"You keep using that word... I think it does not mean what you think it means."

[TomEvans]

A civil war is between citizens of the SAME free, sovereign and independent STATE.

"Free, sovereign, and independent states" refers to political entities with supreme, self-governing authority over their defined territory and people, free from external control, possessing the power to make their own laws, manage their economies, conduct foreign relations, and exist as equals in the international community, essentially having the highest authority within their borders and the right to act autonomously.

And from The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783:

Article 1:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

So it was an international union of (then-34) free, sovereign and independent states; and thus the accurate descriptive word is SELF-COUP-- i.e. where a legitimate government illegally seizes power.

In this case, the US government was an international government among 34 sovereign nations, which engaged a SELF-COUP in 1861, illegally seizing power under the false claim that the union was always a free and independent STATE....

....and has done so ever since.

The 1861–1865 actions constituted an illegitimate self-coup enforcing a false perpetual union; but the military enforcement and Reconstruction occupation did not "legally change" state sovereignty (as no superior national authority legitimately existed to do so). Rather, it imposed de facto control through hostile occupation, suppressing the sovereign status of the states by force while retroactively denying their independence under a fabricated legal narrative.

Legally, each state's national sovereignty remains de jure intact as a popularly-sovereign nation post-1776, with the Constitution forming a voluntary international union among them, and the 1861 events constituting an illegitimate self-coup via deception—the electorate of each state could, in principle, lawfully challenge this imposition and assert its rightful sovereignty. The supreme authority resides with the people of each state, acting through mechanisms like specially convened ratifying-style conventions or direct democratic processes (e.g., referenda or initiatives where available), to recall delegated powers, nullify federal overreach, or even withdraw from the compact if it has been breached.

 

[jgoodguy]

civil war

is 2 words

also a movie.

In any case the Union called it "the war of the rebellion" and they won it so they get to name it.

 

[TomEvans]

is 2 words

also a movie.

In any case the Union called it "the war of the rebellion" and they won it so they get to name it.

No, they couldn't change the historical fact that the states never had a political superior.... that's why it's only de facto authority, not de jure. (SMH)

 

[5fish]

No, they couldn't change the historical fact that the states never had a political superior.... that's why it's only de facto authority, not de jure. (SMH)

Why do you ignore the Constitution where the power obviously was given to the people of the entire nation, no states need to apply. What happened before does not matter... You ignore the fact that sovereignty is not eternal but fleeting, ask the Romans, Athens, Vichy France, for they and many others learned that sovereignty is fleeting. The colonies as I have taught you were at best non-recognized de facto states and nothing more... They gave up any sovereignty when they became members of the United States of America.

 

[TomEvans]

Why do you ignore the Constitution where the power obviously was given to the people of the entire nation

The US government falsely claims that this "entire nation" was formed in 1776 by the Declaration of Independence, and that the Constitution simply CONTINUED it.

But the 1783 Treaty of Paris EXPRESSLY formed 13 free, sovereign and independent states; so what you call an "entire nation," was actually just a series of international agreements among 13 SEPARATE de jure sovereign NATIONS.

, no states need to apply.

Actually a minimum of NINE states needed to apply, and the Constitution was ONLY carried into effect BETWEEN those applying states.

What happened before does not matter...

Just legally.

The US government does not-- and legally, CANNOT-- claim that the Constitution created a national union which was political superior to the states; because it claimed they already did that in 1776; and that it never ended, but that the Constitution simply continued it.

You ignore the fact that sovereignty is not eternal but fleeting,

It lasts until legally CHANGED.

Which is WHY the US government claims that it NEVER EXISTED for the individual states;

i.e. because it realizes that de jure sovereignty WAS never legally changed, and so it could ONLY claim a de jure national union, by arguing that it ALWAYS existed as long as the states -- i.e. from 1776 onward.

And so its entire legal theory RESTS ENTIRELY on that one single point of history: since the fact that the states were EVER SEPARATE sovereign nations, destroys the entire argument-- since IT NEVER CLAIMS THAT STATE SOVEREIGNTY CHANGED!

