5 ms·

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Congress was a confederation of sovereign states. When that fai

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Congress was a confederation of sovereign states. When that failed, the sovereign states ceded their sovereignty to form a new Federal government with a constitution that supersedes state law. There was a war fought over this.

MichaelBurge 10y ago
They ceded a specific and enumerated list of powers, reserving all others to the states. Here is a small sample that shows some thoughts of the primary drafter of the Constitution(reference is Federalist Papers 45): Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State. The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. I chose taxation as a topic only because Madison gave concrete numbers. Here: * Using the number of tax collectors as a rough metric, the federal government was planned to be about 30-40 times smaller than all individual states combined. I don't know the 2016 figures. * He affirms that the federal government "[...]will be exercised principally on external objects", which would seem to oppose redrawing state lines for the convenience of local matters(such as city boundaries). Though, if all states in question consented to having their borders redrawn, it does seem like the federal government should still at least approve. So I'm not sure I buy this argument that the Federal government was designed at the outset to be this all-consuming entity that can stomp all over states however it pleases, though there certainly has been a recent trend that way. Hopefully the upcoming Supreme Court appointments can reverse this trend. Given the topic, this sentence is also worth reading: If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS.
- umanwizard 10y ago
  It sounds even more strong: he thought the federal government would be 30-40 times stronger than each individual state.
  - nardi 10y ago
    I think that's the exact opposite of what's written. "Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty...whose influence would lie on the side of the State."
    - umanwizard 10y ago
      I guess you're right -- the "districts" in question are subsets of States, so he's saying something like "for every one federal official in Phoenix, there would be at least 30-40 Arizona officials".
umanwizard 10y ago
They ceded some of their sovereignty, as outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution supersedes state law, yes, but random federal statutes do not.
- javagram 10y ago
  Federal statues also supersede state law, under the supremacy clause of the constitution. That said, the states are still considered sovereign and residents of the several states live under a dual sovereignty of their state and the US government. Sometimes this leads to unpleasant consequences, such as being charged for the same crime in both state and federal courts because the Double Jeopardy clause of the constitution is considered to only prevent double prosecution under the same sovereignty.
  - imh 10y ago
    >Federal statues also supersede state law, under the supremacy clause of the constitution. How does that mesh with the states legalizing marijuana?
    - gozur88 10y ago
      Technically, you can be arrested and charged with federal possession of a schedule one drug if you have any amount of marijuana in any state, including those states which have made it legal under state law. That's potentially a year in the federal pen. State legalization of marijuana just means you can't be prosecuted under state law.
    - jeremyjh 10y ago
      DOJ is not widely enforcing federal drug laws against citizens complying with state laws - at the direction of the current administration - but they could do so in the future.
    - mikeryan 10y ago
      Not well. The Feds have chosen not to enforce the laws in the states which have legalized marijuana. In fact a lot of marijuana laws have suffered from selective enforcement. Whether that continues with the incoming administration is a huge question. I was listening to the Freakanomica podcast last week and it was discussing the power of the president and one commenter said that one of the presidents "real" powers is selecting which laws to enforce (via their Attorney General) there could be some huge battles coming up. Ironically if the Feds choose to enforce the federal laws in states which have legalized marijuana it would be contrary to the emphasis on states rights eschewed by most conservatives.
mnglkhn2 10y ago
Try telling Texas that it is merely a "province"!
- Retric 10y ago
  Texas is actually a lot more liberal than you might think and mostly does not care about it's history. It's even moving to the center consider Mitt Romney actually had a much wider margin in Texas than Trump. Anyway, North and South Dakota where split simply to add 2 senators at the time. DC is not a state for the opposite reason. Face it, states are completely arbitrary lines on a map. There is even a poorly drawn line approximately on the 37 degrees north was codified without reference to where the actual 37 degrees north actually was.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    DC is not a state because it is supposed to be neutral ground.
    - Zach_the_Lizard 10y ago
      Not really. I'm sure the riots in front the Capitol in Philadelphia led to thoughts of needing control for safety reasons (Pennsylvania didn't intervene). Originally DC residents would vote in Virginia or Maryland Congressional elections depending on where the territory was taken from (note: all DC land that came from VA has been returned to VA). I think the idea originally is few would live in DC; it was tiny for a long, long time. But that's no longer true, hence why we gave DC the right to vote for President. Congress would be trickier given the balance of power, but none of the original motivating factors apply.
    - rspeer 10y ago
      And that would even make sense if it only included the part with the White House, the Capitol, the Mall and stuff. But it turns out to also include a city where a half million disenfranchised people live. (I think DC statehood does sound like a complicated mess, and the best solution -- if politically feasible -- would be to shrink it. You'd have the populous city of Washington, MD, and a tiny federal District of Columbia, coexisting like Rome and the Vatican. The problem is that Maryland doesn't want it.)
paulddraper 10y ago
The U.S. has a federal government. > Federal n. formed by a compact between political units that surrender their individual sovereignty to a central authority but retain limited residuary powers of government https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/federal https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/federal Senate representation is by state, 3/4 states have to ratify Constitutional amendments, the Constitution reverses rights for states, etc. The Civil War was fought over the right of states to break their contract, not the importance of existent states as political units.
- tjic 10y ago
  A quibble: the Constitution says nothing about states not being able to exit. In fact, the 9th and 10th amendments say that powers not delegated to the Fed are reserved for the people and states...strongly suggesting that states _DO_ have a right of exit. So let's not say "the right of states to BREAK their contract" and instead say "the right of states to EXIT their contract".
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    I never said they did or didn't. Your quibble is with Abraham Lincoln, not with me.

