Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal Gov

[The_Patriot]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

The implementation of the Real ID Act has been extended to 2011. Currently, it's constitutionality is being questioned and a potential repeal is in the works. As of now, though several states have stated that they will not implement it, if it is not repealed, they will not have much of a choice.

Also, I think President Andrew Jackson said it well: "I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed."

Actually, the states do have a choice since they can refuse to implement a federal law and there is nothing the federal government can do about it. Get enough states to resist it and the federal government can do nothing since they do not have the manpower to enforce it. There were states like Utah that passed nullification of No Child Left Behind and they haven't complied with federal law.

I'll trump Andrew "Genocidal Maniac" Jackson with the Constitution. I give you Article I Section VIII Clauses XVII-XVIII, Article IV Section III Clause II, and the Tenth Amendment.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

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.

Article I Section VIII Clauses XVII-XVIII limits the jurisdiction of where Congress can pass laws to only the territories and possessions owned by the federal government. The federal government does not own the states. Article IV Section III Clause II makes it clear that Congress cannot pass a law, regulation, or rule that prejudices the claim of a state since jurisdiction applies to the states inside of their borders. This is backed up by the fact that every state has their own Constitution, Civil Law, and Criminal Law that is in no way uniform. The only time federal law is used is when something occurs on federal territories, possesions, and buildings. The Tenth Amendment clearly states that if the states are not prohibited by the Constitution then they are free to use the powers they have within their state borders.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

Actually, the states do have a choice since they can refuse to implement a federal law and there is nothing the federal government can do about it. Get enough states to resist it and the federal government can do nothing since they do not have the manpower to enforce it. There were states like Utah that passed nullification of No Child Left Behind and they haven't complied with federal law.

I'll trump Andrew "Genocidal Maniac" Jackson with the Constitution. I give you Article I Section VIII Clauses XVII-XVIII, Article IV Section III Clause II, and the Tenth Amendment.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

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.

Article I Section VIII Clauses XVII-XVIII limits the jurisdiction of where Congress can pass laws to only the territories and possessions owned by the federal government. The federal government does not own the states. Article IV Section III Clause II makes it clear that Congress cannot pass a law, regulation, or rule that prejudices the claim of a state since jurisdiction applies to the states inside of their borders. This is backed up by the fact that every state has their own Constitution, Civil Law, and Criminal Law that is in no way uniform. The only time federal law is used is when something occurs on federal territories, possesions, and buildings. The Tenth Amendment clearly states that if the states are not prohibited by the Constitution then they are free to use the powers they have within their state borders.

Here we go again. You want a list of cases and situations that show that nullification is not constitutional? Jackson stated it in 1832, and he was an avowed Jeffersonian. IN Knox v. Lee, SCOTUS clearly identified the US as NOT a compact, but a government constituted by the people. Justice Strong said, "The Constitution was intended to frame a government as distinguished from a league or compact, a government supreme in some particulars over states and people." SCOTUS remained consistent with this in Cooper v. Aaron. Further, the Supremacy Clause (Article VI Clause 2) covers this quite neatly:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment also covers this:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Both of these indicate that laws of the federal government are supreme to the states. EDGAR V. MITE CORP shows this nicely. SCOTUS ruled that, "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." EDGAR V. MITE CORP also referenced many other decisions throughout the history of the US that concurred with this decision, as SCOTUS used a lot of precedence towards rendering this decision.

The Constitution, a former President, and many SCOTUS cases show that nullification is not constitutional.

Links used in this post:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/79/457/case.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=358&page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_v._Aaron

 

[The_Patriot]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

Here we go again. You want a list of cases and situations that show that nullification is not constitutional? Jackson stated it in 1832, and he was an avowed Jeffersonian. IN Knox v. Lee, SCOTUS clearly identified the US as NOT a compact, but a government constituted by the people. Justice Strong said, "The Constitution was intended to frame a government as distinguished from a league or compact, a government supreme in some particulars over states and people." SCOTUS remained consistent with this in Cooper v. Aaron. Further, the Supremacy Clause (Article VI Clause 2) covers this quite neatly:

The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment also covers this:

Both of these indicate that laws of the federal government are supreme to the states. EDGAR V. MITE CORP shows this nicely. SCOTUS ruled that, "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." EDGAR V. MITE CORP also referenced many other decisions throughout the history of the US that concurred with this decision, as SCOTUS used a lot of precedence towards rendering this decision.