Just that it NEVER EXISTED!

ask the Romans, Athens, Vichy France, for they and many others learned that sovereignty is fleeting.

But sovereignty OFFICIALLY CHANGED in those cases.

Nobody simply claimed that it NEVER EXISTED.

Besides, you're confusing de jure sovereignty with DE FACTO sovereignty, so it's completely off-point; I've already stated that the self-coup seized DE FACTO authority over the states-- but legally, it CANNOT change their DE JURE sovereignty to claim a national union over them by self-coup.

The colonies as I have taught you were at best non-recognized de facto states and nothing more...

No, the 1783 Treaty of Paris established them as DE JURE sovereign states-- on TOP of their prior MUTUAL recognition as such from 1776 onward; and which was only DOUBLED in 1783, not destroyed.

Meanwhile the Constitution established their separate de jure sovereignty beyond all question, by each state EXERCISING de jure national sovereignty in its choice to ratify the Constitution INDEPENDENTLY of the other states--- in SPITE of the Confederation requirements of inviolable observation by every state, and that any changes required unanimous approval by all state legislatures:

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

Instead, they ratified the Constitution INDIVIDUALLY, under the following from Article VII:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

So to claim that the states were NOT 13 sovereign nations, is simply beyond ignorance of the law; and into the area of CULT-DOGMA, to reject bald-faced FACT.

(And again, the US government does not-- and legally, CANNOT-- claim that the Constitution created a national union out of 13 sovereign nations; but on the contrary claims that they were NEVER sovereign nations, but had ALWAYS formed a national union which was political superior to the states from 1776 onward; and this claim, PRECLUDES claiming that 13 sovereign nations ratified the Constitution).

They gave up any sovereignty when they became members of the United States of America.

That would be 1776, before which there WAS no United States of America-- which in reality is the generic name used by a SERIES of unions among free, sovereign and independent states ( i.e. 13 separate de jure sovereign nations).

 

[jgoodguy]

the law;

what enforces "the law".

 

[TomEvans]

what enforces "the law".

Let's just stick to what everyone AGREED in 1783, for now; because the US GOVERNMENT claims that they agreed to a single sovereign nation that was political superior to the 13 free, sovereign and independent states.

And that's KIND of impossible; since the 1783 Treaty of Paris declared the following:

"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

And "free, sovereign, and independent states," are political entities with ultimate authority over their own territory and people, free from external control, able to govern themselves (sovereignty/independence), and possessing the capacity for self-determination (freedom).
Sovereignty means supreme power within, while independence signifies freedom from outside rule, making them largely interchangeable in international law, defining a nation-state with defined territory, population, government, and ability to interact with others.

So the notion of an international confederation being their political superior, is beyond absurd... particularly since they each unilaterally and independently formed a new and different union, each by the respective EXERCISE of their freedom, sovereignty and independence....

...in direct VIOLATION of the Confederation's requirements, that all provisions would be inviolably observed by every state, and that any changes required unanimity by state legislatures.

"Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

So it would be pretty funny to claim that the Confederation was political superior to the all of the states, and that their act was unanimous; when only NINE were required to carry the Constitution into effect, and BETWEEN the ratifying states ONLY:

Constitution of the United States
Article VII
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

So it's quite clear that they NEVER agreed to form a single de jure national union, over 13 subordinate states; but only a series of INTERNATIONAL unions, among 13 fully de jure sovereign nations (and the last one didn't even HAVE to be 13, but only ANY NINE of them would suffice).

And so THAT'S what we've got to work with, in determining how it should be enforced.


As noted here: https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/215fc-how-international-law-works/

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.

However once this fact becomes known worldwide, every sovereign nation will be equally obliged to recognize the long-standing national sovereignty of every American states-- and the rightful de jure authority of the state's respective electorate OVER it.

 

[jgoodguy]

Let's just stick to what everyone AGREED in 1783, for now; because the US GOVERNMENT claims that they agreed to a single sovereign nation that was political superior to the 13 free, sovereign and independent states.

