wrong he's been and he's trying to get on
the train after it's left the station.
>within a sovereign state the powers of sovereignty can be divided via a
>constitution or choice of government. That is in line with Milt's point too.
Uhmmm, I think Milt has been claiming that dual sovereignty was an
oxymoron.
>(Next quote eliminated because it reinforces that point, that of divided
>powers, which is of course not contended)
>
>This quote is a bit more interesting:
It sure is!
>>"An entire consolidation of the States
>>into one complete national sovereignty
>>would imply an entire subordination of
>>the parts; and whatever powers might
>>remain in them would be altogether
>>dependent on the general will. But as
>>the plan of the convention aims only at
>>a partial union or consolidation, the
>>State governments would clearly retain
>>all the rights of sovereignty which they
>>before had, and which were not, by that
>>act, *exclusively* delegated to the
>>United States."
>>
>>Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 32.
>
>Note this is 18th century, and dealing with the debate about the constitution.
> Hamilton is reacting to the 18th century notion of sovereignty above which
>centralized it in the hands of one leader or sovereign authority, and argues
>that such a system is wrong. State governments are given much of the powers
>of sovereignty in a desire to limit abuse of centralized power. That is
>precisely in line with what I've been stating.
No it's not, Erb, you've been arguing against this.
>Yet that does not mean that
>the states themselves are sovereign, and certainly does not deny the myriad of
>definitions provided which, besides being 200 years more recent than this
>usage, and besides the fact that above another quote already notes that the
>18th century notion has been challenged, remains uncontested. At best this
>says that the new sovereign country of the USA preserves rights of sovereignty
>to its component parts -- not all the rights of sovereignty, but some. But
>there is one country -- e pluribus unum.
>
>-snip to interesting part of the last quote, again dealing with how
>sovereignty was used 200 years ago as a term:
>
>>sovereignty.... The supreme power,
>>Wilson emphasized, did not rest with the
>>state governments. 'It resides in the
>>people, as the fountain of government.'
>
>Exactly, that was the point of my bit on popular sovereignty. Ironic how
>Martin said he was not interested in the historical development of the term,
>yet his quotes are mostly about how the term was used historically.
>Apparently he is interested in its historical use, not how its developed!
Apparently, Erb can't establish any proof that it's changed.
>>'They have not parted with it; they have
>>only dispensed such portions of power as
>>were conceived necessary for the public
>>welfare.'
>
>That is the point of popular sovereignty.
Yep, Erb's running after the train.
>>"The key to the new approach was the
>>proposition that sovereignty embraced a
>>large number and a wide variety of
>>different specific powers: obviously
>
>Exactly! One sovereignty, with a wide variety of powers.
>
>>these specific powers could be assigned
>>to different governments, to different
>
>Exactly!
Run, Erb, run, see if you can catch it. It only left last week. Don't
worry about Milt back there.
>>branches of the same government, or to
>>different persons serving within the
>>same branch of a government. Hamilton
>
>Exactly!
You aren't going to catch it are you Erb? Sorry, you could have got
on a long time ago, but's it's out of sight now. You figured it out
too late.
>>spelled out the implications in his
>>opinion on the constitutionality of the
>>Bank of the United States. 'The powers
>>of sovereignty,' Hamilton wrote, 'are in
>>this country divided between the
>>National and State governments,' and
>
>And, of course, even within the national government.
>
>>'each of the *portions* of powers
>>delegated to the one or to the
>>other...is...sovereign *with regard to
>>its proper objects.*' It followed from
>
>One wonders what the "..." hides ;) But the term, even with the omissions, is
>still qualified, sovereign with regard to its proper objects. Or more simply,
>it retains some of the powers of sovereignty as limited by the constitution.
If it looks like sovereignty, Erb, chances are it is sovereignty.
>But in terms of sovereignty as it is used today, as it is defined, and even
>what it in essence meant 200 years ago, there is one sovereign state, with a
Another example of Erb's famous undocumented assertions. I wonder if
he actually thinks that if he says it enough everyone will agree?
>myriad of various powers which can be divided within that state and its
>component parts. Federalism is an excellent way to do this, I believe.
>
>>this 'that each has sovereign power as
>>to *certain things.* To deny that the
>>Government of the United States has
>>sovereign power as to its declared
>>purposes and trusts, because its power
>>does not extend to all cases,' Hamilton
>>continued, would also be to deny that
>>the states retained sovereignty 'in any
>>case,' because they were forbidden to do
>>a number of things."
