Why is the location of sovereignty in a state so important?

Answer 1

States will normally control their own laws and regulations, except where this conflicts with individual rights under the Constitution, or with Federal law. State sovereignty is a legal principle that US states are acknowledged by the Constitution to have control over the laws and activities within their jurisdictions. This is subject to restriction in some cases by the Congress under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, to prevent individual states from discrimination in interstate commerce. Commentary on the Application of Sovereignty I apologize for what follows. However, one cannot answer your question honestly without the threat of sounding condescending. It is not my intention to be condescending, but I must go into excruciating detail in order to be sure that I give you enough information to understand, not only the answer to your question, but also the political context of the phrase "state sovereignty" Again, I apologize if I come across as condescending. When one living in America, myself included, hears the word "state", they often think of it as a piece to the puzzle that is the Continental United States of America. In this respect, Americans are at a great disadvantage. The word "state" is actually defined as, "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially: one that is sovereign .... The operations or concerns of the government of a country." Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, eleventh edition. Admittedly, one of the very last definitions of the word "state" is, "one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government. In other words, every state is a sovereign entity. It is redundant to say "state sovereignty." Furthermore, since a state is, by definition, a sovereign entity, it is additionally redundant to suggest that sovereignty is something to which a state should aspire. Finally, any state that could pass a law for state sovereignty would, by the very act of passing a law, be exercising its sovereignty. However, since the election of President Barack Obama, the words "state sovereignty" have been thrown around by those who oppose the President, or his administration. This phrase is not new, it just hasn't been used in a while. If it is in this context that your question is directed, then it would be impolite if I failed to inform you that the use of these words is code for everything from support for state's rights to support for outright secession. Several Republican governors have tossed these words around in response to media questions concerning the President's stimulus package. In fact, you may remember that a handful of governors recently threatened to refuse, on behalf of their entire state, additional money that was to be directed to their state pursuant to the stimulus package. The only specific names I recall are Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, and Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisana. I also remember that the governor of Texas was one such governor, but I do not recall his name. That particular governor has gone so far as to fuel talk about secession. MY RANK OPINION FOLLOWS Truly speaking, the whole "state sovereignty" discussion is what cynical Americans have come to expect from their politicians: Making decisions concerning the manner with which they serve based upon a Machiavellian balancing of pros and cons. In other words, the politician who uses this maneuver often has much to gain and personally risks very little. However, this type of maneuver is on the wrong side of the "quality" spectrum of political discourse. The political upside of using this type of maneuver is significant. It energizes the base through use of an "us" vs "them" narrative. The payoff comes when the base is called on to donate their time or their money. This in turn empowers the party to press for advantage during the next election cycle. Also, the specific politician who uses this type of ploy gains "street cred" for appearing to take on the President by threatening to simply ignore federal law, or to secede. The downside for the politician is little. However, it is pandering at its worst. The politician who actually uses this maneuver reveals, either that her or she does not see the redundancy inherent in the idea of their state pressing for "state sovereignty", or that they assume that their constituents do not see the redundancy of the idea. In conclusion, I believe it was important for me to explain this at length because it is emblematic of the state (no pun intended) of our body politic. I believe that people, myself included, are willing to go where ever they are led, whether we are asked to strive for greatness, or asked simply to fight those with whom we disagree. I do not believe that politics is dirty because it is human nature for the great masses to take the easy path. Instead, I believe that politics is dirty because our politicians believe it is human nature for the great masses to take the easy path. In other words, I believe that our politicians give us much less credit than we deserve and that they have a disturbingly cynical view of what politics is. --------