Legal Arguments by the US government to claim national union over the states

[TomEvans]

Contrary to popular belief; federal arguments of national union, were based not from the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence:



And Congress concurred with this legal claim, in authorizing military force against individual states, under alleged "national authority."

In reality this was a totalitarian conspiracy of mass-deception; since the Declaration of Independence did not declare sovereign dependence of the states to their union as a single sovereign nation; but simply declared each state to be a separate sovereign nation-- in an international union:

.

So it seems that the only "treason and revolution" under the Lincoln Administration; was by the Administration itself, against the 34 sovereign nations--23 of which were still in the Union.-- to seize national power over all of them by inside coup to wage Total War against the 11 seceding states, to prevent them from exercising their national sovereignty exactly as they did starting in 1787.



THE CONSTITUTION IS TREASONOUS!



"TRAITOR! HE'S DESTROYING THE UNION!"



So the US government is fond of fabricating its own version of history; to establish a modern totalitarian regime by Gaslighting.



Newsflash: the states already had the right to walk away from it-- as they already exercised to ratify the thing; no provision was needed.

And the US government never claimed that the states gave up that right-- it just denied that they ever had it in the first place, from 1832 onward:



So we see the claim of "national union," had a long history of gradual usurpation; which progressed toward a massive coup of covert takeover, via fabricated history and totalitarian propaganda combined with Total War and "divide and conquer" politics.

 

[5fish]

Federalist papers...

• A "Compound" Government: James Madison, in Federalist No. 39 and No. 51, explained that the new Constitution created a system that was neither purely national nor purely federal.
  • Federal aspects: The Constitution's foundation was federal because it was to be ratified by the people through special conventions in each state, acting as independent bodies, rather than by a national majority vote. The states also retained distinct powers, which would be looked after by state and local officials.
  • National aspects: The government's operation would be national in that its powers would directly operate on individual citizens rather than solely on the states themselves.

The core argument was that a government "at least equally energetic with the one proposed" was necessary to preserve the Union, prevent foreign interference, and overcome the problem of factions that plagued the previous, weaker Articles of Confederation. The system balanced power between two levels of government (state and federal), ensuring a "double security" for the people's rights.

 

[TomEvans]

Federalist papers...

• A "Compound" Government: James Madison, in Federalist No. 39 and No. 51, explained that the new Constitution created a system that was neither purely national nor purely federal.
  • Federal aspects: The Constitution's foundation was federal because it was to be ratified by the people through special conventions in each state, acting as independent bodies, rather than by a national majority vote. The states also retained distinct powers, which would be looked after by state and local officials.
  • National aspects: The government's operation would be national in that its powers would directly operate on individual citizens rather than solely on the states themselves.

The core argument was that a government "at least equally energetic with the one proposed" was necessary to preserve the Union, prevent foreign interference, and overcome the problem of factions that plagued the previous, weaker Articles of Confederation. The system balanced power between two levels of government (state and federal), ensuring a "double security" for the people's rights.

No. SUPREME power did not rest with any government-- let alone two separate governments, which is oxymoron (since by definition there can only be one supreme power); but with each state's respective electorate, who simply delegated power to state and federal governments, and was the supreme and final arbiter over any disputes regarding the terms of their international union.

Meanwhile the US government never claimed, that the Constitution ended any state's status as fully-sovereign nations; but only claimed that the states never had it to begin with, holding that the Declaration of Independence established the Union as political superior to every state:
.

So it's necessary to start there, by debunking this revisionist claim that the American Revolution established a single sovereign nation, that was political superior to all of the states.

And Madison said that the federal government would be "partly national:"


.
.. meanwhile if the Union could militarily coerce any state, it would be completely national.

Madison simply meant that the respective state electorates would be supreme, and they would delegate power directly to the federal government senior to the state governments-- but they could revoke it at will.




And so it did, as Lincoln extended this "other hypothesis" to its logical conclusion, under a national union theory that the states had never been individually sovereign; while under the international Constitution that Madison proclaimed, it could not have done so:

 

[5fish]

You incessantly ignore the fact that they gave up their sovereignty and their Independence, as Texas did decades later.

