Wilfred the Hairy? Man, gotta love those old European names.
They didn’t actually call him that at the time, though, did they? Did they actually call Alexander the Great the equivalent of “the Great” when he was alive?
U.S. states have very limited sovereignty, when push comes to shove. All public officials at all levels of government are required to swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which is explicitly described as “the supreme law of the land.” There is obviously an ongoing debate (and has been since 1787) as to the extent of Federal power compared to state power, but despite some pushback by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years, the Federal government will still prevail in most cases when a state says “You’re not the boss of me,” especially on issues which have an impact across state lines.
One reason they can is a traditionally wide interpretation of the commerce clause, which gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states. Some would suggest that it has been used as a very blunt tool, and in ways which the framers never intended.
They can also withhold federal funds without explicitly denying the states the right to legislate in ways other than the feds would like. For instance, the nationwide “double nickel” during the 70s gas crisis, or the current 21 year old drinking age. Those items are ostensibly regulated by the states, but the feds said “If you don’t do what we want, we’ll reduce your highway funds.”.
A state within the US is sovereign in one important aspect–it has the unilateral right (with some restrictions) to modify its constitution. The federal government of the US does not have that power; it is dependent on the states to make changes.
This is not unimportant. All the sovereign powers that the US enjoys can be reclaimed by the states for themselves, with the federal government unable to prevent it.
How would that work? Can Rhode Island say, "We are no longer participating in the US Navy; we are starting our own navy.
Two-thirds of the state legislatures call a constitutional convention, propose an amendment “The States may maintain their own Navies”, and three-quarters of the states ratify it.
Ah, okay, they have to do it as a group then. That’s what I thought.
Therefore a single state cannot unilaterally do this. It requires a nationwide vote of 75%.
The problem with this is that it’s not at all easy to subdivide England into meaningful political communities. And even the first tentative step towards doing this failed, with the voters in a 2004 referendum overwhelmingly rejecting regional devolution for the North-East.
The vast majority of people in England have no interest in “devolution” for England, whether as a whole or by region. I can’t see that ever changing, which means we’re going to be stuck with the peculiar lop-sided system we have in the UK, until perhaps Northern Ireland becomes part of the Republic of Ireland, and until perhaps Scotland becomes independent of the UK; by which point, if we ever get there, there won’t even be a UK.
Another factor is that the English don’t generally have much of a taste for fundamental constitutional reform. Other than the democratisation of the franchise over the past 180 years, major constitutional change has pretty much only ever happened in reaction to specific events (or rather crises). The main exception to that generalisation is the bundle of reforms put through by Blair’s government; and even then, the changes made weren’t part of a particularly cohesive vision of what the UK’s constitution should be, but rather were a set of individual solutions to individual problems or issues.
Guifre el Vellut or el Pilòs, first count of Barcelona, was himself a vassal of Charlemagne, was much earlier than the previous period you gave and was not overlord over the other Catalan counts of the time. He did have several fiefdoms but there were other Counts who were not his vassals.
And yes Sunspace, they did call him hairy to his face. Dude was like a bear only shorter and more amenable to cooked food. It wasn’t any more offensive than telling an NBA player “my, you’re a tall one!”
Nava, you’ve been hanging out with too many gnomes…
They don’t even need a constitutional amendment for that - five states have active naval militias right now: Naval militia - Wikipedia. Opting, as a state, out of participation in the U.S. Navy, or having an independent blue-water naval power, would be a much trickier matter.
You know why major sports venues have taken to hring, as timekeepers, very short men dressed in the most faddish of contemporary designer fashion, don’t you?
Because they’re naturals at it, since they’re metro-gnomes.
I think you misunderstand. A state can (and some often do) unilaterally change its own constitution. The US cannot unilaterally change its own constitution–it must get the consent of the states. And the states can change the US constitution without the consent of the US.
groan
Heh…the reason I said that to her is that in World of Warcraft, one of the stock phrases that non-player character gnomes use is, “My, you’re a tall one!” If you play Alliance (the faction that gnomes belong to) and therefore interact with a fair number of NPC gnomes, you hear that phrase a LOT…
Nope; you’re misunderstanding me if you thought I said that a state could not change its own laws and constitution. I said a state cannot unilaterally change the US constitution to allow itself powers limited to sovereign nations.
The states are, in effect, the electorate of the nation called the USA.
A state cannot unilaterally decide to build a navy and declare war on Poland. The fact that it - like any town, county, province, city, etc. on the planet - can change its local laws (whether they choose to call them a “constitution” or not) is irrelevant. What it cannot do, unilaterally, is conduct the affairs limited only to sovereign nations - namely treaties and warfare. An EU nation, however, can do these things. That is the difference between a nation and a state (as opposed, of course, to a State).
Ah, okay, then there’s no disagreement.
True. But also note that the states within EU can do something that the US cannot do–change their own constitutions. In that respect, the US is more like the EU then the states within the EU. Sovereignty is not all-or-nothing; it is a set of powers. The states within the EU have ceded some powers to the EU, things like guarantees of human rights and some economic regulation. States within the US have ceded much more, but they still retain the ultimate power to (collectively) determine who has which powers.
That is, although the states within the US cannot currently declare war or make treaties, they could if they chose to reclaim those powers. And the US would not be able to prevent the states from reclaiming those powers.
Yes; but the vital ones are the ability to make treaties and declare war. Without *those *powers, there is no sovereign entity. Other powers may be negotiable, but those two powers pretty much define sovereignty.
Not unilaterally they couldn’t. Oregon can’t decide to just reclaim those powers.
Whereas EU countries can withdraw from treaties at any time. France could decide tomorrow to ignore the EU (it wouldn’t, because it’s not in its interests).
That is a very limited view of sovereignty. Sovereignty is not just about relations between sovereigns, it’s also about exercising power within a jurisdiction. I consider the latter more important, in terms of what affects the lives of people within a jurisdiction. The US has limited sovereignty. The states within it also have limited sovereignty, but they decide what the limits are, not the US.
No, not unilaterally, but it can. Do the departments within France have any legal mechanism for taking powers from France? I do not believe they do. Any sovereignty a department has is dependent on what France gives it. On the other hand, the sovereign powers that the US has is dependent on what the states give it. The US can neither take powers nor give them up, only the states can do that.
And France can change its own constitution, while the US cannot.