Raphael
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2012
- Messages
- 3,287
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
It is the subdivisions of the states that are not sovereign, not the states.
Well it goes without saying that counties and cities, etc. are not sovereign. But the crux of the matter here is that US states are also not sovereign:
Sovereign state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system that is represented by one centralised government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[1] It is also normally understood that a state is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.
This definition of sovereignty comes from the Montevideo Convention, which is like the Geneva Convention of statehood. US states certainly can't enter into foreign relations with other sovereign states, and they also dependent and subject to the supreme authority of the US federal government. The American civil war proved that.
Your argument is premised entirely on an unfortunate choice of words from an author who used the term "shares", rather than relinquishes, yields, etc. Can you find any legal documents that support your extraordinary notion that US states are sovereign? State constitutions perhaps?