>
>Again, this is rather obtuse and deals with 200 year old language. At best
>you can say that the way the word was used 200 years ago in debates where one
>group was trying to convince the other group that states were not going to
>lose out too much (one could argue that they eventually did, since they really
>did give up more sovereign rights than they realized), the term sovereignty
>was thrown around in various was.
>
>Yet Milt's definitions and mine still stand. They haven't been denied. The
>reasons for not seeing states here and now as sovereign entities have not been
>addressed. At best you offer a post-modern deconstruction of the term
Typical Erb claim of victory. He says that he's addressed all the
issues and proved his case. Next he'll claim that anybody that
disagrees is dishonest.
>sovereignty to try to show it can be used in different ways. At best you show
>that 200 years ago the division of powers could still be reconciled with
>federalists being able to tell anti-federalists states were in some way still
>sovereign. That's historically interesting, but doesn't deal with the issues,
>evidence, and documentation provided on what sovereignty means and why states
>aren't sovereign. You haven't dealt with that yet.
What documentation is that Erb?
Ace
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>In article <qcQ54.13091$W2.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net>, cay...@nyct.net
>says...
>>
>>These are not "vague" quotes, Scotti,
>
>They don't address the issues at hand, marti
>
>>these are
>>scholars from three eras describing the political
>>system of the United States. Alexander Hamilton
>
>Mostly from politicians, and mostly out of date.
If Erb can't argue with a quote, he attacks the speaker. In this
case, Hamilton. Typical
>>is hardly vague. Nor is Tocqueville. Nor is McDonald,
>>Bailyn or Wood.
>>
>>They describe what by now should be a very easy
>>thing for you to understand.
>
>Oh believe me, I understand this stuff, I'm trying to help you understand as
>well. If you would put aside your arrogant and abusive style and actually
>recognize that a polite give and take is the best way to learn and mutually
>deal with disagreements, you may find that, after all, you are not infallible!
More typical Erb. No content, just bluster.
>>Five seconds ago you were spilling off about the original
>>meaning of the term being definitive, which is why you
>>are known as Dr. Mercury. You never change, Erb.
>
>No, I have never stated that the original meaning of the term was definitive.
>
>That is a lie, Marti. In fact, I noted how the meaning involved, and the
>quote I posted from "Beyond Sovereignty" also notes how the concept has
>changed over time. I have stated and argued the exact opposite from what you
>claim above.
>
>In other words, you are simply dishonest.
More typical Erb. Ad hominem and bluster.
>>The subtitle summary of the section from which that is
>>quoted reads: "Division of sovereign powers between
>>federal and state authority. State authority is the rule and
>>federal government the exception."
>
>Do you really believe that? In any event, things may have actually been that
>way about two hundred years ago. None of that addresses any of the arguments
>concerning whether it is proper today to consider the component states of
>federal systems sovereign.
Typical Erb. undocumented assertion.
>>Absolutely. The "money, the programs, the power" of the federal government
>>consist essentially of some very large ticket items. Most of the law
>>that you or anyone in this country will ever face is state law. This is
>
>Exactly my point, I clearly noted that the powers were divided, not only
>between the federal and state levels, but also within the federal government
>(legislative, executive and judicial), and within states (state to county and
>local), with many powers left to individuals. That was my point, the powers
>of sovereignty are divided.
Typical Erb. Catch that train, Erb.
>Remember, I'm pointing out that the argument you make is one that does not
>support your conclusion. No one contends the FACT that the powers and
>attributes of sovereignty are divided within various component parts of the
>United States government (including federal, state and local aspects). The
>point is that this is NOT sufficient to label component states, who cannot
Typical Erb, undocumented assertion.
>control their own destiny individually and cannot simply choose to go against
>federal authority, sovereign. You're obfuscating, trying to change the
>subject.
bluster, ad hominem. Typical Erb
>I will not let you.
Bluster.
>>a concept so unavoidable and basic that the only argument that
>>can be brought against it is the one you just have, and it doesn't
>>wash. Your property, your relationship with criminal justice, virtually
>>all of your civil recourse, and most of the rest of the *authority* you
>>will ever face is manifested under state law. And, you are also
>>a citizen of the United States, and have a relationship with that
>>government as well, which consists mostly of paying taxes to
>>it and seeing certain things in return for that. The redistribution
>>of wealth in giant social welfare programs like social security and
>>medicare hasn't changed the fact that most of the authority you
>>will ever come face to face with or have recourse through or
>>be prosecuted by is that of the states.