What right does the state have to leave the union that it willingly joins with the aspiration of a perpetual union?

What rights do the other states have in maintaining the union? They aspire to a union that will be forever...

How can one state have greater rights than another state? You think all states are equal, but some states are more equal than others... Orwellian?

Explain why a state has the right to leave the union for there has never been a exit cause from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution to today. Where is this magical exit, cause...

IT is time for you to explain why a state can leave the union without consequences...

Did you know ratification of the Constitution was in 6 stages, giving all citizens a voice in it...


The six stages of ratifying the U.S. Constitution, as described by Teaching American History, are: I) the initial push for ratification in the fall of 1787, II) the fast start and campaign through the winter of 1787-1788, III) the struggle to gain support in New England in February 1788, IV) the push in the middle states in the spring of 1788, V) the final, nail-biting efforts for ratification in the summer of 1788, and VI) the completion of ratification by the necessary number of states in late 1788.

Stage I: Fall 1787

• The Constitution is sent to the states for consideration, with the Federalist (pro-Constitution) side aiming for a quick victory.
• The "out-of-doors" campaign begins, with newspapers publishing essays on both sides of the debate.

Stage II: December 1787–January 1788

• The Federalist strategy of winning early ratifications to build momentum proves successful, as Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut ratify the Constitution.
• The Antifederalist opposition gains strength, particularly in Pennsylvania and New York.

Stage III: February 1788

• The debate becomes particularly challenging in Massachusetts, where ratification is initially uncertain.
• The Massachusetts convention ultimately ratifies the Constitution but with a recommendation for a Bill of Rights, setting a precedent for other states.

Stage IV: April–May 1788

• The Federalist campaign focuses on the Middle States, aiming to secure the remaining states needed for ratification.
• Maryland and South Carolina ratify the Constitution during this period.

Stage V: June–July 1788

• This stage is characterized by a tense and difficult fight to secure the final states necessary for ratification.
• New Hampshire becomes the ninth state to ratify, meeting the minimum requirement, and Virginia and New York follow soon after, providing the new government with a strong foundation.

Stage VI: Late 1788

• With the minimum of nine states having ratified, the new government can be formed.
• However, ratification is not complete until all thirteen states have approved the document, with North Carolina and Rhode Island being the last to ratify in 1789 and 1790, respectively.

 

[5fish]

Note... citizens made their choice...


The statement is correct: citizens elected delegates to conventions in each state, and these state conventions, not the state legislatures, were the bodies responsible for ratifying the proposed Constitution. This process ensured that the new government would be based on the consent of the people, as the delegates were specifically chosen by the electorate for the purpose of approving or rejecting the Constitution.

• Popular election of delegates: Citizens elected delegates to represent them in conventions held in their respective states.
• State-level ratification: These state conventions were the forums where the Constitution was debated and either approved or rejected, bypassing the state legislatures to avoid potential crippling amendments, notes National Archives.
• Legitimacy through consent: Having delegates elected specifically for this purpose and ratified by the people themself made the new government more legitimate, as it could be said to rule with the consent of the governed.
• A new government was formed: The original delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia drafted the Constitution, which then went to the states for ratification to become the law of the land, explain

 

[TomEvans]

You incessantly ignore the fact that they gave up their sovereignty and their Independence, as Texas did decades later.

Where? With the Declaration of Independence, like the US government claims?



Because that's the only argument that the US government ever made against each state being a separate sovereign nation, and I've debunked that separately.

What right does the state have to leave the union that it willingly joins with the aspiration of a perpetual union?

National sovereignty:

What rights do the other states have in maintaining the union? They aspire to a union that will be forever...

But are not bound to it by national authority.

As noted here:

Despite the absence of any superior authority to enforce such rules, international law is considered by states as binding upon them, and it is this fact which gives these rules the status of law.

So the Constitution was only binding on the states as international law; since the US government makes no valid legal argument of national union.

]How can one state have greater rights than another state? You think all states are equal, but some states are more equal than others... Orwellian?