The Constitution, a former President, and many SCOTUS cases show that nullification is not constitutional.

Links used in this post:
LEGAL TENDER CASES, 79 U. S. 457 :: Volume 79 :: 1870 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Cooper v. Aaron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Appeal to authority by citing the Supreme Court instead of an honest discussion. Care to actually form an opinion of your own or do you let the Supreme Court do all of your thinking for you?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

Appeal to authority by citing the Supreme Court instead of an honest discussion. Care to actually form an opinion of your own or do you let the Supreme Court do all of your thinking for you?

I have presented my position and then backed it with evidence... that's what I posted is called... evidence. You know... the stuff that I post that refutes everything you post. I know you hate when I do that because it renders your position null and void, but it seems to be my job around here to do so.

By the way, I also cited the Constitution. I know that you only like the parts of it that you agree with, but all parts apply. Now, do you actually have a reasonable rebuttal, or do you plan on conceding?

And btw, you do not know what the appeal to authority logical fallacy is. SCOTUS IS the authority on Constitutional law. Therefore, the fallacy does not exist in this case. It would if I claimed that Albert Einstein said I was correct, since he is not an authority on the Constitution.

Checkmate.

 

[The_Patriot]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

I have presented my position and then backed it with evidence... that's what I posted is called... evidence. You know... the stuff that I post that refutes everything you post. I know you hate when I do that because it renders your position null and void, but it seems to be my job around here to do so.

By the way, I also cited the Constitution. I know that you only like the parts of it that you agree with, but all parts apply. Now, do you actually have a reasonable rebuttal, or do you plan on conceding?

And btw, you do not know what the appeal to authority logical fallacy is. SCOTUS IS the authority on Constitutional law. Therefore, the fallacy does not exist in this case. It would if I claimed that Albert Einstein said I was correct, since he is not an authority on the Constitution.

Checkmate.

First off Justice Strong is wrong and contradicts what James Madison, the author of the Constitution, said. Madison states in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, "That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."

James Madison also said in Federalist #43, "And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in the cession, will be derived from the whole people of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated."

Wait this is what Thomas Jefferson had to say in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, "Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

I also give you Article VIII Clause I which establishes that the United States is a compact of states, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison>Justice Strong.

Justice Strong was a firm believer in a strong central government and in his ruling ignored the text of the Constitution and the writings of the founding fathers. He also served on the Supreme Court almost one hundred years after the Constitution was ratified. I would consider him to be a secondary source and not a primary therefore he is invalid under the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Use a founding father next time to support your position. Also, your cite of the Supremacy Clause states that the Constitution of the United States is supreme and that is not in disagreement. The Constitution of the United States makes it clear that the federal government cannot pass laws that affect inside of the borders of the states. Therefore, your cite of the Supremacy Clause only reinforces my argument not yours. You were saying about destroying my position? :lamo

 

[Your Star]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

To answer the OP. Neither, the people created both.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

First off Justice Strong is wrong and contradicts what James Madison, the author of the Constitution. Madison states in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, "That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."

Justice Strong was a firm believer in a strong central government and in his ruling ignored the text of the Constitution and the writings of the founding fathers. He also served on the Supreme Court almost one hundred years after the Constitution was ratified. I would consider him to be a secondary source and not a primary therefore he is invalid under the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Use a founding father next time to support your position. Also, your cite of the Supremacy Clause states that the Constitution of the United States is supreme and that is not in disagreement. The Constitution of the United States makes it clear that the federal government cannot pass laws that affect inside of the borders of the states. Therefore, your cite of the Supremacy Clause only reinforces my argument not yours. You were saying about destroying my position? :lamo

It is the job of SCOTUS to apply the Constitution to situations that arise. Hamilton, Madison, and Marshall all affirmed this in a variety of ways. Both the Supremacy Clause and the 14th Amendment have validated my position, as have a whole host of case law throughout the centuries. You have offered nothing to back your position. The test of a position is does it stand up over time, under a variety of circumstances. This is how things get validated. My position fulfills this test. Yours does not.