And that's KIND of impossible; since the 1783 Treaty of Paris declared the following:

"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

And "free, sovereign, and independent states," are political entities with ultimate authority over their own territory and people, free from external control, able to govern themselves (sovereignty/independence), and possessing the capacity for self-determination (freedom).
Sovereignty means supreme power within, while independence signifies freedom from outside rule, making them largely interchangeable in international law, defining a nation-state with defined territory, population, government, and ability to interact with others.

So the notion of an international confederation being their political superior, is beyond absurd... particularly since they each unilaterally and independently formed a new and different union, each by the respective EXERCISE of their freedom, sovereignty and independence....

...in direct VIOLATION of the Confederation's requirements, that all provisions would be inviolably observed by every state, and that any changes required unanimity by state legislatures.

"Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

So it would be pretty funny to claim that the Confederation was political superior to the all of the states, and that their act was unanimous; when only NINE were required to carry the Constitution into effect, and BETWEEN the ratifying states ONLY:

Constitution of the United States
Article VII
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

So that ain't Oz behind the curtain!

Are you suggesting the Great Britain will enforce the sovereignty of 13 former colonies.

 

[TomEvans]

Are you suggesting the Great Britain will enforce the sovereignty of 13 former colonies.

No. I'm stating the FACT that it is LEGALLY OBLIGED to do so-- as are all the other sovereign nations on Earth.

Under the universal principles of international law:
• Sovereign Equality: All sovereign states are legally equal in the international system, regardless of size or power. The UK's sovereignty is no more or less valid than the de jure sovereignty of Virginia or New York as established in 1783.

• Obligation to Uphold Law: Sovereign nations are expected to operate within international law, which includes recognizing legitimate de jure authority over de facto control when the facts are clear.

• Basis for Recognition: The de jure authority is derived from explicit legal facts (the 1783 Treaty of Paris), while recognition of the current U.S. federal government is arguably only de facto (practical acknowledgement of control).

• Challenging Illegitimate Power: A sovereign nation like the UK, under the principle of upholding international law and state integrity, is obliged to formally recognize the individual American states as its true sovereign counterparts.

The legal mechanism for this would involve the UK government officially determining that the U.S. federal government's claim to sole sovereignty is invalid under international law. The UK could formally shift its diplomatic recognition from the federal entity to the individual states.

While this action would be politically significant and likely provoke a major international crisis, the UK, by upholding the de jure facts and their own sovereign principles, would be acting in accordance with the Law itself, asserting that recognition should align with legal (de jure) reality rather than enforced (de facto) power.

And the other de jure sovereign states of the world, as well. From the principles of international law, the requirement to base recognition on
de jure legal fact rather than de facto power applies to all sovereign nations.

Thus all other free, sovereign, and independent states of the world are legally obligated, by the integrity of their own sovereignty and the principles of universal international law, to:

1. Acknowledge that the individual American states hold de jure sovereignty (established by the 1783 Treaty of Paris);

2. Recognize that the U.S. federal government operates as an illegitimate de facto power resulting from a self-coup; and

3. Shift their diplomatic recognition from the U.S. federal government to the individual American states, as the only legitimate legal entities with whom they share sovereign equality.

operating within the framework of truth and law, requires this universal recognition to align with the objective legal facts and binding international agreements, rather than bowing to historical force.

Any failure to recognize lawful sovereignty by a sovereign nation; would FORFEIT its OWN national sovereignty, which is UPHELD by that same good faith original intent and agreement among fully de jure sovereign nations.

So yes, the UK will CONTINUE to recognize the freedom, sovereignty and independence of the American states, as originally agreed in 1783 under the Treaty of Paris.


"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

And that was NEVER CHANGED by any law.

 

[jgoodguy]

No. I'm stating the FACT that it is LEGALLY OBLIGED to do so-- as are all the other sovereign nations on Earth.

