I would rather see States have more rights and the ability to actually govern their own people without federal interjection.
Nullification can neuter the central state.
I would rather see States have more rights and the ability to actually govern their own people without federal interjection.
Well, that was an artificial union. England was an independent country (empire originally) before agreeing to join the EU. The states have (with the one notable exception) always been a part of one country - the USA. So a better analogy would be the individual regions or counties seceding from England. Never happened of course.Same has been said of Brexit.
The south viewed federal lands as theirs. The commissioners were supposed to negotiate "friendly relations" with the North and, "for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith." They weren't sent there specifically to negotiate the price for federal land. There was no scenario where they were not going to claim federal land as theirs.I have. They were to negotiate purchase and debt settlement. Anything negotiated would have been subject to congressional approval.
Lincoln refused any peaceful relations with States walking away as was their reserved power.
Well, that was an artificial union. England was an independent country (empire originally) before agreeing to join the EU. The states have (with the one notable exception) always been a part of one country - the USA. So a better analogy would be the individual regions or counties seceding from England. Never happened of course.
Subdivisions of England - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There are political ramifications of that. How far does it go? Is it legitimate that States nullify the Federal government's authority over the US border? Over immigration?Nullification can neuter the central state.
Sure. And then they all ratified the US Constitution. I'd like us to get back to the principles of federalism, where the states have jusrisdiction over matters of their state.At a minimum, the 13 original colonies were sovereign states before forming a union.
That's right, but that horse has left the barn a couple hundred years ago.At a minimum, the 13 original colonies were sovereign states before forming a union.
The south viewed federal lands as theirs. The commissioners were supposed to negotiate "friendly relations" with the North and, "for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith." They weren't sent there specifically to negotiate the price for federal land. There was no scenario where they were not going to claim federal land as theirs.
Regardless, the Federal government, being the rightful owners on behalf of the United States of America, had a right to decline any offers anyway, and retain the land. The first shot was because of that fact. The North had the right to re-supply Fort Sumter however they saw fit.
The commission was ignored by the US government, because to hear them was an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the Confederate government. The insistence that the aggression was on the side of the North is silly. They have a right to have rejected the secession. They have a right to do what they will with their own land. Lincoln told the Governor of SC that he would re-supply Fort Sumter but would not reinforce troops, resupply with ammo or arms, unless SC attacked.
Davis could not abide that so he ordered Anderson, the commander of Ft Sumter, to surrender. Anderson declined, and you know the rest.
To continue to take the position that the North were the aggressors you would have to be of the opinion that the South had a right to claim the resources that belonged to the United States. Regardless of whether the South wanted to compensate the North for the land does not make the US Government the aggressors. They have a right to decline a sale.
So what if Nevada wanted to secede? Probably the US government is not inclined to just hand over 90% of US land inside Nevada to them. But it doesn't matter if it's only a few acres.
There are political ramifications of that. How far does it go? Is it legitimate that States nullify the Federal government's authority over the US border? Over immigration?
That’s not what happened though. It’s an ideologically derived belief that the side that’s severing ties to a central government is always in the right. The goals of the south were indeed to maintain their own aristocracy. The writings of their own leaders betray that fact. “States rights” was propaganda. They didn’t give a **** about states rights except when it was their own believed right to maintain their own status.There was never a scenario where the tyrannical Lincoln would let States peacefully exercise their reserved power to walk away.
Does a state have the right to harbor illegal aliens?Of course there are.
Does a state have the right to harbor illegal aliens?
You answer mine first.Does a state have a right to legalize marijuana?
Profound. Yet concise. A quality post indeed.
I sense that you don’t want to answer my question. A gesture of good will: Yes. States have a right to legalize MJ within their own state, as lomg as they don’t engage in sales between states.You go right ahead.