Also, the Virginia Resolution of 1798 is not part of the Constitution and was nothing but a resolution by Virginia in regards to the Alien and Sedition Acts... Acts that were allowed to lapse in 1801 and would most certainly been declared unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment. This voids your argument using the Virginia Resolution, since it fought something that was unconstitutional anyway.

No, I have cited the Constitution and backed it with centuries of case law. You have produced nil.

 

[The_Patriot]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

It is the job of SCOTUS to apply the Constitution to situations that arise. Hamilton, Madison, and Marshall all affirmed this in a variety of ways. Both the Supremacy Clause and the 14th Amendment have validated my position, as have a whole host of case law throughout the centuries. You have offered nothing to back your position. The test of a position is does it stand up over time, under a variety of circumstances. This is how things get validated. My position fulfills this test. Yours does not.

Also, the Virginia Resolution of 1798 is not part of the Constitution and was nothing but a resolution by Virginia in regards to the Alien and Sedition Acts... Acts that were allowed to lapse in 1801 and would most certainly been declared unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment. This voids your argument using the Virginia Resolution, since it fought something that was unconstitutional anyway.

No, I have cited the Constitution and backed it with centuries of case law. You have produced nil.

In short, you have to rely upon someone that ruled on an issue that was not a founding father and the words of the founding fathers plus the Constitution does not support you. Actually, SCOTUS does not have the delegated power in the Constitution to determine constitutionality. It was a power grabbed in Marbury v. Madison and has been there ever since. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions are still part of Virginia and Kentucky law. They have not been overturned by any court whatsoever. However, it still doesn't change the fact that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson both stated that the United States is a compact of states born out by Article VII Clause I as it plainly says, "between the states." Therefore, under the Supremacy Clause the federal government cannot tell the states what to do nor does it alter the fact that it is a compact of states that the states entered into. No matter how much you wish it to be the opposite the fact of the matter is that Justice Strong is wrong and so are you. I'll take James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton for the win Alex. Here are more quotes for you to enjoy by the true founding fathers not some two bit politcal hack justice.

In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 81

The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National Government, and will for ever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political calculation. — Alexander Hamilton

This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by a certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them. — Alexander Hamilton

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution. — James Madison, Federalist No. 39 (emphasis in the original)

Your view presupposes that it was the federal government that created the states and is overlord over them. My view is that the states created the federal government and is overlord of the federal government. This is what it boils down to.

 

[Ikari]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal Government?

A simple question to stimulate discussion.

I believe that the states created the federal government and the federal government should listen to the states.

Edit: Forgot the poll so I apologize. The answers in the poll would have been Yes (Explain), No (Explain), and Other (Explain.

Neither, the People created both.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

No offense, but isnt this a pretty silly question?

The states created the federal govenment; the federal government exists at the pleasure of the states. The states may dissolve the federal government any time they should choose to do so with the federal govermne thaving no legal mechanism to stop them; the federal government may not ever do any such thing to the states w/o their consent.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

No offense, but isnt this a pretty silly question?

The states created the federal govenment; the federal government exists at the pleasure of the states. The states may dissolve the federal government any time they should choose to do so with the federal govermne thaving no legal mechanism to stop them; the federal government may not ever do any such thing to the states w/o their consent.

No, I don't think it's a silly discussion to have - he wasn't asking out of "i have no clue" . . . he started it to generate thoughts and conversation.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

No offense, but isnt this a pretty silly question?

The states created the federal govenment; the federal government exists at the pleasure of the states. The states may dissolve the federal government any time they should choose to do so with the federal govermne thaving no legal mechanism to stop them; the federal government may not ever do any such thing to the states w/o their consent.

Actually, the people of the states created the federal government. There are a lot of people who consider themselves US citizens and residents of the state they live in. I know a lot of military personnel who feel this way. I highly doubt that any state could get away with trying to dissolve the US. In fact, I'd say that the Civil War was an attempt to break up the Union into two separate governments which was cemented that once a state is in the Union, it cannot get out.

