Comments on: Republicans push for Minnesota sovereignty

By: Republicanism / The Ave

Republicanism / The Ave — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:00:29 +0000

[...] Declare State sovereignty. [...]

By: HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » Big plans for Wisconsin

HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » Big plans for Wisconsin — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:22:43 +0000

[...] Declare State sovereignty. [...]

By: Meg

Meg — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:44:25 +0000

During the Bush years, a bill like this would have been wonderful, from my perspective. The Republicans are very short-sighted if they think this can only apply during Democratic presidencies! Or would they rescind it when ‘their guy’ was in office?
Seriously, are we a nation?

By: Talking Minnesota – 4/27/10 | Minneapolis Metblogs

Talking Minnesota – 4/27/10 | Minneapolis Metblogs — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:40:10 +0000

[...] of government, our own Minnesota brings a little bit of the crazy Republicans push for Minnesota sovereignty Senate Republicans introduced a constitutional amendment Wednesday that would make Minnesota the [...]

By: Lane

Lane — Mon, 17 May 2010 21:59:09 +0000

Congressional consent mentioned above is but one constraint on state sovereignty.

Federalism as practiced here in the United States can be fascinating with its simultaneous bottom-up as well as top-down political processes making for a very dynamic nation. This is perhaps our greatest strength. Unfortunately, it is also very expensive with over 10,000 units of government each with its own set of laws, rules, regulations, ordinances …

By: Lane

Lane — Mon, 17 May 2010 21:43:33 +0000

U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, New States: “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

By: Lane

Lane — Mon, 17 May 2010 21:42:18 +0000

Statehood is a grant of political power and independence to the people of a geographical area, an action that is consistent with the General Welfare Clause in the sense that it allows the people in that area to decide what works best for them in that area. This grant of authority does not include the right to secede from the Union nor does it grant exemptions to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Mon, 17 May 2010 15:09:48 +0000

Lane, usually your posts have a shade of reason to them. That last one though makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the current discussion. What does Minnesota statehood have to do with the General Welfare Clause?

By: Lane

Lane — Sun, 16 May 2010 17:02:02 +0000

Taking a look again at the Preamble above, I noted “People of the United States”; I didn’t see anything about the states themselves.

Besides, Minnesota owes its existence to an act of Congress granting the territory statehood on May 11, 1858.

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Sun, 16 May 2010 04:24:21 +0000

United States means States not people. If they meant people they would have written People. Pretty sure they knew the meaning of the word State, and of the word People. And State is not a collective term; it means the soveriegnty and viability of the State government.