Is the United States of America a country, like, say, France?
Or is it a treaty organization, like the Commonwealth of Nations?
It’s one or the other.
If it’s a treaty organization, why do I have a Selective Service card?
It’s a country like any other.
It’s sort of a rebellious little child of Great Brittan, with the aspirations of a commonwealth that failed miserably and is now suffering as a nation.
Why do you think the US is a treaty organization? States in treaty organizations do not give up sovereignty. The states ratifying the Constitution did.
It was something like a treaty organization once. That was the Confederation.
Congress of the Confederation - Wikipedia It failed.
It hain’t been one for nigh three hunnerd years.
Oh, no, Bricker tells me the states are sovereign.
And I’m thinking, no, the national government is in Washington. DC, not Jefferson City or Oklahoma City or Albany. To say the states are sovereign & the federal government is just a federation is to denigrate my national government as I understand it.
Is this a left/right thing, a regional thing, or a common understanding versus legal definition thing? Help me out here.
If the states are sovereign, that implies that I’m an Oklahoman because I was born in Tulsa, & I don’t want to be an Oklahoman.
It is a country – that is to say, a nation-state like France, not an idea-state like the old USSR, which ceased to make sense when people stopped believing in the idea. America under a completely different system of government would still be America. Since 1789, France has been through five monarchies, five republics, and a period of foreign occupation/fascist rule, yet France remains France. China remained the same nation through many dynasties of emperors, foreign conquests, republic, Communism – even when it was divided into warring states, it was still one national culture and civilization.
Germany has a federal system of government (modeled on the U.S.). That does not mean Germany is not a country, nor that it would be a different country under a unitary system.
States are sovereign, and the federal government is sovereign. The United States has a federal system of government, which means that both the states and the national government share sovereignty.
I’ve seen it described as “a uniquely American system of parallel sovereignty.”
Treaty is to friendship as country is to one of those marriages that only ends in murder or natural death. We’re a country. 
Mostly it’s a right wing thing I think. That’s where the people who talk about State’s Rights (as long as the idea works in their favor) and who think that Federal law can be ignored tend to be concentrated.
That states enjoy a degree of sovereignty is not a “right wing” thing, it’s a fundamental concept that underpins the Constitution of the United States and the way the country is run. It doesn’t matter where you are on the political spectrum, it’s a fact.
And it has nothing to do with “State’s Rights.” States don’t have rights, they have powers.
But we’re not a country like France, per the OP.
No, it’s not one or the other. We have a federal system, which many countries don’t have.
It’s not uniquely American. There are many federations around the world. In particular, Australia is a federation where the states have a similar amount of sovereignty to the states of the US.
The United States is a country. The national government is sovereign over the states. The fact that state rights supporters quote the Tenth Amendment demonstrates this - if the states were actually sovereign over the national government, they’d be citing their state constitutions as authoritative.
foolsguinea, how did you live however many years you have lived and not understand that states in the United States are sovereign?
And now, apparently struggling with this concept, you appear to advance the idea that if the states are sovereign, then the federal government can’t be.
No. The federal government is also sovereign, and in fact supremely sovereign in its bailiwick. Where the federal government has power, it is supreme. But although its power is supreme where it has power, its power is not plenary. Plenary is a word meaning absolute or unqualified.
The states, on the other hand, have plenary power.
This is a basic civics fact, taught in pretty much every American high school’s freshman civics class. So far as I am aware, it is not disputed by any serious analyst on the left, in the center, or on the right.
It’s insensible.
And it must be changed.
I’ve seen what state governments are like. I don’t want them to have plenary power. They’re a bunch of amateurs & punks. How can this even be tolerable?
So we need to dismantle the federal system in the United States, abandon the current constitution, and draft a new constitution and adopt a new form of government right quick?
So you’re calling for a constitutional convention, then?
Yes, but I think all but Switzerland, and maybe the UAE and Malaysia, were heavily influenced in their formation by the U.S. model. The U.S. proved to the world that a big republic was possible, if the federal system were used, and showed how it could work. Up to then all republics had been small countries like the Netherlands (itself a federation), or city-states.