They are all equal, in the sense of being separate sovereign nations.

Explain why a state has the right to leave the union for there has never been a exit cause from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution to today. Where is this magical exit, cause...

Sovereign nations don't need one. Simple as that.




So let's do some math:


So that needed THIRTEEN states to make any changes to the Articles of Confederation.

Now compare it to this:


Now, nine is less than 13, right?

So how did the states do that, with fewer than all 13 states?

Simple: THEY LEFT the Confederation, to form a new one of their own under the Constitution instead, with or without Rhode Island:



In short, they took their states, and went home.

IT is time for you to explain why a state can leave the union without consequences...

NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

 

[5fish]

But are not bound to it by national authority.

You punted, they joined a union, they have obligations and duties to the other states... Think Brexit, the U.K. had to negotiate the ending of their commitments to the E.U.... There is no legal right to leave our Union unlike the E.U....

So the Constitution was only binding on the states as international law; since the US government makes no valid legal argument of national union.

Have you not read anything I have posted, perpetual union and links...

Sovereign nations don't need one. Simple as that.

They are not sovereign anymore, they gave it up willingly, and you have not explained how besides arms...

 

[TomEvans]

You punted, they joined a union, they have obligations and duties to the other states...

International union, international duties and obligations.

Think Brexit, the U.K. had to negotiate the ending of their commitments to the E.U....

They didn't HAVE to, it was an international formality.

The EU couldn't invade the UK over claims that they "didn't do it right," like this:

There is no legal right to leave our Union unlike the E.U....

There is no agreement to a formal process for it, like there is in the EU:

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union


... but that didn't stop the states from leaving the Confederation, like they did to ratify the Constitution c. 1787.



See that? ONLY NINE STATES REQUIRED.

So according to Lincoln, the Constitution was "treasonous rebellion" because Rhode Island didn't agree to it, and was forced to ratify by necessity of the "insurrection."

Have you not read anything I have posted, perpetual union and links...

You mean this jibbering?

Where the link not a meme a link stated such... In order to from a perfect union... The perpetual Union... Where the link...

There's nothing to read.

Have you not read anything that Vatel wrote about it?



See that? a PERPETUAL CONFEDERACY.

That's what they formed under the Articles of Confederation and perpetual union:



But they were all free to ignore that, by the fact of their being separate sovereign nations:



So was James Madison a "traitor"?

They are not sovereign anymore, they gave it up willingly, and you have not explained how besides arms...

There's nothing to explain: sovereign nations REMAIN sovereign nations, unless it's officially and expressly changed (i.e. not by outside inference).

It's YOU who must explain your allegation, that they "gave up their sovereignty."


Here, we simply have a self-coup, that illegally seized power over the sovereign nations to an international union; under a fabricated history and legal fiction, that it was always a national union, and that the states were NEVER fully-sovereign nations.

So for you to say that "they gave it up willingly," you're already contradicting that official legal argument".

You'll have to prove it legally; and you can't, because it didn't happen-- and the US government doesn't even claim it.

So either prove it, or lose it; i.e. explain precisely how you allege that the 13 sovereign nations, "gave up their sovereignty" to form the national union-- and how the US government is wrong in its claim that they were NEVER 13 sovereign nations.

 

[5fish]

International union, international duties and obligations.

The federal government controls interstate commerce... Inter-state disputes governed by the federal government... Public lands managed by the federal government... The Federal government operates the waters around the nation... the Union is a national union of states with international and domestic functions, and not one legal scholar would agree with your delusion and only international fallacy...

So for you to say that "they gave it up willingly," you're already contradicting that official legal argument.

I am playing to your reasoning... You point out the Declaration of Independence, where they announce their independence and, with the autonomy they create, form a new nation called the United States, giving up sovereignty to the new country, all in the same document... The Articles of Confederation follow the same pattern as well as the Treaty of Paris... In all of these documents, they use the word sovereign or sovereignty, and in the following line, they declare they are the nation of the United States...

None of the 13 colonies had its autonomy for more than a paragraph in these documents, and you should use the word autonomy instead of sovereignty, for they were never sovereign entities, only autonomous ones...