Under the universal principles of international law:
• Sovereign Equality: All sovereign states are legally equal in the international system, regardless of size or power. The UK's sovereignty is no more or less valid than the de jure sovereignty of Virginia or New York as established in 1783.

• Obligation to Uphold Law: Sovereign nations are expected to operate within international law, which includes recognizing legitimate de jure authority over de facto control when the facts are clear.

• Basis for Recognition: The de jure authority is derived from explicit legal facts (the 1783 Treaty of Paris), while recognition of the current U.S. federal government is arguably only de facto (practical acknowledgement of control).

• Challenging Illegitimate Power: A sovereign nation like the UK, under the principle of upholding international law and state integrity, is obliged to formally recognize the individual American states as its true sovereign counterparts.

The legal mechanism for this would involve the UK government officially determining that the U.S. federal government's claim to sole sovereignty is invalid under international law. The UK could formally shift its diplomatic recognition from the federal entity to the individual states.

While this action would be politically significant and likely provoke a major international crisis, the UK, by upholding the de jure facts and their own sovereign principles, would be acting in accordance with the Law itself, asserting that recognition should align with legal (de jure) reality rather than enforced (de facto) power.

And the other de jure sovereign states of the world, as well. From the principles of international law, the requirement to base recognition on
de jure legal fact rather than de facto power applies to all sovereign nations.

Thus all other free, sovereign, and independent states of the world are legally obligated, by the integrity of their own sovereignty and the principles of universal international law, to:

1. Acknowledge that the individual American states hold de jure sovereignty (established by the 1783 Treaty of Paris);

2. Recognize that the U.S. federal government operates as an illegitimate de facto power resulting from a self-coup; and

3. Shift their diplomatic recognition from the U.S. federal government to the individual American states, as the only legitimate legal entities with whom they share sovereign equality.

operating within the framework of truth and law, requires this universal recognition to align with the objective legal facts and binding international agreements, rather than bowing to historical force.

Any failure to recognize lawful sovereignty by a sovereign nation; would FORFEIT its OWN national sovereignty, which is UPHELD by that same good faith original intent and agreement among fully de jure sovereign nations.

So yes, the UK will CONTINUE to recognize the freedom, sovereignty and independence of the American states, as originally agreed in 1783 under the Treaty of Paris.


"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

And that was NEVER CHANGED by any law.

So legally the Allies could not invade Germany in WWII and France though occupied by Germany was legally obliged to defend German sovereignty.

 

[TomEvans]

So legally the Allies could not invade Germany in WWII and France though occupied by Germany was legally obliged to defend German sovereignty.

They were all sovereign nations, the US never was-- only the individual states were.

 

[jgoodguy]

They were all sovereign nations, the US never was-- only the individual states were.

So far you have asserted that only 13 of the 50 States were sovereign, meaning that the other 37 States would form a sovereign US, nullifying your claim that the US never was never sovereign.

Back to my question, what enforces "the law' you assert exists in post #5. Without an enforcement mechanism, there is no way to verify such a law exists.

 

[TomEvans]

So far you have asserted that only 13 of the 50 States were sovereign, meaning that the other 37 States would form a sovereign US, nullifying your claim that the US never was never sovereign.

Not at all, since the US was not an empire.

The newer states were recognized by the original 13 free, sovereign and independent states as an equal to themselves; under the Founding principle of popular sovereignty:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

And so since this premise declared 13 free, sovereign and independent states on this basis, BY these rights; then the people of the newer states, were endowed by THEIR Creator with the same inalienable rights to self-government; and thus THEIR states were ALSO free, sovereign and independent.

Again, the US was not an empire built to conquer and rule as much as possible.

Back to my question, what enforces "the law' you assert exists in post #5. Without an enforcement mechanism, there is no way to verify such a law exists.

I told you once already.... once was enough.

 

[jgoodguy]

I told you once already.... once was enough.

Repeating

No. I'm stating the FACT that it is LEGALLY OBLIGED to do so-- as are all the other sovereign nations on Earth.