MichaelBurge 10y ago

They ceded a specific and enumerated list of powers, reserving all others to the states. Here is a small sample that shows some thoughts of the primary drafter of the Constitution(reference is Federalist Papers 45): Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State. The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. I chose taxation as a topic only because Madison gave concrete numbers. Here: * Using the number of tax collectors as a rough metric, the federal government was planned to be about 30-40 times smaller than all individual states combined. I don't know the 2016 figures. * He affirms that the federal government "[...]will be exercised principally on external objects", which would seem to oppose redrawing state lines for the convenience of local matters(such as city boundaries). Though, if all states in question consented to having their borders redrawn, it does seem like the federal government should still at least approve. So I'm not sure I buy this argument that the Federal government was designed at the outset to be this all-consuming entity that can stomp all over states however it pleases, though there certainly has been a recent trend that way. Hopefully the upcoming Supreme Court appointments can reverse this trend. Given the topic, this sentence is also worth reading: If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS.

umanwizard 10y ago
It sounds even more strong: he thought the federal government would be 30-40 times stronger than each individual state.
- nardi 10y ago
  I think that's the exact opposite of what's written. "Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty...whose influence would lie on the side of the State."
  - umanwizard 10y ago
    I guess you're right -- the "districts" in question are subsets of States, so he's saying something like "for every one federal official in Phoenix, there would be at least 30-40 Arizona officials".

umanwizard 10y ago

They ceded some of their sovereignty, as outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution supersedes state law, yes, but random federal statutes do not.

javagram 10y ago
Federal statues also supersede state law, under the supremacy clause of the constitution. That said, the states are still considered sovereign and residents of the several states live under a dual sovereignty of their state and the US government. Sometimes this leads to unpleasant consequences, such as being charged for the same crime in both state and federal courts because the Double Jeopardy clause of the constitution is considered to only prevent double prosecution under the same sovereignty.
- imh 10y ago
  >Federal statues also supersede state law, under the supremacy clause of the constitution. How does that mesh with the states legalizing marijuana?
  - gozur88 10y ago
    Technically, you can be arrested and charged with federal possession of a schedule one drug if you have any amount of marijuana in any state, including those states which have made it legal under state law. That's potentially a year in the federal pen. State legalization of marijuana just means you can't be prosecuted under state law.
  - jeremyjh 10y ago
    DOJ is not widely enforcing federal drug laws against citizens complying with state laws - at the direction of the current administration - but they could do so in the future.
  - mikeryan 10y ago
    Not well. The Feds have chosen not to enforce the laws in the states which have legalized marijuana. In fact a lot of marijuana laws have suffered from selective enforcement. Whether that continues with the incoming administration is a huge question. I was listening to the Freakanomica podcast last week and it was discussing the power of the president and one commenter said that one of the presidents "real" powers is selecting which laws to enforce (via their Attorney General) there could be some huge battles coming up. Ironically if the Feds choose to enforce the federal laws in states which have legalized marijuana it would be contrary to the emphasis on states rights eschewed by most conservatives.

mnglkhn2 10y ago

Try telling Texas that it is merely a "province"!

Retric 10y ago
Texas is actually a lot more liberal than you might think and mostly does not care about it's history. It's even moving to the center consider Mitt Romney actually had a much wider margin in Texas than Trump. Anyway, North and South Dakota where split simply to add 2 senators at the time. DC is not a state for the opposite reason. Face it, states are completely arbitrary lines on a map. There is even a poorly drawn line approximately on the 37 degrees north was codified without reference to where the actual 37 degrees north actually was.
- protomyth 10y ago
  DC is not a state because it is supposed to be neutral ground.
  - Zach_the_Lizard 10y ago
    Not really. I'm sure the riots in front the Capitol in Philadelphia led to thoughts of needing control for safety reasons (Pennsylvania didn't intervene). Originally DC residents would vote in Virginia or Maryland Congressional elections depending on where the territory was taken from (note: all DC land that came from VA has been returned to VA). I think the idea originally is few would live in DC; it was tiny for a long, long time. But that's no longer true, hence why we gave DC the right to vote for President. Congress would be trickier given the balance of power, but none of the original motivating factors apply.
  - rspeer 10y ago
    And that would even make sense if it only included the part with the White House, the Capitol, the Mall and stuff. But it turns out to also include a city where a half million disenfranchised people live. (I think DC statehood does sound like a complicated mess, and the best solution -- if politically feasible -- would be to shrink it. You'd have the populous city of Washington, MD, and a tiny federal District of Columbia, coexisting like Rome and the Vatican. The problem is that Maryland doesn't want it.)

paulddraper 10y ago

The U.S. has a federal government. > Federal n. formed by a compact between political units that surrender their individual sovereignty to a central authority but retain limited residuary powers of government https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/federal https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/federal Senate representation is by state, 3/4 states have to ratify Constitutional amendments, the Constitution reverses rights for states, etc. The Civil War was fought over the right of states to break their contract, not the importance of existent states as political units.

tjic 10y ago
A quibble: the Constitution says nothing about states not being able to exit. In fact, the 9th and 10th amendments say that powers not delegated to the Fed are reserved for the people and states...strongly suggesting that states _DO_ have a right of exit. So let's not say "the right of states to BREAK their contract" and instead say "the right of states to EXIT their contract".
- paulddraper 10y ago
  I never said they did or didn't. Your quibble is with Abraham Lincoln, not with me.