You forget that each historical document is trumped by the Constitution and its legal supremacy over all those that preceded it. You cannot claim anything beyond their historical importance in those old documents; they have no standing...

, we simply have a self-coup, that illegally seized power over the sovereign nations to an international union; under a fabricated history and legal fiction, that it was always a national union, and that the states were NEVER fully-sovereign nations.

Your whole line is a fabrication of history and truth... The states were never sovereign entities, for they never passed the test for recognition as such, unlike the United States, which clearly has achieved... the colonies and later as states were autonomous entities that created a sovereign nation called the United States...

The Paris treaty gave the colonies their freedom but recognized the United States as England's equal...

A state can not leave the union unless it can convince Congress of the United States to let it go. It is that simple... How to persuade Congress is the question, isn't it?

So either prove it, or lose it; i.e. explain precisely how you allege that the 13 sovereign nations, "gave up their sovereignty" to form the national union-- and how the US government is wrong in its claim that they were NEVER 13 sovereign nations.

They sign documents (binding contracts) where they give up aspects of their autonomy to create a greater sovereign state... You realize that all these documents are contracts in which the parties agree to fulfill obligations to one another...

Here is a site to help you on your neo-confederate path... these guys are good at twisting the narrative... better than you... I'm giving you teachers..

Abbeville Institute – Explore the Southern Tradition

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

Abbeville Institute | Auburn AL

Abbeville Institute, Auburn. 1,166 likes · 127 talking about this. The Abbeville Institute is a 501 (c) 3 non-profit organization dedicated to exploring what is true and valuable in the Southern...

www.facebook.com

 

[TomEvans]

The Paris treaty gave the colonies their freedom but recognized the United States as England's equal...

No, it recognized the INDIVIDUAL STATES as England's equal:



So there it is, LITERALLY in the King's English:

....free, sovereign and independent states.

Not a free, sovereign and independent state.

Plural, not singular.

The states were never sovereign entities, for they never passed the test for recognition as such

That WAS the test.

Once Great Britain recognized and treated with them as 13 free, sovereign and independent states; they WERE.

the colonies and later as states were autonomous entities that created a sovereign nation called the United States...

Again, no:




This was discerned from what the Law of Nations defined in Book I, Chapter I, §11: “Of a state that has passed under the dominion of another:”

But a people that has passed under the dominion of another is no longer a state, and can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations. Such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire; the generality even of those whom they honoured with the name of friends and allies no longer formed real states. Within themselves, they were governed by their own laws and magistrates; but without, they were in every thing obliged to follow the orders of Rome; they dared not of themselves either to make war or contract alliances; and could not treat with nations.

And the Declaration of Independence, was deeply rooted in the 18th-century "law of nations" (international law), using principles from theorists like Vattel and Grotius to justify the American colonies' separation by appealing to universal rights and the right of self-governance, aiming to gain international recognition and legitimacy as sovereign entities capable of treaties, not just as a domestic rebellion.

Therefore since the states could “make war, contract alliances, and treat with other nations," and “do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do;” then the states were not under the dominion of another, and thus were 13 separate sovereign nations.

And this declared intent, was retained under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union:

II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

And this was in the following context from the Law of Nations, §10. “Of states forming a federal republic:”

Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfill engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

As such, the states simply formed an international union of (thirteen) separate sovereign nations— just like the United Nations or the European Union, after them; and each nation simply delegated powers to the United States as such a federal republic, being a “voluntary engagement among a perpetual confederacy” among separate sovereign nations, whose joint deliberations did not impair the sovereignty of each nation.

 

[TomEvans]

... the Union is a national union of states with international and domestic functions, and not one legal scholar would agree with your delusion and only international fallacy...

You forget that each historical document is trumped by the Constitution and its legal supremacy over all those that preceded it. You cannot claim anything beyond their historical importance in those old documents; they have no standing...

That is NOT the US government's legal argument, which is that the states were NEVER 13 sovereign nations:





You, meanwhile, claim that the states WERE 13 sovereign nations gave up their national sovereignty via the Constitution?

