tdaxp

In two posts, "Nine and Ten" and "MA v. EPA: To Be or Not to Be Soveriegn," Curtis tackles the question of state sovereignty.

For background: in a recent case, the the Supreme Court (happily but obviously politically) rediscovered the sovereign state right of Parens Patriae. In the case, the Supreme Court acknowledged that States have sovereign rights but that they do not have the power to pursue those rights. Therefore, the federal bench must be especially sensitive to state concerns.

The points that Curtis ,makes on his blog echo those of ,Alexander Chisholm, Executors v. Georgia (1793), a SCOTUS case from when Washington was President. (Indeed, it is so old that there was not even "majority opinions" yet!) The controversy has been irrelevent since Amendment XI was ratified in 1798, but it is important in this discussion for what the Justices thought of the sovereignty of states.

Selected quotations are below the fold, but if I may summarize the justices

• Chief Justice Jay: State sovereignty exists regardless of whether a state may be sued or not


• Justice Blair: State sovereignty is forfeited to the extent that the Federal government gained sovereignty


• Justice Wilson: Individual bind their sovereignty to the government, as states bind their sovereignty to the federal government


• Justice Cushing: Questions of sovereignty are philosophical and irrelevant.


• Justice Irdell: States are sovereign to the respect that the United States is not.

Individuals are sovereign + States are sovereign + the Federal Government is sovereign... Individuals are quasi-sovereign + States are quasi-sovereign + the Federal Government is quasi-sovereign