Sovereignty in these United states

Constitutions limit and define those original powers lent by the sovereignty, the people, to the different departments of government. No individual department or combination of departments may expand their authority or power thereby, taking from the people that which was not granted. We the People, wrote down with certain determination the powers we do grant. Sovereignty resides in the People.

“The secret is now disclosed, and it is discovered to be a dread, that the boasted state sovereignties will, under this system, be disrob...
View More Sovereignty in these United states

Constitutions limit and define those original powers lent by the sovereignty, the people, to the different departments of government. No individual department or combination of departments may expand their authority or power thereby, taking from the people that which was not granted. We the People, wrote down with certain determination the powers we do grant. Sovereignty resides in the People.

“The secret is now disclosed, and it is discovered to be a dread, that the boasted state sovereignties will, under this system, be disrobed of part of their power. Before I go into the examination of this point, let me ask one important question. Upon what principle is it contended that the sovereign power resides in the state governments? The honorable gentleman has said truly, that there can be no subordinate sovereignty. Now, if there cannot, my position is, that the sovereignty resides in the people; they have not parted with it; they have only dispensed such portions of power as were conceived necessary for the public welfare….”
“When the principle is once settled that the people are the source of authority, the consequence is, that they may take from the subordinate governments powers with which they have hitherto trusted them, and place those powers in the general government, if it is thought that there they will be productive of more good. They can distribute one portion of power to the more contracted circle, called state governments; they can also furnish another proportion to the government of the United States. Who will undertake to say, as a state officer, that the people may not give to the general government what powers, and for what purposes, they please?....”
SATURDAY, December 1, 1787, A. M. — Mr. JAMES WILSON.
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

“But I return to my general reasoning. My position is, sir that, in this country, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power resides in the people at large; that they have vested certain proportions of this power in the state governments; but that the fee-simple continues, resides, and remains, with the body of the people.”
“No, sir; I go practically into this system; I have gone into it practically when the doors were shut, when it could not be alleged that I cajoled the people; and I now endeavor to show that the true and only safe principle for a free people, is a practical recognition of their original and supreme authority.”
“’The power over elections, and of judging of elections, gives absolute sovereignty.’ This power is given to every state legislature; yet I see no necessity that the power of absolute sovereignty should accompany it. My general position is, that the absolute sovereignty never goes from the people.”
TUESDAY, December 4, 1787, A. M. — Mr. JAMES WILSON.
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

“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.
Having thus avowed my disapprobation of the purposes for which the terms, state and sovereign are frequently used, and of the object to which the application of the last of them is almost universally made, it is now proper that I should disclose the meaning which I assign to both, and the application, which I make of the latter. In doing this, I shall have occasion incidently to evince how true it is that 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.”
Justice JAMES WILSON, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)

“….The only reason, I believe, why a free man is bound by human laws is that he binds himself. Upon the same principles upon which he becomes bound by the laws, he becomes amenable to the courts of justice which are formed and authorised by those laws. If one free man, an original sovereign, may do all this, why may not an aggregate of free men, a collection of original sovereigns, do this likewise?”
Justice JAMES WILSON, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)

“In one sense, the term "sovereign" has for its correlative "subject." In this sense, the term can receive no application, for it has no object in the Constitution of the United states. Under that Constitution, there are citizens, but no subjects. "Citizen of the United states." ["Citizens of another state." "Citizens of different states." "A state or citizen thereof."] The term, subject, occurs, indeed, once in the instrument; but to mark the contrast strongly, the epithet "foreign" is prefixed. In this sense, I presume the state of Georgia has no claim upon her own citizens. In this sense, I am certain, she can have no claim upon the citizens of another state.
In another sense, according to some writers, every state, which governs itself without any dependence on another power is a sovereign state. Whether, with regard to her own citizens, this is the case of the state of Georgia; whether those citizens have done, as the individuals of England are said by their late instructors to have done, surrendered the supreme power to the state or government, and reserved nothing to themselves; or whether, like the people of other states, and of the United states, the citizens of Georgia have reserved the supreme power in their own hands, and on that supreme power have made the state dependent, instead of being sovereign -- these are questions to which, as a judge in this cause, I can neither know nor suggest the proper answers, though, as a citizen of the Union, I know, and am interested to know that the most satisfactory answers can be given. As a citizen, I know the government of that state to be republican; and my short definition of such a government is one constructed on this principle -- that the supreme power resides in the body of the people. 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. As to the purposes of the Union, therefore, Georgia is NOT a sovereign state. If the judicial decision of this case forms one of those purposes, the allegation that Georgia is a sovereign state is unsupported by the fact. Whether the judicial decision of this cause is or is not one of those purposes is a question which will be examined particularly in a subsequent part of my argument.”
Justice JAMES WILSON, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)