You keep refusing to give a straight answer on this, but give vague and conflicting answers.

Let's see you write EXACTLY what you claim happened in the American Revolution?

 

[5fish]

hat is NOT the US government's legal argument, which is that the states were NEVER 13 sovereign nations:

I pointed this out numerous times, the colonies became states within the Nation State called the United States... Everything they did that showed nation-state power was done as the United States... States have governors and Nations have heads of state... None of the colonies had a head of state...

Here are the Heads of State in the Revolutionary War...


During the American Revolution, the role of "head of government" did not exist as a single executive office like the later U.S. Presidency. Instead, the government was a collective body known as the Continental Congress.

The most prominent leadership position within this body was the President of the Continental Congress, a presiding officer elected by the delegates. This position was largely ceremonial and administrative, not an executive role with independent power.
Several individuals held this position throughout the war. The most notable among them was John Hancock, who served from May 24, 1775, to October 29, 1777, and was the president of Congress when the Declaration of Independence was adopted and signed.
Other key figures who served as President of the Continental Congress during the revolution include:

• Peyton Randolph
• Henry Middleton
• Henry Laurens
• John Jay
• Samuel Huntington
• Thomas McKean
• John Hanson (often cited as the first president to serve a full one-year term under the Articles of Confederation)
• Elias Boudinot
• Thomas Mifflin
• Richard Henry Lee
• Nathaniel Gorham
• Arthur St. Clair
• Cyrus Griffin

The American government was structured to prevent the concentration of power in a single person, a direct reaction to the perceived tyranny of the British monarchy. Real executive authority was intentionally weak under the Articles of Confederation (ratified in 1781), with states retaining significant autonomy and Congress handling national affairs collectively.

George Washington, as Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, was the indispensable military leader, but civilian control of the military was a core principle, meaning he answered to the various delegates in Congress. The formal office of the President of the United States, as we know it today, was established later with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788 and Washington's election as the first President in 1789, after the war had ended

 

[TomEvans]

I pointed this out numerous times, the colonies became states within the Nation State called the United States...

It was never called a state; only a confederation of free, sovereign and independent states.

Real executive authority was intentionally weak under the Articles of Confederation (ratified in 1781), with states retaining significant autonomy and Congress handling national affairs collectively.

States retained their sovereignty, freedom and independence; and a confederation is an international union.



Perpetual does NOT mean "national."

 

[5fish]

It was never called a state; only a confederation of free, sovereign and independent states.



States retained their sovereignty, freedom and independence; and a confederation is an international union.

View attachment 19192

Perpetual does NOT mean "national."

I am proud you found a book to use, but remember that it was a philosophy book that, in the following decades, motivated future laws...

International was not a thing in the 1770s, again you are using presentism by implying the book is true... its philosophy...

Books like Emer de Vattel's The Law of Nations (1758) and Christian Wolff's The Law of Nations Treated According to the Scientific Method were foundational philosophical texts, applying rationalist natural law to create a systematic approach to international relations, arguing for universal principles of liberty, equality, and duties between states, heavily influencing Enlightenment thought and the American Founders' ideas on sovereignty and diplomacy. These works synthesized reason with practical statecraft, moving beyond mere custom to establish a philosophical basis for how nations ought to interact in peace and war.

Philosophy of International Law (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The English phrase “international law” was first coined by the utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham (Janis 1984). But philosophical engagement with international legal themes stretches back to writings on natural law in ancient Greece and Rome. Philosophers in this tradition—such as Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and the Stoics—advanced the idea of a universal normative order over and above the laws and customs found in particular societies that is discoverable through the exercise of ordinary human, or “natural”, reason (Nussbaum 2019: 18–96). In the Middle Ages, Christian beliefs framed the idea of normative universalism which, at times, was cynically deployed to justify the wrongs of Christian rulers but, at its best, provided the basis for subjecting their conduct to moral censure, as the criticisms of the Conquistadores in some of the Spanish Scholastics illustrate (Pagden 2003; Pagden & Lawrence 1991).