Besides, there are a lot of logistical problems with either separating a state from the US or completely dissolving the federal government. What would be the currency of the states? Who decides this? What about people who consider themselves a US citizen, not connected really to any state? How about citizenship? It is highly improbable that any of the states could actually survive as their own country outside of the US. The states and the people of those states are too interconnected with each other in this day and age.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

Actually, the people of the states created the federal government. There are a lot of people who consider themselves US citizens and residents of the state they live in. I know a lot of military personnel who feel this way. I highly doubt that any state could get away with trying to dissolve the US. In fact, I'd say that the Civil War was an attempt to break up the Union into two separate governments which was cemented that once a state is in the Union, it cannot get out.

You're missing the point.
Practical and logistical considerations aside, the states can pass an amendment that renders the Constution null and void. At that point, the federal government ceases to exist; the federal governmen thas no legal means to stop the states from doing this.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

You're missing the point.
Practical and logistical considerations aside, the states can pass an amendment that renders the Constution null and void. At that point, the federal government ceases to exist; the federal governmen thas no legal means to stop the states from doing this.

It would require every state to do so, which will never happen. I'm not missing your point, I just disagree with it. I understand that it is possible, but because of those pratical and logistical concerns, it won't happen. What is the point in doing something that will pretty much ensure harm to most of the people? The only people who would benefit are those who want anarchy.

This seems like a loaded question that tries to imply that since the states made the federal government (which isn't completely true), then the states have the power. If having the power to dissolve the federal government leads to a lot bigger problems for your state and especially for the people, then how is that actually power? It's like having nuclear weapons, sure we can use them, but we screw ourselves over by doing so. So it would take someone who has no vested interest in the well being of the majority of the people to dissolve the federal government.

And honestly, I doubt that even if every state governments did agree to dissolve the US government, that it would honestly hold up, unless the vast majority of the people of all the states actually agreed to it as well. The people are the enforcers of federal policies and laws. So if the federal government decided to still try to uphold federal laws within the states, then it would depend on whether or not the people were willing to still obey those laws and whether or not those federal employees who are entrusted with enforcing the federal laws obey their superiors. It would be near impossible to completely dissolve the federal government so easily.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

It would require every state to do so, which will never happen.

No, just 3/4ths.
The fact that it may not happen in no way invalidates my point.

This seems like a loaded question that tries to imply that since the states made the federal government (which isn't completely true), then the states have the power.

Ultimately, they do. They can dissolve the federal governmnet, they can remove power from the federal government, they can restrict the federal government, they can even free themselves from federal restrictions -- all w/o the federal government having any legal ability to stop them.

And honestly, I doubt that even if every state governments did agree to dissolve the US government, that it would honestly hold up, unless the vast majority of the people of all the states actually agreed to it as well.

Given the amendment process, it is likely that this would be the case as states rarely, if ever ratify amendments that are are not popular with the people of the state.

The people are the enforcers of federal policies and laws. So if the federal government decided to still try to uphold federal laws within the states, then it would depend on whether or not the people were willing to still obey those laws and whether or not those federal employees who are entrusted with enforcing the federal laws obey their superiors.

If the federal government is dissolved, then anyone acting in thename of the federal government is doing so w/o any legal authority. Orders from these people have no legal force; any force they might use would likely be in violation of state law, making them subject to arrest and prosecution.

 

[The_Patriot]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

It would require every state to do so, which will never happen. I'm not missing your point, I just disagree with it. I understand that it is possible, but because of those pratical and logistical concerns, it won't happen. What is the point in doing something that will pretty much ensure harm to most of the people? The only people who would benefit are those who want anarchy.

This seems like a loaded question that tries to imply that since the states made the federal government (which isn't completely true), then the states have the power. If having the power to dissolve the federal government leads to a lot bigger problems for your state and especially for the people, then how is that actually power? It's like having nuclear weapons, sure we can use them, but we screw ourselves over by doing so. So it would take someone who has no vested interest in the well being of the majority of the people to dissolve the federal government.

And honestly, I doubt that even if every state governments did agree to dissolve the US government, that it would honestly hold up, unless the vast majority of the people of all the states actually agreed to it as well. The people are the enforcers of federal policies and laws. So if the federal government decided to still try to uphold federal laws within the states, then it would depend on whether or not the people were willing to still obey those laws and whether or not those federal employees who are entrusted with enforcing the federal laws obey their superiors. It would be near impossible to completely dissolve the federal government so easily.

