5 ms·
From article 1, section 10 of the U.S. Constitution: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in
by Nuzzerino 7y ago
From article 1, section 10 of the U.S. Constitution:
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
This scares me a bit. This agreement seems innocuous at first, but the constitution expressly forbids these (and all) kinds of agreements between states for a reason. A small pact like this today could tomorrow become leverage for secessionism or otherwise a power struggle with the federal government.
- kevingadd 7y ago"State" in that context clearly refers to foreign nations (states) not states as in The United States Of America. Foreign power is distinct because it would refer to things like governments-in-exile or perhaps resistance groups.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- whichquestion 7y ago> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. It seems to me that it states “with another State”, as in a capital S State or a member State of the United States. Then explicitly calls out as another option, “or with a foreign power”. Furthermore, the title of Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution is “Powers Prohibited of States”.
- rlt 7y agoWhy would they use two different meanings of "State" (capitalized, no less) in the same sentence?
- Fjolsvith 7y agoThen why would the constitution forbid a foreign nation (state) from entering into an agreement with another foreign power?
- tom_mellior 7y agoCertain agreements are definitely allowed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_compact Of note: "Not all compacts between states require explicit Congressional approval – the 1893 Supreme Court decision in Virginia v. Tennessee affirmed that only those agreements which would increase the power of states at the expense of the federal government required it." I'm not claiming that this pact is formally one of these "interstate compacts", but your maximalist reading of that article forbidding "all kinds of agreements" seems to be incorrect.
- basch 7y agoI would think they have wiggle room with "or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."