>
>As it should be.
>
>But that does not have anything to do with the issue of whether or not states
>are accurately labeled sovereign.
Then prove the Supreme Court is wrong to say so, Erb.
>>And the increasing power of the federal government has not
>>changed that, mostly because it is extremely difficult for it
>>to do so. And for that we should thank our lucky stars, and
>>the Framers, who chose wisely when they gave the federal
>>government limited and enumerated powers.
>
>Agreed.
>
>Yet that does not have anything to do with the issue of whether or not states
>are accurately labeled sovereign.
Then prove the Supreme Court is wrong to say so, Erb.
>>*Yes,* that's popular sovereignty, which I've
>>repeatedly alluded to in this discussion, and
>>here again presented in the context of the
>>discussion of how sovereignty came to be
>>divided in the United States between the
>>states and the federal government.
>
>No, sovereignty is not divided. Sovereignty rests in the entire collective
>United States of America. The powers associated with sovereignty are divided,
>and that division can change. Every sovereign country divides powers; in some
>places, like Russia, many of the actual powers seem outside of government
>hands and in mafias and the like. But there is only one sovereign state
>according to really all current definitions, and certainly the ones Milt and I
>posted.
Typical Erb, undocumented assertion.
>>You go on to claim, mercurially, in the sections below
>>(which I've deleted out of mercy) that some of these
>>defintions of sovereignty are too old, that I have refused
>>to pay attention to the historical meaning of sovereignty,
>>which you earlier proclaimed to be definitive, and that
>>your and Milt's definitions, over and against these scholars,
>>the Supreme Court, the historical facts, and the very
>
>You're lying Milt. I've always focused on the current definition, and
Typical Erb, accusing opponents of lying, Typical.
>explained *how it developed* historically, how it *changed* over time. That
>was to help *teach* you a bit about the concept. Your response was that you
Typical Erb, He claims he's already proved his points. More bluster.
>were not interested in the historical development of the concept. I agree
>with your points about much of the historical debate, and found the quotes
>interesting, but they are NOT definitive of what sovereignty means, and how it
>applies in the current context.
Typical Erb, undocumented assertion.
>>structure of the country in which you live, are more
>>modern and therefore correct. Now I expect you to
>>go on at some length about how none of this is
>>contradictory because you've connected the original
>>meaning with the modern meaning and thereby
>>eliminated the "old meaning" that, what, came
>>in between?
>
>Now, I've noted, with the cite from *Beyond Westphalia* that the original
>idea, going back to Grotius, has evolved. I've also noted that all the
>"facts" about the American system are in line with the argument Milt makes,
>and I make, about how the component states are not sovereign, but are able to
Typical Erb, He says he's proven something he hasn't.
>exercise some sovereign powers. You've tried to obfuscate around this, and
>your insults and abuse has apparently got Milt to decide you aren't worth
>debating with. I suspect thats your goal -- if you can insult, intimidate,
>and abuse, then people will give up, and you can state victory. Am I right?
>Well, I think people are smarter than that. In this case you are so hung up
>and trying to win a battle of what definition is right, you don't even go into
>discussing the actual issues.
Typical Erb, ad hominem. More Erb bluster.
>>I feel very sorry for you, but I just cannot give you the
>>micro-attention that you need. And I can't give it to
>>you because it won't do any good.
Typical Erb bluster
>(smile) A classic example of your style, Martin. Do you think it really
>impresses anyone?
Typical Erb bluster.
Ace
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>In article <QyP54.10065$W2.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net>, cay...@nyct.net
>says...
>
>>A sorry, sorry response. The Constitution, written by
>>the states and ratified by the people within each state,
>>does not *grant* rights. It apportions powers, and in
>>the Bill of Rights *forbids* the federal government
>>from exercising its legislative power to encroach upon
>>the freedom of individuals by establishing a national
>>religion or limiting the practice of religion or of speech.
>
>In most circles one would say that this grants the right to bear arms, the
>right to free speech, the right to choose a religion, rights that don't exist
>in many other countries without those guarantees. And, of course, it applies
>to state governments as well as federal governments.