So it is a unenforceable natural law.

The newer states were recognized by the original 13 free, sovereign and independent states as an equal to themselves; under the Founding principle of popular sovereignty:

They were admitted to the Union by the Congress of the United States and not by the AOC AKA the original 13. Popular sovereignty is the principle that a state's government power comes from its people, who are the ultimate source of political authority, often expressed through consent, representation, and participation. The AOC did not recognize people power, but so called representatives of the 13 'states' , some of whom were occupied by the British, none were elected. The Constitution does recognize the people.

 

[TomEvans]

So it is a unenforceable natural law.

No, it's national sovereignty, the source of ALL law.

I tried explaining it, but it doesn't matter if you understand it or not.

They were admitted to the Union by the Congress of the United States and not by the AOC AKA the original 13.

The original 13 were formally established as free, sovereign and independent states by the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

These 13 states then recognized Vermont as a free, sovereign and independent state in 1791; and those 14 states then recognized the free, sovereign and independent state of Kentucky in 1782; and so forth.

Popular sovereignty is the principle that a state's government power comes from its people,

ALL government power. It was the Founding principle of the American Revolution; they were not armed robbers, stealing land from Great Britain, but operated under the Divine Principle of equal self-government by all men, vs. the Divine Right of Kings to rule over others.

who are the ultimate source of political authority, often expressed through consent, representation, and participation.

The state ELECTORATES were the supreme national authority that authorized the Constitution FOR their respective state; and simply DELEGATED powers to state and federal governments thereby.... and could therefore revoke it at will, by overruling both or either.

That is the LAW.

The AOC did not recognize people power, but so called representatives of the 13 'states' , some of whom were occupied by the British, none were elected. The Constitution does recognize the people.

Both were formed by 13 free, sovereign and independent states; however the Constitution was formed by the supreme national authority of each state's respective ELECTORATE, not its government; and therefore the state VOTERS wielded supreme national authority over their state and federal government officials from that point forward... and could overrule both at will, by whatever method they chose; as government now derived its just powers by their consent, and they could now alter or abolish at will.

MEANWHILE: the USA was NEVER officially recognized as a free, sovereign and independent state; and those things don't just "slip in under the radar" as de jure national unions.... so you're looking at de facto, at most-- and only until discovered as illegitimate.

 

[jgoodguy]

The original 13 were formally established as free, sovereign and independent states by the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

Are you asserting that the Treaty of Paris gave/established sovereignty to the States instead of popular sovereignty

Divine Principle of equal self-government

The "Divine Principle of equal self-government natural right" merges the idea that God grants inherent rights (like life, liberty) to all people, forming the basis for individual autonomy (self-government) and societal equality, rooted in natural law and reason. AKA a natural right.

.

These 13 states then recognized Vermont as a free, sovereign and independent state in 1791;

Strange that Vermont as a free, sovereign and independent state is not mentioned when Congress, not the 13 States of the defunct AOC, admitted Vermont

An Act for the admission of the State of Vermont into this Union.​

The State of Vermont having petitioned the Congress to be admitted a member of the United States,​

​

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in (congress assembled, and it is hereby enacted and declared, That on the fourth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, the said State, by the name and style of "the State of Vermont," shall be received and admitted into this Union, as a new and entire member of the United States of America.​

​

Approved, February 18,1791.​

MEANWHILE: the USA was NEVER officially recognized as a free, sovereign and independent state; and those things don't just "slip in under the radar" as de jure national unions.... so you're looking at de facto, at most-- and only until discovered as illegitimate.

1783 Treaty of Paris says that the Country of the United States was a free, sovereign and independent state, lower case state means a recognized polity. It is a confederacy, a form of government consisting of sovereign states.

Article 1st:​

His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.​

​

The United States can be sovereign as well as its component states. In theory, during the AOC any state of the confederation could withdraw from the confederation. None did.