You'd be incorrect since the states ratified the Constitution singly they can nullify it singly. It doesn't require the consent of the other states now like it didn't require the consent of the other states then.

 

[earthworm]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

Sovereignty of the states was never surrendered to the federal government. Here's proof from Missouri's Constitution.

Section 4. That Missouri is a free and independent state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States; that all proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States qualifying or affecting the individual liberties of the people or which in any wise may impair the right of local self-government belonging to the people of this state, should be submitted to conventions of the people.

This only states that any constitutional amendment be discussed and ratified or rejected by that state. But I do not remember if this is a 3/4 majotrity or 100%....
As proven by the events of the civil war, states and people can be very pig-headed.

 

[The_Patriot]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

This only states that any constitutional amendment be discussed and ratified or rejected by that state. But I do not remember if this is a 3/4 majotrity or 100%....
As proven by the events of the civil war, states and people can be very pig-headed.

It states that Missouri is a free and independent state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States in the prohibitions towards the states and the delegation of powers in the Constitution. All other powers are retained by Missouri.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

You'd be incorrect since the states ratified the Constitution singly they can nullify it singly. It doesn't require the consent of the other states now like it didn't require the consent of the other states then.

Except, they wouldn't be able to be their own country, especially those who are landlocked by the other states. Even if they aren't, there would be serious logistical and practical issues involved with trying to nullify or even just secede from the United States. And, we know that the US government does consider it within their power to stop such an act, since they fought the Civil War to prevent the South from seceding.

You might have a chance of actually dissolving the US federal government if you had all or even most of the states (and their people), agreeing to do so. However, if it is only one state or just a few states, then it is more likely that those states trying to do so would be laughed at. It may lead to war, and if they won, although unlikely, they might be able to start their own country/countries outside the US, but they couldn't really dissolve the US government as a whole without a lot of force if the other states are not agreeing to it. But it would all still depend on how the people felt about such an act, not just the governments or even most of the people of a state or group of states.

 

[The_Patriot]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

Except, they wouldn't be able to be their own country, especially those who are landlocked by the other states. Even if they aren't, there would be serious logistical and practical issues involved with trying to nullify or even just secede from the United States. And, we know that the US government does consider it within their power to stop such an act, since they fought the Civil War to prevent the South from seceding.

You might have a chance of actually dissolving the US federal government if you had all or even most of the states (and their people), agreeing to do so. However, if it is only one state or just a few states, then it is more likely that those states trying to do so would be laughed at. It may lead to war, and if they won, although unlikely, they might be able to start their own country/countries outside the US, but they couldn't really dissolve the US government as a whole without a lot of force if the other states are not agreeing to it. But it would all still depend on how the people felt about such an act, not just the governments or even most of the people of a state or group of states.

I hate to tell you this, but the states are already their own countries. See the Treaty of Paris of 1783 where King George gave up all claims to the colonies. His representatives had to sign thirteen treaties; one for each colony. However, if the states enmass leave the union there is nothing the federal government can do since its operation requires the consent of a minimum of 9 states. If 42 states leave the union, the the federal government ceases to exist and there is nothing that it can do.

The rest is a red herring.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

I hate to tell you this, but the states are already their own countries. See the Treaty of Paris of 1783 where King George gave up all claims to the colonies. His representatives had to sign thirteen treaties; one for each colony. However, if the states enmass leave the union there is nothing the federal government can do since its operation requires the consent of a minimum of 9 states. If 42 states leave the union, the the federal government ceases to exist and there is nothing that it can do.

The rest is a red herring.

Not in reality. I may live in NC, but I am a US citizen. A person has a passport from the United States, not the state in which they reside. We do not send representatives from all 50 states to international conferences and/or peace talks. We haven't been separate little countries since we actually formed the federal government.

As I said, most of the states banning together could probably succeed in dissolving the US. One state would most likely not succeed. Even up to half of the states together would have a hard time doing so.

