Jenny Holzer, Laments, Dia Art Foundation 1992

The 13 original colonies were not "sovereign" prior to 1776: they were colonies. During the Revolution they severally declared their natural right to rebel against the King but almost immediately became an emergency federation in which they sacrificed some sovereignity to Congress; but "sovereignity" as commonly understood by constitutional lawyers is like "pregnancy": a state or nation is either "sovereign" in all matters or else it is not.

The colonies then proceeded to continue to sacrifice some (that is, all) sovereignity to Congress and the Executive under the Articles of Confederation and then to Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary under the Constitution.

Other states, to the immediate west of the 13 original colonies, and known as "western reserves" were formed and granted admission to the Union in the 1810s and 1820s including Mississipi and Alabama. These states had even less claim to be "sovereign".

Other states were formed out of lands sold by Napoleon or ceded by Mexico by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican war. They were never sovereign.

Texas had been a republic prior to asking to be admitted and likewise California. Hawaii had been a sovereign monarchy but then was basically colonized by the USA (with the enthusiastic connivance of the Hawaiians). Alaska had been a sort of province or colony of Russia prior to be sold to the USA.

So Texas, California, and perhaps Hawaii are the exceptions that prove my case, since they were the only states to be sovereign prior to entering the Union, Hawaii as a territory before 1960.

George Orwell is right. In politics, words have to mean something because people can get killed based on political language.

To say "the people are sovereign" is right in an extra- and super- legal sense, of course. This unpacks into the rule of law, majority rule and protection of the minority against the majority. But the Federalist Papers anticipates state tyranny in about as many words as it anticipates Federal tyranny, and regards it as the Constitution's job to protect the people against BOTH, not just Federal tyranny.

What protection do Wisconsin's hard working teachers have against a governor who never once said, while campaigning for office, that he would destroy public unions?

What protection did blacks have when the southern states enacted Jim Crow?

And what protection will people have against thugs, criminals, corporate whores, ambitious and unprincipled bimbos. and car dealers who get elected to state legislatures?

The Tenth Amendment, while an important part of our American liberties, does not protect the people of the states against arbitrary and unjust treatment by state government.

What about the people who want federally funded health insurance today?

What about the African Americans who were being lynched as recently as 1983 who could not get protection against state and municipal government?

A state government can be a tyranny. The state legislature of South Carolina that voted for secession and ignored the poor whites dubious about succession (not to mention the slaves) was comprised (90%) of slaveowners. West Virginia seceded from Virginia because its good people did not believe that Lincoln was a tyrant. The current governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, made no mention of his plan to destroy public unions. And there are states and municipalities including Massachusetts and Berkeley who make it impossible for middle class residents to own cars or homes with excess regulation: these are the so-called "Peoples' Republics" where only the wealthy and liberal can aspire to live.

State government can be and is, in many cases, significantly less democratic than Federal government. Here is why.

First of all, the turnout for state level elections is less especially when they don’t coincide with elections for President. This means that it’s easier for well-funded (see below) interest groups to capture state legislatures and governorships.

Second, in cases where the state government is “bought” by funding candidates, this is cheaper than buying Congressmen or the Presidency. The 2008 Supreme Court decision Citizens United has removed all restrictions on the putative “freedom of speech” of corporations to donate massive amounts of funds to candidates, which builds in pro-business, anti-union and anti-regulation sentiment.

Blowing up the Federal government as seems to be the programme of the current House of Representatives and their well-funded masters would NOT increase the liberty of the American citizen. Quite the opposite.

It would be like trying to get rid of an asteroid headed for Earth by tossing a nuclear bomb at it, and creating many lethal pieces of rock in place of one.

States and municipalities like Massachusetts and Berkeley would become even more like Communist societies. But far more, most states would be even more willing to destroy schools and public libraries and build jails.

There is NO SUCH THING as “state sovereignity”. The ONLY states of the Union to have been sovereign before becoming states were Texas and California. The remainder were colonies subordinate to England, then members of an emergency federation subordinate willingly to Congress during the Revolution, then signatories to the sovereignity-limiting Articles of Confederation and today non-sovereign states who cannot do things (conduct foreign policies, run deficits, etc.) that sovereign states can do, from the USA to Monaco.

The states may NOT nullify laws that were passed by their own representatives and senators! This is absurd, since it means that the people of a state can elect a Representative or Senator who drafts and/or agrees to a bill which is then nullified!

If he voted for it, whether from principle or expedience, the People of his state have spoken. Representatives and Senators are more usually elected in tandem with the President, and they are, more so than state legislators, well-known to the voter, meaning that their election is somewhat more democratic when measured against democratic ideals including one man one vote and an informed citizen.

It's true that in the most famous instance of Nullification, South Carolina's wealthy, agrarian interests were outraged at tariffs that forced them to buy farm implements and luxuries from Northern manufacturers, and it is true that the Congress had voted those measures in with the South voting against them as a bloc.

However, the original Southern colonies had agreed under the Constitution to abide by Federal law, and part of living in a community large and small is foregoing your wants and whims when the majority has spoken and your minority has voted and lost.

The only sort of people unclear on this concept at the level of the community are the local drunkards, ne'er do wells, midnight ramblers, tin hats, thugs and gangsters. We've had entirely too much goddamn romancing of this sort of trash in the media who would "nullify" common decency.

Nullification and secession is TREASON. And if you clowns pull that shit, the President has the right and duty to preserve and protect the United States of America by all means including war.

You stated:

“There are several components of the federal government that do create a power that can be exerted against the states. Off the bat…components of the Bill of Rights.”

First, the preamble to the Constitution states it is a Constitution for States, for United States…not a Constitution over States.

Second, in the first paragraph of the preamble to the Bill of Rights it states:

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

The preamble states the sole purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, if adopted, would place additional restraints on the powers of the federal government.

Based on the wording of the preamble, the Amendments, when adopted, placed constitutional prohibitions on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers” concerning the rights of the people.

As shown by the preamble, the Amendments are denials of power not grants of power.

Based on your answer to my question, are you asserting that-

The word union, as used in the Constitution, means a union between the People of the several States.”

The Constitution is a compact between “the People of the several States.”

The federal government is the agent of “the People of the several States.”

The federal government is the government of “the People of the several States.”

The word “united” means “the united People of the several States.”