 

[TomEvans]

I am proud you found a book to use, but remember that it was a philosophy book that, in the following decades, motivated future laws...

International was not a thing in the 1770s, again you are using presentism by implying the book is true... its philosophy...

Books like Emer de Vattel's The Law of Nations (1758) and Christian Wolff's The Law of Nations Treated According to the Scientific Method were foundational philosophical texts, applying rationalist natural law to create a systematic approach to international relations, arguing for universal principles of liberty, equality, and duties between states, heavily influencing Enlightenment thought and the American Founders' ideas on sovereignty and diplomacy. These works synthesized reason with practical statecraft, moving beyond mere custom to establish a philosophical basis for how nations ought to interact in peace and war.

Philosophy of International Law (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The English phrase “international law” was first coined by the utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham (Janis 1984). But philosophical engagement with international legal themes stretches back to writings on natural law in ancient Greece and Rome. Philosophers in this tradition—such as Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and the Stoics—advanced the idea of a universal normative order over and above the laws and customs found in particular societies that is discoverable through the exercise of ordinary human, or “natural”, reason (Nussbaum 2019: 18–96). In the Middle Ages, Christian beliefs framed the idea of normative universalism which, at times, was cynically deployed to justify the wrongs of Christian rulers but, at its best, provided the basis for subjecting their conduct to moral censure, as the criticisms of the Conquistadores in some of the Spanish Scholastics illustrate (Pagden 2003; Pagden & Lawrence 1991).

Actually, the Declaration of Independence was framed in the language of the "Law of Nations," to justify the American colonies' separation from Great Britain to the world, and to gain international recognition and support.

It argued that the colonies had the right, under the law of nature and of nature's God, to separate and form their own independent states. This established the new United States as independent actors with the power to engage in diplomacy, war, and commerce, just like any other sovereign nations.

Therefore since the states could “make war, contract alliances, and treat with other nations," and “do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do;” the states were not under the dominion of another, and thus were 13 separate sovereign nations:

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.

This was discerned from what the Law of Nations defined in Book I, Chapter I, §11: “Of a state that has passed under the dominion of another:”

But a people that has passed under the dominion of another is no longer a state, and can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations. Such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire; the generality even of those whom they honoured with the name of friends and allies no longer formed real states. Within themselves, they were governed by their own laws and magistrates; but without, they were in every thing obliged to follow the orders of Rome; they dared not of themselves either to make war or contract alliances; and could not treat with nations.

And this declared intent, was retained under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union:

II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

And this was likewise in the following context from the Law of Nations, §10. “Of states forming a federal republic:”

Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfill engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

As such, the states simply formed an international union (i.e. a confederation) of thirteen separate sovereign nations— just like the United Nations or the European Union, after them; and each nation simply delegated powers to the United States as such a federal republic, being a “voluntary engagement among a perpetual confederacy” of separate sovereign nations, whose joint deliberations did not impair the sovereignty of each nation.

 

[5fish]

Repeating Yourself, I'm sharing here as well...

I am impressed you did not use memes...

You are arguing that the 13 colonies in the Declaration of Independence declared independence from the United States. You say the United States is not a nation-state but a club, without ceding sovereignty to the United States. You believe the original 13 colonies' sovereignty is greater than that of the entity they created, the United States. This sovereignty persists to this day and justified the handful of the original 13 colonies in legally seceding from the United States in 1860.

We are going to ignore the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, in which these said sovereign states voluntarily gave up their sovereignty to maintain the nation-state of the United States...

Yes, in international law, a nation can voluntarily give up some or all of its sovereignty by ceding powers to supranational bodies (like the EU) or through treaties, though this is often seen as limiting, not losing, sovereignty in a new, shared system; sovereignty isn't absolute and can also be limited by force or failure to uphold responsibilities, but full relinquishment is rare and usually voluntary for mutual benefit.

You believe the United States is an act of Pooling Sovereignty.