Those 42 states would have to have the complete backing of the majority of their people to do so, which isn't very likely to happen. Most Americans consider themselves American citizens first, and citizens of the state in which they reside second, if they consider it at all. Many Americans, especially people who have lived in several different states, don't consider their citizenship of the state in which they reside at all. They just consider it the place where they live. Some people even pay taxes, work, and own residences in several states. Most families live in separate states. It is highly unlikely that you would get the majority of people in 42 states to agree to dissolving the federal government.

 

[The_Patriot]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

Not in reality. I may live in NC, but I am a US citizen. A person has a passport from the United States, not the state in which they reside. We do not send representatives from all 50 states to international conferences and/or peace talks. We haven't been separate little countries since we actually formed the federal government.

As I said, most of the states banning together could probably succeed in dissolving the US. One state would most likely not succeed. Even up to half of the states together would have a hard time doing so.

Those 42 states would have to have the complete backing of the majority of their people to do so, which isn't very likely to happen. Most Americans consider themselves American citizens first, and citizens of the state in which they reside second, if they consider it at all. Many Americans, especially people who have lived in several different states, don't consider their citizenship of the state in which they reside at all. They just consider it the place where they live. Some people even pay taxes, work, and own residences in several states. Most families live in separate states. It is highly unlikely that you would get the majority of people in 42 states to agree to dissolving the federal government.

You're also a citizen of North Carolina. This is why there are residency and voting requirements, since you are a citizen of your state. United States citizen was invented when the 14th Amendment was ratified and did not exist beforehand. Actually, you do send representatives to Congress, which is an international organization comprising the 50 states. We have still been separate countries even today. This is why there are 51 Constitutions, 51 sets of Civil Law, and 51 sets of Criminal Law. If you commit a crime or face a civil suit within state boundaries you are subject to state law. If you commit a crime or face a civil suit on federal property like buildings, territories, and possessions then you face federal law.

 

[earthworm]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

Actually, the states do have a choice since they can refuse to implement a federal law and there is nothing the federal government can do about it. Get enough states to resist it and the federal government can do nothing since they do not have the manpower to enforce it.
From the writings of "The Patriot", who has forgotten about the 60s events and the Civil Rights Law. He has also forgotten about the National Guard...
If only the states has respect for humans, even the Civil War would not have happened.

 

[The_Patriot]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

Actually, the states do have a choice since they can refuse to implement a federal law and there is nothing the federal government can do about it. Get enough states to resist it and the federal government can do nothing since they do not have the manpower to enforce it.
From the writings of "The Patriot", who has forgotten about the 60s events and the Civil Rights Law. He has also forgotten about the National Guard...
If only the states has respect for humans, even the Civil War would not have happened.

Logical fallacies abound in this. I didn't forget about the 60's nor the civil rights movement. I also haven't forgotten about the National Guard, a federal occupation army. Are you saying that the federal government has respect for humans? That's a laugh because look at the genocide of the American Indians and other human rights abuses commited by the federal government.

 

[The_Patriot]

Re: Did the Federal Government Create the States or Did the States Create the Federal

Thank you!


Isn't it interesting how things were divied up back then?

Still - did the states create of the federal government, or vise versa?

Honestly - that still depends on the existance of the states and why/when it came to be. Surely not *all* the states were even around so of course many had no relation to the federal government. At the time of the Articles of the Confederation there was a minimal fed government - and a semi-coagulated country to boot. So, the states jump-started the federal government, but limited it's powers. Things evolved, Shay's Rebellion among other things spawned the necessity for a stronger federal government. . . things progressed in that direction almost naturally.

Of course if the state's elected officials et al didn't come together and agree on a new government blueprint things wouldn't exist as they are, today. The states had to agree (almost all did) on the Constitution and Ratify it. Everyone had to be on board.

So - some states created the government - yes.
But the government created some states and granted them 'full statehood' for a variety of reasons.

Aunt Spiker, I spent some time looking for that quote and I found it. It's from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and was repassed into law in 1790 by the Congress of the United States under the Constitution of the United States. Article V of the Northwest Ordinance states, "And, whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and State government: Provided, the constitution and government so to be formed, shall be republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in these articles; and, so far as it can be consistent with the general interest of the confederacy, such admission shall be allowed at an earlier period, and when there may be a less number of free inhabitants in the State than sixty thousand."

I'm sorry for the delay in finding it, but going through all this documentation takes time.