 

[TomEvans]

1783 Treaty of Paris says that the Country of the United States was a free, sovereign and independent state,

No, it does NOT:

"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

There it is: Free, sovereign and independent STATES... PLURAL; and Great Britain treated with THEM AS such-- NOT with the United States as a free, sovereign and independent STATE, of 13 DEPENDENT states.

The United States can be sovereign as well as its component states.

No, since they were free, sovereign and independent states.

The United States was NEVER a state under ANY law; and it is IMPOSSIBLE for state to both free, sovereign and independent, AND and a component OF a free, sovereign and independent state; the two are mutually exclusive.

In theory, during the AOC any state of the confederation could withdraw from the confederation. None did.[

Actually they ALL did.

The Constitution established their separate de jure sovereignty beyond all question, by each state EXERCISING de jure national sovereignty in its choice to ratify the Constitution INDEPENDENTLY of the other states--- in SPITE of the Confederation requirements of inviolable observation by every state, and that any changes required unanimous approval by all state legislatures:

"Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

Instead, they ratified the Constitution INDIVIDUALLY, under the following from Article VII:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

So the states ratified the Constitution AS 13 free sovereign and independent states;

...and the US government does not-- and legally, CANNOT-- claim that the Constitution created a national union out of 13 sovereign nations; because it (falsely) claims that they were NEVER sovereign nations, but had ALWAYS formed a national union which was political superior to the states from 1776 onward; and this claim, PRECLUDES it from claiming that 13 free, sovereign and independent states ratified the Constitution.

 

[5fish]

No, it does NOT:

"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

There it is: Free, sovereign and independent STATES... PLURAL; and Great Britain treated with THEM AS such-- NOT with the United States as a free, sovereign and independent STATE, of 13 DEPENDENT states.





No, since they were free, sovereign and independent states.

The United States was NEVER a state under ANY law; and it is IMPOSSIBLE for state to both free, sovereign and independent, AND and a component OF a free, sovereign and independent state; the two are mutually exclusive.



Actually they ALL did.

The Constitution established their separate de jure sovereignty beyond all question, by each state EXERCISING de jure national sovereignty in its choice to ratify the Constitution INDEPENDENTLY of the other states--- in SPITE of the Confederation requirements of inviolable observation by every state, and that any changes required unanimous approval by all state legislatures:

"Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

Instead, they ratified the Constitution INDIVIDUALLY, under the following from Article VII:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

So the states ratified the Constitution AS 13 free sovereign and independent states;

...and the US government does not-- and legally, CANNOT-- claim that the Constitution created a national union out of 13 sovereign nations; because it (falsely) claims that they were NEVER sovereign nations, but had ALWAYS formed a national union which was political superior to the states from 1776 onward; and this claim, PRECLUDES it from claiming that 13 free, sovereign and independent states ratified the Constitution.

You ignore the fact that the 13 states lost sovereignty when they joined together under the Constitution. You ignore that there is no get out of Constitution free card, you ignore the changes that did go through the Confederate Congress, but through a convention which rewrote all the rules, creating a new governing system. You know, a Constitutional convention gets to rewrite the rules, which is why many people fear that if we ever have another one, it will muck up our Constitution... Constitutional convention trumps Congress; it is a desperate act to solve a problem.

 

[TomEvans]

You ignore the fact that the 13 states lost sovereignty when they joined together under the Constitution.

IMPOSSIBLE, because the US government claims that the states NEVER HAD it; but by your own admission, they DID, and therefore the US government makes NO valid claim that they LOST it-- for the simple reason that STATES CAN'T LOSE, WHAT THEY NEVER HAD!

So in claiming that the states always had the Union as their political superior; the US government DENIES the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which made THEM 13 free, sovereign and independent STATES under SUPREME INTERNATIONAL LAW.

 

[jgoodguy]

There it is: Free, sovereign and independent STATES... PLURAL; and Great Britain treated with THEM AS such-- NOT with the United States as a free, sovereign and independent STATE, of 13 DEPENDENT states.

And yet we see His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States as a polity and sent ambassadors to the US and not the 13 members of the AOC.

What do you think a Confederation is?