"Although the Constitution establishes a National Government with broad, often plenary authority over matters within its recognized competence, the founding document "specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities." Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, supra, at 71, n. 15; accord, Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775, 779 (1991) ("[T]he States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact"). Various textual provisions of the Constitution assume the States' continued existence and active participation in the fundamental processes of governance. See Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898, 919 (1997) (citing Art. III, § 2; Art. IV, §§ 2-4; Art. V). The limited and enumerated powers granted to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the National Government, moreover, underscore the vital role reserved to the States by the constitutional design, see, e. g., Art. I, § 8; Art. II, §§ 2-3; Art. III, § 2. Any doubt regarding the constitutional role of the States as sovereign entities is removed by the Tenth Amendment, which, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, was enacted to allay lingering concerns about the extent of the national power. The Amendment confirms the promise implicit in the original document: "The 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." U. S. Const., Amdt. 10; see also Printz, supra, at 919; New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 156159, 177 (1992).
The federal system established by our Constitution preserves the sovereign status of the States in two ways. First, it reserves to them a substantial portion of the N ation's primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status. The States "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, p. 245 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison).
"Second, even as to matters within the competence of the National Government, the constitutional design secures the founding generation's rejection of "the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States" in favor of "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.'" Printz, supra, at 919-920 (quoting The Federalist No. 15, at 109); accord, New York, supra, at 166 ("The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States"). In this the Founders achieved a deliberate departure from the Articles of Confederation: Experience under the Articles had "exploded on all hands" the "practicality of making laws, with coercive sanctions, for the States as political bodies." 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 9 (M. Farrand ed. 1911) (J. Madison); accord, The Federalist No. 20, at 138 (J. Madison and A. Hamilton); James Iredell: Some Objections to the Constitution Answered, reprinted in 3 Annals of America 249 (1976).
"The States thus retain "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." The Federalist No. 39, at 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."
This is a fine debate tactic — dumping a load of text without the proper context. But I’m not debating here. I’m plainly stating the fact that US states are not sovereign entities. In practical terms, there is no such thing as a semi-sovereign entity.
Folks have provided great information. It's up to you to decide to accept the facts or continue to double down on your private worldview, but it won't serve you well to be ignorant of the facts here.
You and that other guy made good points from a constitutional law standpoint, don’t misunderstand my disagreement for dismissal of any kind.
A legal term of art is often a bit different than the basic word itself. From a legal term of art perspective, I’m essentially referencing “absolute sovereignty”, which would more closely mirror the actual dictionary definition of sovereignty, as a basic, contextless word.
I would just say that we should be mindful that the legal definition is how things are implemented in practice as well - states exercise their sovereign rights on a daily basis because the exercise of those rights is the exercise of an interpretation of law.
Related to your point about absolute sovereignty I wouldn't disagree with you at all, but I would say that, and I'm not accusing you of doing this by any means, we should be mindful not to shift the goalposts and attempt to depress the meaning and significance of sovereignty just because an entity isn't also absolutely sovereign.
It seems disingenuous, or at least antisocial, to insist that you are correct about a broad and unqualified statement you made while also declaring that you meant something narrower all along.
It's completely genuine, and it's obvious that I was referring to the basic meaning of the word the entire time to even a casual observer. Ascribing malice seems a bit irrational to me.
It is a mistake to think that what you believe is "obvious" is obvious to everyone else, and that people agree on a "basic meaning" of words that aren't used in everyday conversation. (Observe and count the number of times the word "sovereignty" comes up in conversation in your daily life.)
I never ascribe malice to anyone who makes an honest mistake and doesn’t continue to double down when corrected, insisting they’re right or that they meant something else and everyone should have understood them somehow. There are lots of smart people here from all backgrounds and it’s good to defer to others who are better informed about a subject (and I’m no exception).
I agree with this, I'm thinking more along the line of debate mistake. I make them, I always invite corrections and I think the willingness to speak on terms of your debate opponent smooths the debate process. Sometimes it does get a bit impractical, heh debating libertarians often involves learning whole new versions of english lol
Still I think you will be more successful if you put forward your caveat on definitions ahead of time, nothing is to be gained during a debate by preemptively declaring your victory, so if I were to suggest improvements to rhetoric, I'd examine my own use of "the fact is that" type things and make sure that what I describe during these uses are indeed facts agreed upon by the debate participants.
Like if I were a libertarian, instead of declaring taxation is theft, I would offer a "wouldn't you agree" and this way we debate participants share a goal of honing in to the fundamental disagreement at stake and I can tell you in my experiences it often comes down to a lack of shared values instead of facts in dispute.
> the founding document "specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities."
it was a small load of text easily digested, and the word "sovereign" is right there in it very early on. Your argument would be better accepted if you tossed in that you disagree with the characterization and have an opinion what YOU think sovereign entities are. Declarations of fact should only be used when what you are declaring is indeed a fact.
>In practical terms, there is no such thing as a semi-sovereign entity.
According to the text you're replying to, this is also untrue. In the future, I would recommend something like "while the 10th amendment talks about states being sovereign entities, in practical terms the federal government has jurisdiction over some matters involving states" or something like that. Its fine to voice opinions, but declaring your opinions "fact", well good luck with that hehehe
See, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/706/
"Although the Constitution establishes a National Government with broad, often plenary authority over matters within its recognized competence, the founding document "specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities." Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, supra, at 71, n. 15; accord, Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775, 779 (1991) ("[T]he States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact"). Various textual provisions of the Constitution assume the States' continued existence and active participation in the fundamental processes of governance. See Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898, 919 (1997) (citing Art. III, § 2; Art. IV, §§ 2-4; Art. V). The limited and enumerated powers granted to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the National Government, moreover, underscore the vital role reserved to the States by the constitutional design, see, e. g., Art. I, § 8; Art. II, §§ 2-3; Art. III, § 2. Any doubt regarding the constitutional role of the States as sovereign entities is removed by the Tenth Amendment, which, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, was enacted to allay lingering concerns about the extent of the national power. The Amendment confirms the promise implicit in the original document: "The 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." U. S. Const., Amdt. 10; see also Printz, supra, at 919; New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 156159, 177 (1992). The federal system established by our Constitution preserves the sovereign status of the States in two ways. First, it reserves to them a substantial portion of the N ation's primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status. The States "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, p. 245 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison).
"Second, even as to matters within the competence of the National Government, the constitutional design secures the founding generation's rejection of "the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States" in favor of "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.'" Printz, supra, at 919-920 (quoting The Federalist No. 15, at 109); accord, New York, supra, at 166 ("The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States"). In this the Founders achieved a deliberate departure from the Articles of Confederation: Experience under the Articles had "exploded on all hands" the "practicality of making laws, with coercive sanctions, for the States as political bodies." 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 9 (M. Farrand ed. 1911) (J. Madison); accord, The Federalist No. 20, at 138 (J. Madison and A. Hamilton); James Iredell: Some Objections to the Constitution Answered, reprinted in 3 Annals of America 249 (1976).
"The States thus retain "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." The Federalist No. 39, at 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."