Declaring your state 'sovereign', what does that mean?

[HeresyLives]

I thought all the states were 'sovereign' already. So why are so many states making a production out of doing it again?

Is there some new legal status involved?

And is there some set number that has to be reached before something happens? If so, what?

Signed

Baffled In Canada.

[That Is Quite Enough]

1. I think it's just posturing to appeal to the insane "States' Rights" crowd.

Signed,

Just as Baffled in America.

[HeresyLives]

8. That made me laugh!

I'm glad I'm not the only one!

[Kerrytravelers]

2. Succession?

The Texas gov is just trying to work people into a frenzy to distract from the fact that Obama has a high approval number and doing very well overall.

[FudaFuda]

32. That's Secession.

I'm from the South so I know how it's spelled. :P

[Muttocracy]

3. Amendment X.

Amendment X

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.

:shrug:

[HeresyLives]

9. I read that, but I'm damned if I know

why everyone is affirming it, if it's already in the constitution.

[Muttocracy]

10. maybe they think it means they get to wear crowns? I'm at a loss. nt

[GOPisEvil]

4. It's Republicans playing to their base.

In the case of Texas, p(R)ick Perry is going to have a primary fight on his hands from The Breck Girl, Kay Bailey Hutchison, so he is trying to make sure he doesn't lose the far right wingnut vote. I expect him to be more disgustingly Republican through the primary.

[NoGOPZone]

5. Never ask a Republican to define sovereignty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWiytuW79vU

[Turbineguy]

6. It's just a trifecta

of stupid. That's all.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. A leading repubicn former governor comments on this very issue

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5xVRXLgLxw

37 seconds .... needs no intro and requires no summation .........

[HeresyLives]

11. Oh thanks!

That cleared it right up! :rofl:

[RoyGBiv]

13. Thanks ...

That gave me an aneurysm.

[LuvNewcastle]

12. Southern states threw that word around a lot

in the '60's. It was their way of saying that they believed the Constitutional powers of states superseded those of the federal government. Just fucking nonsense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_State_Sovereignty_Commission

[HeresyLives]

16. Oh, sort of everybody wants to be the

president kind of thing? Or everybody wants to be ruler?

[LuvNewcastle]

18. Back then it was about race.

Whites were sovereign, according to them. But they tried to pass it off as a state's rights issue.

[spanone]

14. it's hard to get 'airtime' down here in the states, you gotta come up with something freakin' crazy

[Laelth]

15. You're right, in principle.

The states are sovereign, and gave up only a limited amount of their power to the Federal Government which exists only because the states consented to its existence. However, since the Civil War the Federal Government has grown tremendously in power, and it is (arguably and mercifully) much more powerful now than our Founders ever intended (although Hamilton might have liked to see the state governments eliminated completely).

A simple "declaration" of sovereignty, though, is nothing more than a political stunt. To my knowledge, it has no legal effect.

:dem:

-Laelth

[HeresyLives]

17. Okay.

I knew it didn't mean succession, but I thought it might be a step towards that, by changing the legal status.

[Coffee and Cake]

19. It means that you think that the federal government is overstepping its bounds

The 10th Amendment is a prohibitory rule of law and not a general assumption, which recognized States' jurisdiction in certain areas. States have the right to act, or not to act, as they see fit, in the areas reserved to them. If they have duties that correspond to these rights, then they are owed to the citizens of their respective State, not to the federal government.

If people are unhappy with their State's health care program, then they can bring pressure on their state officials, and if that fails, then they could elect a new set of officials. This allows people to be sovereign, not an omnipotent federal government, which when it accumulates too much power will create a government remote from the people and relatively immune from popular constraint. Who knows better than than the people of Massachusetts what kind of education their children need, or Floridians of want kind of nursing programs they need, or New Mexican what kind of welfare services to offer.

Local problems are best dealt with by the people most directly concerned. It promotes bottom up democracy.

[HeresyLives]

20. Well, I'd say it also makes for chaos,

and no one in charge.

But that really wasn't my question.

[Coffee and Cake]

21. States have governments, governors, and legislature.

Why would no one be in charge?

What was your question then? I thought you asked what state sovereignty meant.

[HeresyLives]

28. Well no one ever seems to be.

But yes, my question was about the meaning of declaring your state 'sovereign'.

[Coffee and Cake]

33. One of the main reason for state sovereignty is to give people more power

Some people will disagree, but it should be up to the state's and their citizens to decide things such as drug policy, education, welfare, and income taxes.

Instead states will get railroaded by the federal government to bend to their wishes. States will lose millions of dollars if they do not comply with the federal government on various issues. This makes the federal government sovereign, not the citizens.

Guaranteed if states had more sovereignty, marijuana would be decriminalized in many states instead of clogging up our judicial system and jails over a victimless crime.

[jmg257]

26. Not chaos. Part of the original constitutional plan was the tension between

the states and feds keeping each other in check - for the benefit of the people.

[HeresyLives]

29. Well that doesn't seem to actually happen.

But that is a side issue.

[salguine]

22. I'm waiting to see Fox News interviewing the re-animated corpse of Jefferson Davis.

[Coffee and Cake]

23. Along with Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams, John Hancock, and George Mason

[Canuckistanian]

24. Did you not understand the "sovereignty association" debate in Canada?

Québec wanted "sovereignty association", meaning they wanted to be their own country but wanted to keep the CDN dollar, military bases, and other Federal services.

That idea was quickly squashed.

"Sovereign" means you go it alone. Period.

[HeresyLives]

30. Not the same thing

as a US state declaring 'sovereignty' as some major legal deal, if it isn't.

[roamer65]

25. Perry's statement is meaningless without a referendum.

Similar situation to Quebec. You've got to make the referendum clear and get it passed with 50% + 1 to even be taken seriously.

[HeresyLives]

31. A referendum on what?

States are already 'sovereign'. I wanted to know why they are suddenly passing and announcing something that already exists.

[bridgit]

27. It's boiler-plate histrionics; also a frame onto other matters 'sovereign'...

In fact sovereigns themselves; some sovereigns, are well writ as to their histrionic exploits so there's that. But what happened to Texas? Sure, The Gov has a tan such as it is; but those other dudes all shooting eyes round the room they were sun-starved the poor dears. I just thought that wild-wild west "line in the sand" "dead or alive" gamblers and gun slingers would have some kind of tan or handsome prairie weathering to suggest they'd ever stood in the sun but apparently that novella dropped off the vine ~

I suppose many states have them; but for a certain strata within Texas sending, it seemed the media moment their Yellow Rose out front to mouth instead what is thought to be 'sovereign'? From a state who's corp's are very keen on doing business in far off sovereign kingdoms-realms, and so with sovereigns themselves - real ones, well...'real', sovereign money instruments-fund-hedge stuff like that. republicans are nothing if not enamored with being thought of as a coagulated 'sovereign' entity and why not!? It's for those precious moments in ones life when being thought of as a 'monolith' is just simply not enough,

Using the word 'sovereign' in that setting came off a shrill, brittle opening position in which it would seem Texas republicans, and republicans beyond in considered measure; are seeking to claim un-writ articles framing themselves (Americans mind you, or so it is their claim) as worthy of sovereign status inside these united states to include being able to hire/fire in the course of their, Texas', 'sovereign deals' even they such are below mini wage/radar in the course of securing employees to dump their highfalutin chamber pots too! - Thus Spake The Sovereign, and to that *I* say...

Good Luck!