More,
Working nights you don't keep up with local news as much but I got to see the local news and get more detail. Seems the issue has turned into a bit of a catfight. Gov. Perdue (republican) asked Attorney General Thurbert Baker (democrat) to fill this lawsuit and Baker
responded back no that he would not and the reasons. Now it seems there's a move afoot to
impeach Baker who is also running as a candidate for governor. Now it's announced that Governor Perdue has found a Macon Georgia attorney to act as a special attorney general to move forward with the case but we'll see I guess. Not sure how much of this you know but thought I'd try and pass on a little local flavor.
Since my wife works in the field of law, I decided to consult some of her law books to get an exact definition to at least define the term "sovereign state". Bouvier's Law has been an official law dictionary of Congress and so I went there. She has some editions going well back into the 1800's but I used the 1914' edition so here goes.
Sovereign State: One which governs itself independently of any foreign power.
Well, now here's where it just might get real interesting as that term
foreign power is not new to me but that's another thread. Hmmmm, I might give you a tease at the end of this post.
Foreign Power: A foreign nation or country. (pay close attention to this next part) The states are considered as foreign to each other with respects to those subjects which are controlled by their municipal law.
What I find interesting about that last part pertains to the difference in jurisdictional control and if the precept is true between co-equal jurisdictions (state to state) it would seem the same is true going up to national just as it is going down to county or city. However, among a few other problems, where IMO the state faces an uphill battle is pertaining to what is called the "clean hand doctrine" in that the States have ceded jurisdiction (or have they, tease! tease!) in many other areas and now they want to cry wolf?
Look, I hate the federal gov't and would love nothing more than to see this corp./monopoly healthcare power grab fall on it's face but the States have been the whore house's biggest customer and now they want to proclaim they've found purity? And the other hurdle is the national gov't and court system who has walked all over the constitution making it a worthless, meaningless document and pardon me for pointing it out but many of your good republican friends here were the loudest in voice telling the US gov't to walk all over that constitution when it proved inconvenient during the Bush years and now when the otherside for their convience does the same, you guys scream bloody murder. Freedom and liberty are hard and they are not without risks and I told you guys then your own abuses and legal precedent would come back against you and now it has. Obviously we can't go back, what's done is done but the question begs, how to go forward?
There is absolutely nothing now to stop the US Gov't from literally doing as it pleases and it was by a thin finger tip over the last several decades that it's not far worse even now. Thanks to the last 8 years and now going into the 2nd year (10 years of Ebony and Ivory stupidity), whatever illusion that document gave of freedom is all but gone and won't come back. But here's where it gets interesting but it's like dancing on the edge of a volcano. Here's my tease.
A state could IMO make the arguement and maybe win using the 1956' and 1957' Federal gov't report (Pt. 1 and Pt. 2) entitled, "Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States" but you will open a can of worms even bigger than sucession and a can even limited gov't conservatives would not want to open. Here's a taste at the very beginning of the actual report and it's basis for it's creation.
JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN
THE STATES
CHAPTER I
OUTLINE OF STUDY
The instant study was occasioned by the denial to a group of children of Federal employees residing on the grounds of a Veterans' Administration hospital of the opportunity of attending public schools in the town in which the hospital was located. An administrative decision against the children was affirmed by local courts, finally including the supreme court of the State. The decisions were based on the ground that residents of the area on which the hospital was located were not residents of the State since "exclusive legislative jurisdiction" over such area had been ceded by the State to the Federal Government, and therefore they were not entitled to privileges of State residency.
In an ensuing study of the State supreme court decision with a view toward applying to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, the Department of Justice ascertained that State laws and practices relating to the subject of Federal legislative jurisdiction are very different in different States, that practices of Federal agencies with respect to the same subject very extremely from agency to agency without apparent basis, and that the Federal Government, the States, residents of Federal areas, and others, are all suffering serious disabilities and disadvantages because of a general lack of knowledge or understanding of the subject of Federal legislative jurisdiction and its consequences.
Article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution of the United States, the text of which is set out in appendix B to this report, provides in legal effect that the Federal Government shall have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over such area not exceeding 10 miles square as may become the seat of government of the United States, and like authority over all places acquired by the Government, with the consent of the State involved, for Federal works. It is the latter portion of this clause, the portion which has been emphasized, with which this report is primarily concerned.
Read that again and just think about what is being said verses what you think you know or have been told. Think about that term foreign power in relation to the above example and where the State(s) have to cede jurisdiction if you will to the federal gov't in order for federal jurisdiction to exist within a state and then that jurisdiction is only valid in what is other places called, the federal enclave. Kinda like a sovereign power would cede jurisdiction to a foreign power for an embassy? Better yet is that the legislative jurisdiction "NOT" exceeding 10 square miles (otherwise known as District of Columbia) and then the "like authority" outside that 10 square mile area only when granted consent by the State involved. Get's kinda interesting don't it?
And how has the court ruled in such matters of jurisdiction for the State to the federal?
In Fontain verse Ravenel, 58 US 17 How. 369, 884. Justice McLean delivered the opinion of the court: "When this country achieved it's independence, the prerogatives of the crown devolved upon the people of the states. And this power still remains with them except so far as they have delegated a portion of it to the federal government."
United States Supreme Court Reports Vol. 135-138 page 496
And you thought the Constitution granted them the right to make your life miserable. The prerogatives of the crown devolved upon the people of the States. Who is the sovereign power here according to Justice McLean? Who holds divine right if you will? Hmmmm!
We're not in Kansas anymore Toto!
More, you wanted to know what sovereign means so what ya think about it now?