70 votes

☛Chief Justice Says States Have Compromised Their Sovereignty. WAIT! WHAT?

"It seems to me that they have compromised their status as independent sovereigns because they are so dependent on what the federal government has done," the chief justice said during Wednesday's nearly three hours of hearings on the controversial health insurance law.


Written by Jack Kenny
Thursday, 29 March 2012 15:36

Chief Justice John Roberts said Wednesday what has long been known but seldom spoken. During the third and final day of Supreme Court hearings on whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is unconstitutional, Roberts said states have been compromising their sovereignty for decades through increased reliance on the federal government for money and accompanying directions on the governance of state affairs.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The War Between the States

The War Between the States was the first true test of state sovereignty and the beginning of the end for the states. But, it was the 17th Amendment which fully strippped the states of their sovereignty.

Wow! Roberts nails it! good for him...never thought

much of him but his honesty is refreshing.

14th Amendment, citizen, Citizen, War of 1860, 1040

The history of how the Federal government has chipped away at peoples rights and sovereignty is a long and difficult to understand lesson that can not be touched on here; however I can make a summery, that no doubt will be disputed by some, but it will be the best that I can to help my friends here at DP understand what the heck is going on. The 14 the Amendment and the War of 1860 are interesting and need to be understood, which some has been pointed out here by battleforce. I want to address the Congress and the Supreme Court.
The powers of the Federal Government were and suppose to be limited by the Constitution. With the exception of ten square miles known as the District of Columbia created in July 16, 1790 by the Congress in accordance with the Constitution. In 1787 Congress inacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 creating the Northwest Territory. The Congress was charged with the responsibility of governing the District of Columbia and Northwest Territory because it created them. Because they are not a state like the original thirteen colonies the Constitution does not apply only the commands and acts of the Congress. As time passed many other territories were added. Examples: Territory of Utah, the Philippians, Guam, Porto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, etc. In many cases in the past before the Supreme Court the authority or “supreme authority” of Congress has been stated and restated. If the Congress created an act that all persons in the Territories and Districts had to stand on their head for one hour a day that would be a command from the king and everybody had to do it or receive some kind of sanctions. As a practical matter they don't make such orders. These commands are for the Territories and Districts not the several states. If you, or anyone, has ever filed a tax return you are considered a citizen of the Territories or Districts and subject to the Commands of the Congress(this in its self is a long story). So if you are considered a citizen of the Territories or District regardless of where you habitat you are a subject of the Congress. The Supreme Court and the other Federal courts are for the Congresses subjects.
The Supreme Court only makes rulings, decisions, or opinions on the state courts rulings,decisions or opinions. The state courts are defined in the rules of the court. Rule 47. here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_47 The word “include” is a limiting word and nothing else can be added or assumed. So by reading rule 47 it does not list the sovereign states of the union like Alabama, New York, California, etc. It only list Districts and Territories.
Here is a quote from a Supreme Court case 136 U.S. 1 (10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L.Ed. 478)
"The power of congress over the territories of the United States is general and plenary, arising from and incidental to the right to acquire the territory itself, and from the power given by the constitution to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. It would be absurd to hold that the United States has power to acquire territory, and no power to govern it when acquired."
When John Roberts makes a statement that the states sovereignty has been compromised which states is he talking about? Or is it a red herring to soften the blow to people who appose the Act? Don't ask me about anything the court justices say because their words, rulings, decisions, or opinions do not apply to me. It might as well be the Supreme Court of Japan speaking to me.

One more time just for fun....

Cited from:
Printz, Mack v. U.S.

"....We expressly rejected such an approach in New York, and what we said bears repeating:

"Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear `formalistic' in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era's perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day." Id., at 187.

We adhere to that principle today, and conclude categorically, as we concluded categorically in New York: "The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." Id., at 188....."

"We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered."

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

Its always for some azzpuppet to blam the victim

Blow hard installed proclaimers try to blame states for what they have caused. If the supreme court was vigilant the Federal Reserve Bank would not exist today and the states would not have been bought into submission. First they create a problem or take advantage of an existing problem then they come in with the soluton, its always a solution of Bigger and MOre DEBT, all be it false debt as the fiat money they use to take over state control is all digitized at no cost into existance as a compounding national debt.


The Civil War

Some tried to defend their state's sovereignty against federal invasion in the 1860's. But they lost. Federal tyranny has prevailed (and increased) ever since.

"For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God."
(1 Peter 2:15-16)


The Supreme Court has been sacrificing THEIR sovereignty for decades!

Has Anyone Ever Looked

at their State Debt Clock and saw how much in debt it is?

I was quite stunned when I saw that my State, Missouri, is nearly $41 Billion in debt! Unbelievable!

If Dr. Paul doesn't get elected, I'm afraid that our Nation is going to financially collapse...

Link to Debt Clock:

usdebtclock.org...Then click on 'State Debt Clocks' at the top left to find your state...A real eye-opener for me!

These so-called 'clocks'

These so-called 'clocks' should be relabeled as 'time bombs'.