Yes, the European Union (EU) is fundamentally a system of pooled sovereignty, where its 27 member states voluntarily share decision-making power in specific areas (like trade, environment, single market) through common institutions, allowing for collective action and benefits beyond what individual nations could achieve, while still retaining significant national sovereignty, especially in sensitive areas like defense or taxation. It's a unique blend of supranational and intergovernmental governance, creating a multi-level system where laws can be made at the EU level and applied across member states

The United States is not Pooling Sovereignty but the Westphalian System... voiding your whole concept....

Yes, the United States operates within the Westphalian system of international relations, embodying core principles like sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-intervention in other states' internal affairs, as established by the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, even while facing challenges from globalization and transnational issues that sometimes blur these lines.


pooled sovereignty
A term used to denote the sharing of decision‐making powers between states in systems of international cooperation. Whereas unanimous decision‐making between states leaves sovereignty unscathed, given the right of any state to unilaterally veto decisions, pooling of sovereignty implies a departure from unanimous decision‐making. The most prominent system of international cooperation in which sovereignty is pooled is the European Union (EU). In a number of issue areas which have been defined in the treaty and subsequent treaty amendments, the member state delegates in the Council, one of the EU's legislative organs, decide by a qualified majority. Consequently, pooling creates the possibility that individual member states can be outvoted. The main reason why states choose to pool sovereignty is to reduce the likelihood of gridlock in policy areas where—on average—states expect to be better off by pooling sovereignty than by retaining the unanimity rule. This has been the case particularly in the context of creating a European single market for goods and services. The introduction of qualified majority voting in these issues demonstrated that EU member states valued the benefits of the abolition of trade barriers more than those that would have been associated with retaining the right to veto. However, in policy areas which governments consider particularly sensitive for domestic or ideological reasons or where the potential gains from pooling sovereignty are uncertain, governments are likely to retain the right to veto (for example, foreign and security policy, and redistributive policies).

Westphalian system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Westphalian system, also known as Westphalian sovereignty, is a principle in international law that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its territory. The principle developed in Europe after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, based on the state theory of Jean Bodin and the natural law teachings of Hugo Grotius. It underlies the modern international system of sovereign states and is enshrined in the United Nations Charter, which states that "nothing ... shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state."[1]


I believed you had been trumped...

 

[5fish]

Ignoring the truth on sovereignty... @TomEvans

 

[TomEvans]

Repeating Yourself, I'm sharing here as well...

I am impressed you did not use memes...

I never use memes.

A "meme" is a political cartoon.

A picture which contains a legal quote, is not a "meme."

It's still a legal quote, that simply contains the speaker's picture for reference.

You are arguing that the 13 colonies in the Declaration of Independence declared independence from the United States.

No, I would never do that; since they never had dependence on the United States--- only on Great Britain.

It is you who believes, that they declared dependence on the United States.

Read this, for once:



This clearly claims, that that the object of the Declaration of Independence, was for the states to declare dependence on one another and "the Union,"

But in reality, that never happened.

Again, read the following:




This was discerned from what the Law of Nations defined in Book I, Chapter I, §11: “Of a state that has passed under the dominion of another:”

But a people that has passed under the dominion of another is no longer a state, and can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations. Such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire; the generality even of those whom they honoured with the name of friends and allies no longer formed real states. Within themselves, they were governed by their own laws and magistrates; but without, they were in every thing obliged to follow the orders of Rome; they dared not of themselves either to make war or contract alliances; and could not treat with nations.

Meanwhile The Declaration of Independence was framed in the language of the "Law of Nations," to justify the American colonies' separation from Great Britain to the world, and to gain international recognition and support. It argued that the colonies had the right, under the law of nature and of nature's God, to separate and form their own independent states. This established the new United States as independent actors with the power to engage in diplomacy, war, and commerce, just like any other sovereign nations.






Therefore since the states could “make war, contract alliances, and treat with other nations," and “do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do;” the states were not under the dominion of another, and thus were 13 separate sovereign nations.

And this was in the following context from the Law of Nations, §10. “Of states forming a federal republic:”

Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfill engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

As such, the states simply formed an international union of (thirteen) separate sovereign nations— just like the United Nations or the European Union, after them; and each nation simply delegated powers to the United States as such a federal republic, being a “voluntary engagement among a perpetual confederacy” among separate sovereign nations, whose joint deliberations did not impair the sovereignty of each nation.

