A consequence of the 'foedus' is that Sovereignty ultimately rests with the King of Scots. But if he should forfeit this right by breaching his duty to protect the common good, only then does the power to elect a new King pass to the people (i.e. Arbroath)
— Jamie McGowan (@SpesScotorum) April 6, 2021
Showing posts with label sovereignty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sovereignty. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 06, 2021
"Sovereignty"
Wednesday, August 19, 2020
The Rise of the State
Did the modern state emerge in the seventeenth century or in the thirteenth century? by @aalatham https://t.co/9kWdBKDSV7
— Medievalists.net (@Medievalists) August 19, 2020
Medievalists.net
Friday, January 11, 2019
Thursday, May 04, 2017
Monday, May 13, 2013
Rethinking State Sovereignty
Hidden Power Grab Stops Communities From Deciding Their Own Futures | On the Commons
Aren't such "power grabs" a natural consequence of state sovereignty? One may disagree with it, but this conception has been present since the beginning. What is needed is to rewrite the state constitution, either partially so that "home rule" is recognized, or more thoroughly.
Aren't such "power grabs" a natural consequence of state sovereignty? One may disagree with it, but this conception has been present since the beginning. What is needed is to rewrite the state constitution, either partially so that "home rule" is recognized, or more thoroughly.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Invariably, Neither Side is Persuaded
In the combox they are re-fighting the incorrectly named "Civil War" - The Declaration And Secession, just as it was done recently over at Front Porch Republic. (Of course, one or two of the participants are the same.) CDK is still participating at the American Conservative, still defending the "wrong side" -- good for him. Will he eventually be repelled by the website as less and less paleos and traditional conservatives comment there? It's almost to the point where I may just ignore the comments and focus solely on the articles.
The historical question is largely irrelevant; we won't be returning to proper observance of the Constitution. Those who would support the Union at all costs - are they be willing to put their lives on the line now if a state chose to secede? (Not that this is likely to happen.) Or are they just a bunch of chickenhawks? If people no longer want to be with you, why not let them go? They make an idol out of unity and the nation (misunderstanding the nature of the federal union) or they mistakenly believe that the Federal Government is empowered to enforce morality as it pertains to individual states.
I had not paid attention to the comments to An Appropriate View of the Declaration of Independence - Mr. R. Peters appears there.
The historical question is largely irrelevant; we won't be returning to proper observance of the Constitution. Those who would support the Union at all costs - are they be willing to put their lives on the line now if a state chose to secede? (Not that this is likely to happen.) Or are they just a bunch of chickenhawks? If people no longer want to be with you, why not let them go? They make an idol out of unity and the nation (misunderstanding the nature of the federal union) or they mistakenly believe that the Federal Government is empowered to enforce morality as it pertains to individual states.
I had not paid attention to the comments to An Appropriate View of the Declaration of Independence - Mr. R. Peters appears there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)