View Single Post
  #103  
Old 06-04-2019, 01:39 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think it's a nice sounding slogan. But true dual sovereignty can't exist in reality. Two individual organizations can't be equally in charge of the same thing. There are going to be irreconcilable decisions and one organization has to have the final say. If it's not clear beforehand, there will be a crisis the first time such an irreconcilable situation arises which will be resolved either by one side conceded supremacy to the other or by the two sides splitting apart and establishing separate sovereignties.
Where are you getting this? Sovereign may identify overall authority or it may refer to an authority that is limited in its influence. It is absolutely true that the Federal government has ultimate authority, but even then there are limitations on what it may do in regard to the states. (E.g., when Congress decided that the country needed a 55 m.p.h. speed limit to save gas, it had to use the back door approach of threatening to withhold financial support to states that did not go along with the idea. The Feds did not begin setting speed limits.) And there are a number of Articles and Amendments that were not originally applied to the states until later. (E.g., four states continued to have established religions after the adoption of the Bill of Rights and several more had laws favoring religions weill into the 19th century.)
Demanding that there can be only one type of sovereignty is simply not real in either daily usage or Law.

And your "by the people argument" falls in the face of the actual history of the ratification of the Constitution in which only one state held an actual referendum while the others held conventions using a republican format. (It is interesting to read the occasionally coercive methods used to get the votes, as well.)