Question:
Any imformation about Federal Hawaii Resume ?
Sovereignity is a slippery concept. Those states declared independence
in 1776, and achieved recognition of independent status somewhat
later. They formed something of a close alliance under the Articles
of Confederation, but recognized each other's sovereignity.
What sovereignty? They were NOT sovereign states. Britain held sovereignty
until she recognised the USA.
where it refers
to a federal system, it says that the individual states still retain
sovereignty. The U.S. is I think the first example of a federal
system in which the component states surrendered part of their
sovereignty.
The controversy here in Hawaii is not simply local. It represents something
that military commanders say is becoming one of the greatest threats to the
readiness of the nation's military forces.
Answer:
-it doesn't disagree with me at all, because it is just one of many
varied examples, and this single example demonstrates how one example of a
federal system can be composed of fully independent states. Strabo supplied
this example and ultimate exteme to illustrate his point, because there were
so many historical examples of mixed nations sharing elements of sovereignty
between the inferior state and the superior state. The Confederation of the
United States of America and the German Confederation are different examples
of such federations of independent states. In the Holy Roman Empire examined
by Grotius and others, you frequently had German and other states which were
independent and sovereign in all respects, who then acknowledged the King of
the Romans and later Holy Roman Emperor as a superior sovereign in some or
all elements of sovereignty, only to resume full sovereignty at a later
date. The United States of America under the U.S. Constitution shares
elements of sovereignty between the inferior states and superior federal
state in some respects similar to the division of sovereignty between a
German state and the Holy Roman Emperor. As I noted previously, the Kingdoms
of Judea and Galilee became client kingdoms of Rome, and they did not
surrender the last measure of their sovereignty until they were incorporated
into the empire as Roman provinces. Mithradates III volunteered to become a
client sovereign of Bythnia, subject to the limited sovereignty of Rome. He
subsequently surrendered the full sovereignty of Bythnia to Rome in his
will, and Bythnia became a Roman province with no further sovereignty of its
own. Grotius acknowledged this continuation of separate states sharing
sovereignty with a federal union when he wrote, "The existence of separate
states not destroyed by a federal union."
"Hugo Grotius. On the Law of War and Peace (De Jure Belli ac Pacis).
Translated by A. C. Campbell, London, 1814...Book II...CHAPTER 9: In What
Cases Jurisdiction and Property Cease. Jurisdiction and property cease, when
the family of the owner bar, become extinct - In what manner the rights of a
people may become extinct - A people becomes extinct when its essential
parts are destroyed - A people does not become extinct by emigration - The
existence of separate states not destroyed by a federal union. I. and II.
AFTER the preceding inquiries into the manner in which private property as
well as sovereign power may be acquired and transferred, the manner, in
which they cease, naturally comes next under consideration...VIII. Whenever
two nations become united, their rights, as distinct states, will not be
lost, but will be communicated to each other. Thus the rights of the Albans
in the first place, and afterwards those of the Sabines, as we are informed
by Livy, were transferred to the Romans, and they became one government. The
same reasoning holds good respecting states, which are joined, not by a
federal UNION, but by having one sovereign for their head."
In the case of the United States of America, sovereignty is held in
severality with sovereignty shared among state governments sending
representatives to delegate their collective sovereign authority to a
federal government. It is this retention of real sovereignty which is
responsible for the phenomenon where a presidential candidate can lose the
popular vote and win the electoral vote of the sovereign state governments.