We are going to ignore the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, in which these said sovereign states voluntarily gave up their sovereignty to maintain the nation-state of the United States...

Again, the US government does not claim this, but claims that they never had sovereignty to begin with; alleging that they declared dependence on one another and the Union in 1776.

Therefore the US government's legal argument for national union, logically depends on this claim; and thus is wholly invalidated by your own admission of the fact that the states were internationally sovereign in 1776.

 

[5fish]

It is you who believes, that they declared dependence on the United States.

They became the United States...

ead this, for once:

I did it supports my argument, not yours... Could you read the last line? It dispels your argument...

Again, read the following:

Read the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence... The opening line and the previous line of fidelity to each other... It's a love vow!... The in-between stuff is the devoice from The State of Great Britain, and the last line is a marriage vow to the United States...

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Therefore since the states could “make war, contract alliances, and treat with other nations," and “do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do;” the states were not under the dominion of another, and thus were 13 separate sovereign nations.

They could have become 13 independent states, but chose to join a union, ceding sovereignty to the United States... I do not know why you do not understand giving up sovereignty to form a new entity and never able to reclaim that sovereignty...

As such, the states simply formed an international union of (thirteen) separate sovereign nations

This is called pooled sovereignty, and we have the Westphalian system of sovereignty, which was in vogue at the time... You do not seem to understand this either...

Again, the US government does not claim this, but claims that they never had sovereignty to begin with; alleging that they declared dependence on one another and the Union in 1776.

Because the states gave up sovereignty in their devolution letter to Great Britain in 1776, we call it the Declaration of Independence.

 

[TomEvans]

They became the United States...

Yes, an international union of 13 fully-sovereign nations.

Read the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence... The opening line and the previous line of fidelity to each other...

Among the representatives themselves:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

So the pronouns "we" and "our" meant the actual representatives-- not the states, which are identified by the pronouns "they" and "them."
Basic grammar.

They could have become 13 independent states,

Uh..... what part of " these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States" do you NOT understand?

but chose to join a union, ceding sovereignty to the United States...

The United States was never declared as a state; you simply suffer from confirmation-bias of your own narrative.

I do not know why you do not understand giving up sovereignty to form a new entity and never able to reclaim that sovereignty...

Perhaps because, unlike you, I am a legal scholar who did the research-- without bias.

This is called pooled sovereignty, and we have the Westphalian system of sovereignty, which was in vogue at the time... You do not seem to understand this either...

Because again, I did the research; and so I know that the Declaration of Independence was framed in the language of the "Law of Nations" from 1758, to justify the American colonies' separation from Great Britain to the world, and to gain international recognition and support.

It argued that the colonies had the right, under the law of nature and of nature's God, to separate and form their own independent states. This established the new United States as independent actors with the power to engage in diplomacy, war, and commerce, just like any other sovereign nations.

So the states declared in the Declaration of Independence, were discerned from what the Law of Nations defined in Book I, Chapter I, §11: “Of a state that has passed under the dominion of another:”

But a people that has passed under the dominion of another is no longer a state, and can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations. Such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire; the generality even of those whom they honoured with the name of friends and allies no longer formed real states. Within themselves, they were governed by their own laws and magistrates; but without, they were in every thing obliged to follow the orders of Rome; they dared not of themselves either to make war or contract alliances; and could not treat with nations.

Therefore since the states could “make war, contract alliances, and treat with other nations," and “do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do;” the states were not under the dominion of another, and thus were 13 separate sovereign nations.

And this was in the following context from the Law of Nations, §10. “Of states forming a federal republic:”

Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfill engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

As such, the states simply formed an international union of (thirteen) separate sovereign nations— just like the United Nations or the European Union, after them; and each nation simply delegated powers to the United States as such a federal republic, being a “voluntary engagement among a perpetual confederacy” among separate sovereign nations, whose joint deliberations did not impair the sovereignty of each nation.