3 ms·
This is a fine debate tactic — dumping a load of text without the proper context. But I’m not debating here. I’m plainly stating the fact that US states are not
by k33n 29d ago
This is a fine debate tactic — dumping a load of text without the proper context. But I’m not debating here. I’m plainly stating the fact that US states are not sovereign entities. In practical terms, there is no such thing as a semi-sovereign entity.
- ericmay 29d agoFolks have provided great information. It's up to you to decide to accept the facts or continue to double down on your private worldview, but it won't serve you well to be ignorant of the facts here.
- deleted 29d ago[deleted]
- k33n 29d agoYou and that other guy made good points from a constitutional law standpoint, don’t misunderstand my disagreement for dismissal of any kind. A legal term of art is often a bit different than the basic word itself. From a legal term of art perspective, I’m essentially referencing “absolute sovereignty”, which would more closely mirror the actual dictionary definition of sovereignty, as a basic, contextless word.
- ericmay 29d agoI would just say that we should be mindful that the legal definition is how things are implemented in practice as well - states exercise their sovereign rights on a daily basis because the exercise of those rights is the exercise of an interpretation of law. Related to your point about absolute sovereignty I wouldn't disagree with you at all, but I would say that, and I'm not accusing you of doing this by any means, we should be mindful not to shift the goalposts and attempt to depress the meaning and significance of sovereignty just because an entity isn't also absolutely sovereign.
- otterley 29d agoIt seems disingenuous, or at least antisocial, to insist that you are correct about a broad and unqualified statement you made while also declaring that you meant something narrower all along.
- k33n 28d agoIt's completely genuine, and it's obvious that I was referring to the basic meaning of the word the entire time to even a casual observer. Ascribing malice seems a bit irrational to me.
- otterley 27d agoIt is a mistake to think that what you believe is "obvious" is obvious to everyone else, and that people agree on a "basic meaning" of words that aren't used in everyday conversation. (Observe and count the number of times the word "sovereignty" comes up in conversation in your daily life.)
- k33n 27d ago[flagged]
- otterley 26d agoI never ascribe malice to anyone who makes an honest mistake and doesn’t continue to double down when corrected, insisting they’re right or that they meant something else and everyone should have understood them somehow. There are lots of smart people here from all backgrounds and it’s good to defer to others who are better informed about a subject (and I’m no exception).
- k33n 22d ago[flagged]
- cowboylowrez 19d ago
- cowboylowrez 19d ago> the founding document "specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities." it was a small load of text easily digested, and the word "sovereign" is right there in it very early on. Your argument would be better accepted if you tossed in that you disagree with the characterization and have an opinion what YOU think sovereign entities are. Declarations of fact should only be used when what you are declaring is indeed a fact. >In practical terms, there is no such thing as a semi-sovereign entity. According to the text you're replying to, this is also untrue. In the future, I would recommend something like "while the 10th amendment talks about states being sovereign entities, in practical terms the federal government has jurisdiction over some matters involving states" or something like that. Its fine to voice opinions, but declaring your opinions "fact", well good luck with that hehehe