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

The_Patriot said:

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 en-mass 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.

Click to expand...

earthworm said:

Is this how conservatives "think" and reason ?
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing..
The "United States", as an entity, did not come into being until a few years later.
Luckily, most of the states have leadership that is sane.

Click to expand...

The_Patriot said:

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.

Click to expand...

roguenuke said:

But residency can change overnight, literally. All you need to do is start residing in a different state. This would only affect voting if you are not within the time limits to register to vote for that state. In fact, you can live in another country and still maintain US citizenship, without being a citizen of any particular state. The residents of Washington, D. C. are not actually citizens of any state, but are US citizens.

US citizenship does exist now. Most, if any, of the founding fathers could not have predicted that we would live in a world where a person could move completely across the country in less than half a day, considering in their time it took half a day at least to cross most states by themselves. They also could not have predicted that the world itself would be able to communicate with other countries almost instantaneously. What the founding fathers did do is assume that the world would probably change with time, and without being able to predict what those changes would be exactly, they allowed an avenue for provisions of the Constitution to be changed, if needed, with the times.

One of the changes that has occurred is that the federal government has been given more powers. Sometimes this is a bad thing, and sometimes it is good, but it really depends on the person. The states and the people within them have not always been willing to accept some of the provisions of the federal government, but were forced to do so anyway. In recent times, the states, for the most part, have given up much of their power to the federal government rather peacefully, especially in matters where the SCOTUS has ruled the state laws as unconstitutional, such as the change in all state laws regarding interracial marriage after the ruling of Loving v. Virginia, despite many states having Constitutional provisions against interracial marriage.

Click to expand...

The_Patriot said:

In most states the residency requirement is 90 days or more. As far as the founding fathers are concerned, they did predict quite a lot of things about what the future would hold. Technological innovation was one of them. They saw rapid advances in technology in their lifetime, like the rifling of barrels and start of mass production plus the invention of the hot air balloon, trains, etc... The Amendment process hasn't been used much in regards to changing the government's role.

Click to expand...

The_Patriot said:

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.

Click to expand...

Aunt Spiker said:

Thanks for finding it - I often give up on extensive searches like that. the net is handy for a headache, sometimes

It's good that they wanted to value all states as being equal - imagine if they didn't? If they didn't they I suppose new states would be more akin to territories rather than a full functioning state.

Click to expand...

The_Patriot said:

You're most welcome and it can be a headache for sure. :lol:

It would be pretty terrible to contemplate if the new states were placed lower then the original states.

Click to expand...

roguenuke said:

There have been several Amendments made that affect the states' powers vs. that of the federal government. I count at least six, if you don't include the prohibition of alcohol and its repeal. And there have been many, many SCOTUS rulings that do so. Many of those rulings have yet to be challenged, and in fact, come more often than rulings more in favor of states' powers. More and more the SCOTUS rules in favor of the federal government or a private citizen over a state, including decisions of Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas.

As my husband reminded me, before the Civil War, the US in conversation was referred to as "the United States are", after the Civil War and to this day, the US is referred to as "the United States is".

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

Click to expand...

The_Patriot said:

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.

Click to expand...

A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:

I've read your post. I don't see anything here that I have not refuted either in this thread, or in another one that we discussed Constitutional issues: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/74294-does-term-redneck-refer-culture-race-12.html Part of your problem is that you deny that SCOTUS can make determinations of Constitutional meaning. This has been firmly established in Federalist 81: There is also plenty of information from both Hamilton and Madison that the Constitution was written with the idea that it did NOT compile each and every situation, allowing for the necessity of Constitutional determination. All of this indicates that SCOTUS certainly can make determinations. I have demonstrated my position with case law and the Constitution itself. Nullification cannot occur. This makes the federal government having power over the states.

Click to expand...

The_Patriot said:

And James Madison and Thomas Jefferson trump you and the Supreme Court. I'll put your reply down as an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

Click to expand...

The_Patriot said:

Yes, there have been several amendments made that affect states powers, but it doesn't make it necessarily correct. The states created the federal government and nothing can change that or limit the sovereignty held by the states. I'll quote James Madison when it comes to the Supreme Court.


I follow up with Thomas Jefferson.

Click to expand...

earthworm said:

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.

Click to expand...

Aunt Spiker said:

It depends on which state you're talking about.

Some were the original colonies - staked and defined before the Articles of the Confederation.

Others were decided by federal government based on physical boundaries (mountains, rivers, lakes, etc).

Yet in other cases portions of the state were argued for between two states.

In another state a mistake in land-plotting calculations when they built a fort extended the pre-agreed area of the US into Canada . . . so in this situation it was someone's stupid ****up that defined the state's border.

Then we have states that were existing on their own (Alaska, Hawaii) and then wanted into our country - purely on deal with the federal government, not the states.

Of course there are some states that don't even exist anymore - one (at least from what I remember) was proposed in one land-divide plan that was submitted to the government and approval wasn't given - so they weren't formed.

And so on - every state has it's own story and history and the reason for the shape, location, size and name were up to various people/governments for different reasons.

Watch "how the states got their shapes" - it's truly fascinating.

Now - I know that's not what you asked but I digressed at my pleasure, it's my Birthday - :mrgreen:

*sprinkles on some nerds . . . *

Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:

I've read your post. I don't see anything here that I have not refuted either in this thread, or in another one that we discussed Constitutional issues: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/74294-does-term-redneck-refer-culture-race-12.html Part of your problem is that you deny that SCOTUS can make determinations of Constitutional meaning. This has been firmly established in Federalist 81: There is also plenty of information from both Hamilton and Madison that the Constitution was written with the idea that it did NOT compile each and every situation, allowing for the necessity of Constitutional determination. All of this indicates that SCOTUS certainly can make determinations. I have demonstrated my position with case law and the Constitution itself. Nullification cannot occur. This makes the federal government having power over the states.

Click to expand...

fredmertz said:

Captain - I understand what you are saying. The Fed. gov't has power over the states as per the 14th amendment. But only so far as the 10th amendment. So if it is specified in the constitution, then yes, the federal government has sovereignty on those subjects. If the power is not specifically granted to the federal government by the states in the constitution, then the federal government does not have that power, per the 10th amendment. So the fed. gov't has limited sovereignty. In all other matters beyond the constitution, the states have sovereignty. I would say that this makes the states more powerful because 1) there is more outside of the constitution than within and 2) The states can change the constitution.

Click to expand...