Not exactly, but we're arguing semantics. Nothing I said contradicts what you wrote.
Still, Federal Law supercedes State Law, and no State Constitution can contradict the US Constitution.
Your Federalist idea was probably more true before the Civil War, but these days not so much. No, in practice, States are administrative regions, not sovereign powers. Whenever governors or state legislatures start behaving as if they are, they get slapped down by the Feds. qv the Rhode Island governor trying to prevent New Yorkers from entering; California legalizing Marijuana; Arkansas cops raiding Indian reservations selling cigarettes.
I mean, unless you want to define "administrative region" as "able to be dissolved by Presidential fiat" then, sure. Ok. Otherwise it's a distinction without a difference.
> Not exactly
Yes, exactly.
> Federal Law supercedes State Law
Not on state issues. The federal government has to stay in its lane.
> no State Constitution can contradict the US Constitution
Yes, they can, unless explicitly overridden. For example, most states do not have grand juries, even though the U.S. Constitution requires one before charging someone with a felony.
>>> this is false
>> Not exactly
> Yes, exactly
There's a legal definition of "administrative district" I was unaware of that necessarily excludes States? If so, this could be one of the most interesting conversations I've yet had on HN. If not, this is the silliest conversation I've yet had on HN.
It's even more silly when those same people deliberately truncate statements. What you claimed was "States are administrative districts of a single sovereign nation"
Argue whatever semantics you want about the definition of "administrative district." Sovereignty has a well-developed legal definition, and it emphatically applies to each of the fifty states.
The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue countless times, from Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) ("I acknowledge, and shall always contend, that the States are sovereignties") to Gamble v. United States (2019) (reaffirming the dual sovereignty doctrine).
States having sovereignty is a distracting non-sequitur. It's not relevant.
The original comparison was States to EU members. If you want to argue they all have 'sovereignty', fine. They all have a thing called 'sovereignty'. But Italy doesn't care about Oregon's sovereignty. Italy doesn't deal with Oregon as a nation. Oregon can't declare war on Italy nor negotiate peace. Italy doesn't recognize Oregon's governor as a Head of State. For all intents and purposes, to Italy and the EU, Oregon is an administrative district not a "sovereignty".
A Greek citizen cannot move to Sweden and vote in national elections as easily as a Texan can move to Massachusetts and vote in state elections. There are a lot of reasons for that which have zero to do with State "sovereignty".
I recommend keeping an eye out for it whenever you're baffled by political discourse around a given topic. It's pretty fascinating how often it pops up and explains how two sides of a conversation can be speaking completely different languages.
this is false. under a unitary government system that would be true but the US runs under a federalist system. states and the federal government are considered sovereign---at least as far as domestic issues go---and maintain a clear separation of powers. federal government is involved with national and intra-state issues while the states are involved with police and making regulations for their citizens. the federal government, can't, for example dissolve a state government like China could dissolve a province's government.