5 ms·
Agreed that it's silly. There's pretty much nothing sillier than when people who have never worked in the field try to pass themselves off as legal experts on t
by torstenvl 5y ago
Agreed that it's silly. There's pretty much nothing sillier than when people who have never worked in the field try to pass themselves off as legal experts on the Internet.
It's even more silly when those same people deliberately truncate statements. What you claimed was "States are administrative districts of a single sovereign nation"
Argue whatever semantics you want about the definition of "administrative district." Sovereignty has a well-developed legal definition, and it emphatically applies to each of the fifty states.
The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue countless times, from Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) ("I acknowledge, and shall always contend, that the States are sovereignties") to Gamble v. United States (2019) (reaffirming the dual sovereignty doctrine).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rendall 5y agoYou're arguing against the statement "The US is a single sovereign nation" States having sovereignty is a distracting non-sequitur. It's not relevant. The original comparison was States to EU members. If you want to argue they all have 'sovereignty', fine. They all have a thing called 'sovereignty'. But Italy doesn't care about Oregon's sovereignty. Italy doesn't deal with Oregon as a nation. Oregon can't declare war on Italy nor negotiate peace. Italy doesn't recognize Oregon's governor as a Head of State. For all intents and purposes, to Italy and the EU, Oregon is an administrative district not a "sovereignty". A Greek citizen cannot move to Sweden and vote in national elections as easily as a Texan can move to Massachusetts and vote in state elections. There are a lot of reasons for that which have zero to do with State "sovereignty".