Ah tell me, Erb what about the Bill of Rights prohibiting the
government from doing something that you don't understand? Every
single one except for the seventh is a clearly worded restriction on
the government's control over an individual.
>Ah, yes, but Martin-speak focuses on argument by definition, defining terms
>away from conventional usage in order to try to save a dying argument.
Erb is pathetic. It's he that is trying to establish insignificant
points to save his face. He can't even do that well.
Ace
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:38:27 -0500, "cayenne" <cay...@nyct.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Scott D. Erb wrote in message <838ehc$mm3$1...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
>>>In article <3857bb65...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
>>linde...@osu.edu
>>>says...
>>>
>>>> The Constitution does not grant rights to the
>>>>citizens.
>>>
>>>Ah, so individuals have no right to bear arms?
>>>
>>>OK, if you say so.
>>
>>
>>A sorry, sorry response. The Constitution, written by
>>the states and ratified by the people within each state,
>>does not *grant* rights. It apportions powers, and in
>>the Bill of Rights *forbids* the federal government
>>from exercising its legislative power to encroach upon
>>the freedom of individuals by establishing a national
>>religion or limiting the practice of religion or of speech.
>>
>>These are not rights *granted* by the government; they
>>are prohibitions *on* the government.
>
>And in what are are the enumerations of powers "prohitions on the
>government"? You right wing bozos really can't think.
Gezz, Zepp, he was talking about the Bill of Rights. Don't you even
know there are no enumerations of power in the Bill of Rights? You
are a dumb one.
Ace
SemiScholar
Odd - you left the part in where he says explicitly "The
Constitution". He then later specifically mentions the BoR, but the
paragraph seems to me to be talking about the Constitution in general,
especially the part about the apportionment of power.
Also, note that the BoR is _part_ of the Constitution.
- SemiScholar
Steve Canyon
>On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:23:45 GMT, cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com
>(Steve Canyon) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 14:56:10 GMT, Milt <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <385f4aa0...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>> cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com (Steve Canyon) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Unsubstantiated?? Here's my argument;
>>>
>>>A state cannot declare war.
>>>A state cannot coin money.
>>>A state cannot negotiate a treaty.
>>>A state cannot regulate trade.
>>>A state cannot have a standing army.
>>>A state cannot secure its borders.
>>>A state must honor relationships created by every other state.
>>>ALL state laws are reviewable by federal courts.
>>>All cases decided by state courts can be appealed to a federal court.
>>>All diversity cases must be tried in federal court, no matter which
>>>state the crime/harm occurred.
>>>
>>>These are all characteristics of what you claim is a sovereign. Please
>>
>>Like I've and asked and asked again. Prove these thing are in any way
>>related to sovereignty.
>
>They sound like a pretty good working definition to me. What is
>_your_ definition of sovereignty?
My definition isn't the point. The point is that Milt needs to
substantiate that the list is essential to sovereignty.
>You guys seem to be arguing about pedantic definitions in a binary
>mode. It seems pretty obvious that the States retain some elements of
>sovereignty and do not retain others. It's not an either/or
>proposition.
Hey, guess what, nobody gives a rat's behind about your opinions
either.
Ace
Milt
"cayenne" <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>
> Scott D. Erb wrote in message <838e28$mhv$1...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
> >In article <YwO54.10024$W2.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
cay...@nyct.net
> >says...
> >
> >>I haven't been discussing the "history of sovereignty," per se, Mr.
Dodge.
> >
> >Nice dodge, but my point is that the development of sovereignty
explains
> >current usage and definitions.
>
> that I posted on how sovereignty was dealt with when the
> United States was created by the states in 1787.
This isn't 1787, and the "primer" reflects the opinion of one person.
Please explain to us why YOU think that a state, which has no power to
enter into treaties, regulate trade, declare or wage war, keep a
standing army, coin money, and the laws of which are reviewable by the
feds, is a sovereign. Never mind relying on misunderstanding what other
people wrote. Think for yourself, and then back it up. I have. Scott
has. You've chosen to take the lazy way out, whihc has actually
resulted in a lot of material that actually contradicts your position...
>
> >
> >>I've been discussing the nature of the divided sovereignty as
> >>established in the United States, by the states, with the creation
> >>of the Constitution.
> >
> >But the point is that by trying to ignore the real definition of the
term
> (and
> >Milt has provided many examples, and I've added some context), you
are
> trying
> >to simply make sovereignty appear as something it is not, something
that is
> >solely defined in terms of the American constitution. However, even
there
> >your argument fails.
