South's declining relevence on the federal level

[ulmont]

States don't have rights. People have rights.

Take a look at Article IV, Sections 3 and 4, as well as Amendment XI, and reconsider.

[grumbler]

You guys are all wrong.

Sovereignty only transferred to the US government in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris.  Up to that point the US was, legally speaking, under the sovereignty of the Crown.

And since sovereignty was transferred from the Crown to the US government, the states never entered into the picture.

You have a cite on this?  US histories show that each state was sovereign on its own, and that the Confederation was a non-sovereign alliance of the sovereign states.

The term "United States" was used before the ratification of the Constitution as the term "United Nations" was used before the signing of the UN charter.

[Barrister]

You guys are all wrong.

Sovereignty only transferred to the US government in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris.  Up to that point the US was, legally speaking, under the sovereignty of the Crown.

And since sovereignty was transferred from the Crown to the US government, the states never entered into the picture.

You have a cite on this?  US histories show that each state was sovereign on its own, and that the Confederation was a non-sovereign alliance of the sovereign states.

The term "United States" was used before the ratification of the Constitution as the term "United Nations" was used before the signing of the UN charter.

Your histories are wrong.  Sovereignty remained with the Crown until the Crown relinqueshed soveriegnty in the Treaty of Paris.

[Berkut]

States don't have rights. People have rights.

Take a look at Article IV, Sections 3 and 4, as well as Amendment XI, and reconsider.

Article IV
Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

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.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Amendment XI

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

OK, still don't see anything there about the rights of States. Probably because they don't have any.

Are we reading different Constitutions, perhaps?

[Fate]

Kronn, I want the South to have a government based on the principles of the Southern people, which is primarily small government. I incline heavily that way myself.

as for the South I envision, though? Very low taxes, very minimal government programs, without any tariffs or income tax, armed and independent state militias, with defended borders that -legal- immigrants may enter, private enterprise taking hold of many current government services today (Such as the postal service), armed neutrality, and a criminal code that focuses on malum en se rather than malum prohibitum.

I think I can understand some of what you want here, especially limited and less obtrusive government, probably a weaker central govt. Heck, I think a lot of people want a lot of that too, and that's part of the political struggles we have today. Though the big govt types are in greater number in politics, even if not among the populace, regardless of party. I do think we've turned that corner a long time ago, to the ways of big govt. I don't see it changing, and even if a Southern nation did come about I think it would still have a lot of the current mind sets of larger government. Kind of hard to put that away.

Would you want to live a country without the FDA? Southern hamburger and Russian Roulette would have a lot in common.

DOWN WITH GUMMINT LET THE INVISIBLE HAND DECIDE

[Valmy]

Utah as an advocate of small government? 

They'd be a theocracy if they could. What state wants to legislate your morality more than Utah?

Yeah...nobody in the South ever favors legislating morality...

[Valmy]

Should have picked the right side in that carfuffle a 150 years ago.

Hundreds of years of disparate history and culture mean nothing so long as we got fooled into fighting alongside those moronic Easterners for four years.  In any case Texas was certainly alot more Southern at that particular time in history thanks to the rapid spread of slavery, but it was just an influence.  Most of the population in the Eastern part were quite literally Southerners only having recently crossed over.  My part of the State was covered by German speaking towns and they certainly did not consider themselves Southerners and voted against secession.  They Tejanos in the West were certainly not crazy about dying so the Easterners could keep their slaves.

[Valmy]

I'd be happy with the South free, even if, using that freedom, it fragmented upon itself.

Of course you do since you consider political fragmantation the greatest thing for freedom evah.  I hate to break it to you but splitting the world up into thousands of petty states will not do a lick to increase individual freedom.

[Fate]

Of course you do since you consider political fragmantation the greatest thing for freedom evah.  I hate to break it to you but splitting the world up into thousands of petty states will not do a lick to increase individual freedom.

I think they called that the Dark Ages. Fits with the Southern mentality, I suppose.

[Eddie Teach]

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.

  'Of the people' is interpreted to me as being the states, as the states are the sovereign political bodies and voices of the people. The Confederate constitution, that sublime document, further clarifies the matter which was an unfortunate source of contention with the yankees.

"reserved to the states or the states?" That is rather an odd statement.

[grumbler]

Your histories are wrong.  Sovereignty remained with the Crown until the Crown relinqueshed soveriegnty in the Treaty of Paris.

Nevermind. I see you are not interested in reading my question for comprehension, but prefer to repeat erroneous bullshit even if it is unrelated to the question.

As an aside, the contention that Sovereignty remained with the Crown until 1783 is laughable.  It is true that the British government did not formally acknowledge their loss of sovereignty until 1783, but it was contested from 1776 and definitely lost in all of the former colonies save the cities of New York City and Charleston by the end of 1781. 

Not, of course, that this has anything to do with your unwillingness to provide citations to support your assertion that sovereignty was transferred to a single sovereign American "US government" entity in 1783.

I don't think you can even grasp what I am asking for, though.

[garbon]

Nevermind. I see you are not interested in reading my question for comprehension, but prefer to repeat erroneous bullshit even if it is unrelated to the question.

Well duh, it was humorous banter about those naughty Americans.

[ulmont]

Article IV
Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

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.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Amendment XI

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

OK, still don't see anything there about the rights of States. Probably because they don't have any.

Are we reading different Constitutions, perhaps?

That gives the States the following rights:

1) Not to have their geographic borders rearranged without their consent;
2) Not to be invaded or have a republican form of government replaced; and
3) Not to be sued in federal court by a non-State citizen [interpreted to generally codify sovereign immunity for states].

[garbon]

You aren't allowed to plant things of your own accord in national parks. Does that mean that the parks have rights?

[Barrister]

Your histories are wrong.  Sovereignty remained with the Crown until the Crown relinqueshed soveriegnty in the Treaty of Paris.

Nevermind. I see you are not interested in reading my question for comprehension, but prefer to repeat erroneous bullshit even if it is unrelated to the question.

As an aside, the contention that Sovereignty remained with the Crown until 1783 is laughable.  It is true that the British government did not formally acknowledge their loss of sovereignty until 1783, but it was contested from 1776 and definitely lost in all of the former colonies save the cities of New York City and Charleston by the end of 1781. 

You are confusing de facto control with de jure sovereignty.