Of Sovereignty and things

Sovereignty, what a buzz word. We have a national government which claims sovereignty over the states and the people, we have the states rights folks who insist the state is the sovereign entity over the federal government and the people. We have people who claim they are sovereign citizens, and create silly organizations and groups that sell "how to be a Sovereign" packets when in reality they have no clue what they are talking about.
But what is correct? What does Sovereignty even mean, and how does it affect us, or should we even care?
First, let's look up the definition of the word, and define our terms.

Sovereign: A chief ruler with supreme power; 

one possessing sovereignty. 

(q.v.) It is also applied to a king or other magistrate with

 limited powers. 

     2. In the United States the sovereignty resides in the 

body of the people. 

Well that's pretty simple. A Sovereign is one who possesses

 Supreme power.In matters of the state,

 we see the 10th amendment to the Constitution

 telling us that :

 "The powers not delegated to the United States by the

 Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the States, 

are reserved to the States respectively,
 or to the people. "

So as far as state matters are concerned, the national government is sovereign in all powers delegated to it within the strict confines of the Constitution. In all state matters not delegated to the national government, the powers are left to the states, and the people, and the states are the sovereign. 

But who is Supreme?

When the People cast off the British crown, they were no longer subjects, their state and federal governments were not yet formed, and each individual was the Supreme Sovereign.

When they formed their individual free states, the people simply combined their Sovereignty into a collective sovereign state. They never relinquished their Sovereignty to that state, they simply elected civil servants to wield that Sovereignty for the protection of their individual Sovereignty.
The individual states then combined themselves to form the union, or union of states. The union now had sovereignty from the states and the Constitution that the states ratified.
How then can the federal government claim Sovereignty over the states outside of the Constitution that the states ratified when they formed the union? The states form and are the union, so how can the created rule over the creator?

Or how can the state now claim to be the sovereign over its people? The People created the state, and nothing created should rule over its creator. The state is the servant of the people, which implies that the people are the masters, or Sovereign over the state. If the People create the state and are the masters of it, then the union that the states combined create is also servant to the People.

Let's see what our Founders had to say about it. Yes, you may be shocked to know that they knew how important it was that the national government, the state governments, and the People all knew where they stood in the pecking order. 

"To the Constitution of the United States the term sovereign, is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those, who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves ‘sovereign’ people of the United States: But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration." James Wilson, Supreme Court Justice and signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.


The phrase "serenely conscious of the fact" denotes that the Founders knew full well that the People were Sovereign, and didn't feel the need to include it in the Constitution. It was a given.

"As a Judge of this Court, I know, and can decide upon the knowledge, that the citizens of Georgia, when they acted upon the large scale of the Union, as a part of the “People of the United States,” did not surrender the Supreme or Sovereign Power to that State; but, as to the purposes of the Union, retained it to themselves". James Wilson

"Concerning the prerogative of Kings, and concerning the sovereignty of States, much has been said and written; but little has been said and written concerning a subject much more dignified and important, the majesty of the people. The mode of expression, which I would substitute in the place of that generally used, is not only politically, but also (for between true liberty and true taste there is a close alliance) classically more correct." James Wilson

..."at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. First Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay


From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and Governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences, our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens. John Jay

Strictly speaking, in our republican forms of government, the 

absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation; (q.v.) 

and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its 

public functionaries, is in the people of the state. (q.v.) 2 Dall. 471; and 

vide, generally, 2 Dall. 433, 455; 3 Dall. 93; 1 Story, Const. Sec. 208; 1 

Toull. n. 20 Merl. Repert. h.t. ..Bouviers Law Dictionary

To those that want to push the state to be the supreme power I want to warn you. While our federal government is indeed oppressive, looking to the state to be our master is no better. Look at California, where almost every Liberty-inhibiting regulation on the People has its start. While I do think the states must assert themselves and be more willing to fight the federal government for the freedom of the People, ultimately the People must stand up to both the state and federal governments, and reclaim their Rights and Liberties before they are finally and forever lost.  

More laws, to make us free?

We have these days more laws than anyone can possibly ever know or understand. The thought is that our politicians are put into place to legislate to the point that every aspect of our daily lives is regulated. We apparently would be immobile if it were not for every statute we have, protecting us from ourselves.

I have also been told we need these laws to protect us from all the murderers, thieves and rapist out there. Really?

Do these never ending regulations give us protections we didn't have before? 

Or do the various statutes we have actually deprive us of our Liberty?

 If we look at the writings of our Founders, we find that the legislating powers that the different state and federal legislatures had were limited within the scope of the Constitution, and were never intended to regulate our everyday lives.

"...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
— Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany - 1819) 

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement." (Thomas Jefferson)

In these 2 examples, Jefferson tells us of the intent of the government that the people had just created. The basic nature of government is to protect the individual's liberty, not to impose man's will over others. 

 Basic common law already protected us from murder and other acts like it. There has been no need to pass a law saying it's a crime to murder someone, it's a natural law that we all know.

If you harmed another person's Right to Life, Liberty, or Property, you were to be punished and make the other person whole again. You had to pay restitution to the one you violated.

James Wilson, one of only 6 signers of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, said " States and Governments were made for man; and, at the same time, how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and, at last, oppressed their master and maker." 

He also stated in a legal opinion that "states have no claim over her Citizens", and that "Supreme Power resides in the People".

How then can a state regulate everything that we do? What right does an un-elected person working for the state have in making directives against the People with the full force and effect of law? What right do they have to tell me what things I can and can't do with my own Property for example? 

I say that they do not have that right. Patrick Henry made it as plain and simple as anyone could when he said," The Constitution is not an instrument of the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the People to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests". In these united States we have Citizens, not subjects, and the state exists at our pleasure. To say the state can institute law and regulation at will against its Citizens is against the very foundation of our Pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness.

It is Tyranny at its finest.