>
> You know, quite frankly, it is an abrogation of all common sense and
> integrity to even suggest that I have ever attempted to define
*sovereignty*
> "solely...in terms of the American constitution." It's not only just
not so,
> it's beyond my imagination as to how you could be so utterly and
> contemptibly stupid as to say it.
Right. You haven't defined it in ANY way. You simply keep pointing to
usages, and proclaiming that, because some people use the word, it must
be valid. Talk about your intellectual lightweights...
> Your premise being, again, without foundation, I'll just let you go
back
> and re-read that which I've written and see if you can straighten
yourself
> out. But I doubt that.
>
> The word "sovereignty" is of modern vintage, but it has application
> to all eras of political history (the English princes exacted
guarantees
> from the sovereignty of the King, for instance, with Magna Carta,
which
> is the beginning of the legal tradition of the rights of Englishmen).
What
> I've been discussing is the way that the concept of sovereignty--the
> ultimate law-making power--was treated in the creation of the United
> States by the individual states, how that ultimate law-making power
> was divided, not heirarchically, but between spheres, areas of
> concern, and how each state retains a distinct sovereignty over
> and against the federal government, which has limited powers in
> its sphere of sovereignty.
But all of the above is a fiction in actuality. Power is not "divided
into spheres". Power IS hierarchical in nature. ALL law-making power,
ultimately, rests in Congress, since the minute Congress makes a law
regarding a subject matter, all state laws that conflict with it are
null and void. ALL decisions in case law are reviewable, no mater how
minor. All encroachments into state territory must be solved by the
federal government. If a Washington apple grower has a trade problem,
the feds, not the state, get to solve it for him. You keep treating
states as though they were equal with the federal government, and that
is simply untrue. The supremacy clause alone puts that to rest. It IS a
hierarchy, and the federal government IS the sovereign. States are
given a few sovereign powers, but the fact that the governor of
Connecticut can't go to Panama and discuss a trade agreement to sell
Connecticut cider to Panamanians, ought to give you a clue. Not only
can't they; they are forbidden from it.
>The states and the federal government
> are each supreme within their spheres, and when those spheres collide,
> as they sometimes do, the federal sphere takes precedence,
Making it sovereign. DUH!
> but, again, that is a situational supremacy, not a hierarchical
> one, and that supremacy is indeed a reference to *those*
> *specific* *powers* which the states themselves have
> delegated to the national government, not the other way around.
Okay, if it's a "situational supremacy" then you should have no trouble
coming up with five situations or cases in which state sovereignty is
apparent. Police powers is a gimme. Find five more. Go for it. Since
they are sovereign in "different spheres", that should be easy, right??
And then tell us how that creates a sovereign out of a state that can't
even pass a law without it being potentially subject to review by the
federal courts...
>
> Now, this is not simply a theoretical construction, but an actual
> description of the way the United States operate as a sovereign
> union of sovereign states.
Only in your fictional world.
> And in that union, the states, not the
> federal government, retain the bulk of sovereign power.
The BULK of sovereign power? Name five sovereign powers, besides police
power, that states have.
>"The states
> make the law."
Only the law within their state. Of course, if the feds don't like it,
it's history...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
SemiScholar
(Steve Canyon) wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 14:56:10 GMT, Milt <mi...@law.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <385f4aa0...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com (Steve Canyon) wrote:
>>
>>Unsubstantiated?? Here's my argument;
>>
>>A state cannot declare war.
>>A state cannot coin money.
>>A state cannot negotiate a treaty.
>>A state cannot regulate trade.
>>A state cannot have a standing army.
>>A state cannot secure its borders.
>>A state must honor relationships created by every other state.
>>ALL state laws are reviewable by federal courts.
>>All cases decided by state courts can be appealed to a federal court.
>>All diversity cases must be tried in federal court, no matter which
>>state the crime/harm occurred.
>>
>>These are all characteristics of what you claim is a sovereign. Please
>
>Like I've and asked and asked again. Prove these thing are in any way
>related to sovereignty.
They sound like a pretty good working definition to me. What is
_your_ definition of sovereignty?
You guys seem to be arguing about pedantic definitions in a binary
mode. It seems pretty obvious that the States retain some elements of
sovereignty and do not retain others. It's not an either/or
proposition.
- SemiScholar