Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Solely within their state and only against the the federal government on those limited issues arise from the 10th Amendment. That is a limited claim to sovereignty.
Correct, it is indeed a limited claim. When the States ratified they US Constitution they ceded their sovereign authority to coin money, negotiate treaties, and all the powers the document grants to the federal government its sovereign authority. There can be only one sovereign authority, and for the United States of America that authority is the federal government.
However, when the federal government begins to usurp that limited authority that the States should have exclusive authority over, such as education for example, then the States should exert the authority the US Constitution grants to them under the 10th Amendment, limited as it may be.
There is no "Interstate System" in Alaska or Hawaii, but they still pay for the lower-48 "Interstate System." We manage to get around just fine in Alaska on 4,900 miles of paved road covering an area about one-third the size of the lower-49 States, or 586,412 square miles. What is your malfunction?
Hahaha! Are you really arguing that Alaska residents pay their own way? Alaska gets more federal dollars per capita than any other state. If you look at this report, you will see (p. 22) that the federal government spends $500 per person on Alaska highways alone. Overall, the federal government spends $12,000 per Alaska resident (p. 7) - that's about $8.4 billion in 2002.
It's laughable to read an Alaskan complain that Alaska pays for the lower-48's "Interstate System," when Alaskans receive more federal money than they pay in federal taxes.
Hahaha! Are you really arguing that Alaska residents pay their own way? Alaska gets more federal dollars per capita than any other state. If you look at this report, you will see (p. 22) that the federal government spends $500 per person on Alaska highways alone. Overall, the federal government spends $12,000 per Alaska resident (p. 7) - that's about $8.4 billion in 2002.
It's laughable to read an Alaskan complain that Alaska pays for the lower-48's "Interstate System," when Alaskans receive more federal money than they pay in federal taxes.
Alaska also has more federal lands and federal military bases than any other State in the Union. They are not spending those federal dollars on State projects, just the federal projects and agencies. Do not look now, but your ignorance is showing.
Face reality, you lesser-48ers are a bunch of parasites.
Alaska also has more federal lands and federal military bases than any other State in the Union. They are not spending those federal dollars on State projects, just the federal projects and agencies. Do not look now, but your ignorance is showing.
Face reality, you lesser-48ers are a bunch of parasites.
That's just false -- as in not true and not a shred of correctness.
Arizona, the second fastest growing state in the nation, will receive just $18.70 per capita in federal earmarks this fiscal year. By comparison, Alaska — with roughly a tenth of Arizona's population — is set to receive $506.34 per capita, the highest in the nation, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group which tracks earmarks.
About a third of all jobs in Alaska can be traced to federal spending here—and over the past decade the rapid increase in federal spending drove much of the economic growth. Federal spending in Alaska more than doubled between 1995 and 2005, and in 2006 it was $9.25 billion.
You can delude yourself all you want about how self-reliant Alaska is. It just isn't so.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,086,202 times
Reputation: 3937
Our only salvation to rescue our democratic republic is through the 10th amendment!
IMHO nothing will save the Republic in the long run without a truly bloody revolution like France went through in 1789-99...it has been a wonderful experiment but was doomed from the beginning as it was to easy to corrupt by the greedy and unscrupulous...It is now well past its breaking point and just waiting on the right outrage that will ignite the fuse.
Actually, Sovereignty is having supremacy, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a King.
With respect to the United States, the States have sovereignty, that's how they can legally claim sovereign immunity in legal cases.
It has nothing to do with personal ownership -- and to righteously claim in snotty and superior terms that I lack education, when it's clear that you don't know what you are talking about, is laughable and sad.
The government whether State or Federal derive whatever power they have from the people.
You cannot grant power to an entity unless you are superior in status to that entity.
The people are sovereign, and the State is subservient to the people.
The state is in fact, owned by the people, as is the Federal Government.
In your example, you are showing the fact that States retained their sovereignty from the Federal Government when they joined the Union, but the States themselves are not the ultimate sovereign power, that power remains with the people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