"For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God."
(1 Peter 2:15-16)

Just a little thought for those agreeing here

At it's face it may appear he is right, but step back and ask why and what does the states need the feds help with financially? They only need help with the costs incurred by the very mandates the fed has put onto the states such as welfare, food stamps and environmental laws. They created the debt and have put the spin on the words saying that the states are now dependent on and owe these debts. It is a con game protection racket. Sure, the states need help to cover the feds mandates and regulations. He is throwing out a spin here. Another thing is who made the decisions that caused the bad economy and forced people onto welfare and food stamps? not the states but the feds. Extortion.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

14th Amendment

When the states ratified the 14th Amendment, it gave away it's sovereignty to the Federal Government. In the Latin "Emancipation" means "To Transfer from one to another", in short, It transferred our States Sovereignty and their "Citizenry" to the Federal Government. This is the basis for We The People having to abide by Federal Laws more so then State Laws, which the Feds force upon the States. It also nullified the 10th Amendment, just as the 16th Amendment nullified Art,I Sec IX subsection 4. No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (Modified by Amendement XVI)

"Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth. "
— William Faulkner

Things to ponder...

How is sovereignty vested in a state make you, an individual, any more free than vesting sovereignty in a federal government? I tend to agree with the Supreme Court Justice James Wilson when he stated in the case Chisholm v. Georgia, "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty."

This decision was in 1793, way before the 14th amendment, so the definition of citizen was not the same.

My interpretation of the 14th amendment redefines citizen to a subordinate of the government because if a citizen was to be a joint tenant in sovereignty they assuredly would not be subject to a jurisdiction. The language of the 14th amendment supports this view by stating that these citizens are given privileges, as compared to the bill of rights to which people are allowed rights. That is if you understand the difference between rights and privileges.

People of the United States have a very much different relationship with the United States of America than citizens of the United States. The preamble of the Constitution starts with, ...the People of the United States...ordained and established this constitution..., To ordain means to invoke divine authority to create law, only a sovereign can ordain law, to establish means to bring into existence, or write it down. Therefore the federal government is subject to the jurisdiction of the People of United States and Citizens of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government. Very different relationship between a People of the United States and a Citizen of the United States.

YOu use words GIven and Allowed

Sovereign humans are not given rights or allowed rights, their rights are dirived from their birth not from a govenrment nor a court. Those who seek to control, as in enslave use govenrment proclaimations to justify their immoral actions, I will never accept or agree with these usurpers.


Read what I typed again

Your reading comprehension is lacking.

I stated 'people are allowed rights' as in you only have the rights you can defend in court or combat. The bill of rights allows you to defend those rights in a court of law which is the civilized way of resolving dispute. To defend your rights via combat is the barbaric way of resolving a dispute, such as the revolution.

I stated 'citizens are given privileges' because privileges are given and can be revoked at any time by the grantor for any reason. The 14th amendment states citizens of the united states are provided with privileges not rights.

Once a corporation is chartered, it is legally a person. The corporation is referred as being birthed, and has a birth certificate. Does that mean a corporation has rights?


are you insane. Only slaves are alowed rights. Me I was born with my individual rights to be free to defend myself to move about to live. Look you got to stop using terms like given and allowed unless you are willing to tell me who your master is that gives and allowes your rights. To me your a swindle and just promoting hogwash that you seem to think looks and sounds pretty smart but to me it looks like some child that needs permissions to be allowed or given somthing that he already has and has had since birth. and your double talk about corporations is simple mumbo jumbo you heard or read somwhere and thought sounded good. A corporation is a Rothschild front used to hide true ownership and deflect true responsiblity. They make the money and hide the ownership w corps that birth gargage is for a yakee lawyer. Dont start believing what you coment please.


Totally correct.

I agree with him 100%.

You can either be outraged, or blown away by his candor. There was absolutly no context for this quote, so I have no idea which position to take on it, yet.

It’s true, sadly. This

It’s true, sadly. This dreaded offspring of the states has turned, through the ages, into a Leviathan, unbearable, incompetent, and overweening. Like a mischievous child who’s come to dominate weak and sapless parents, the general government has fertilized into an insidious creature, arrogating power away from its creators, and commandeering a sphere large and troublesome. The States, usually consisting of more incompetents and buffoons, have a tool, however, if only they had the courage and fortitude to use it. The tool, of course, is nullification! Of course the yes-men and sycophants in powerful places will denounce such obstinance as utterly foolish and, most likely, irrational, but this gives more reason to push back. Nullification, the antidote to centralization and all the evils produced therefrom, must move forward. Forget the Supreme Deities, for they have been accomplices in crimes against liberty more so than not. The states, as rightful authority, must step up. Nullification is no elixir. But it surely is a step in the right direction against our Grendel.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

At least it's part of the record now.

SC: It is the state's job to nullify, the government can do anything it wants now, since we did nothing while the federal government trampled your sovereignty in the past.

States: We don't want to nullify and still be forced to pay for every other state with the federal taxes.

People: Do your D*** job SC. Your job isn't to say you allowed too much in the past, so now anything is Constitutional. Your job is to keep the Federal gov within the bounds of the Constitution, not to define a new boundary.

Maybe now the Revolution can begin!

Gee I coulda told 'em that

SC sends $1 to D.C. and it comes back as $1.27. It ain't magic, it's debt.

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

This is true,but...

This is true, but .60 cents of the 1.27 we get back is spent on federal mandates. Without these mandates they would owe the states. In reality they are not even sending back enough to cover their own mandates on the states. Thank you for your reply on the proverbs thread :)

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Yes you're totally right-on

It's a total con-job from the git-go all the way through and through.

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

He's technically correct, but he's an asshole for saying it.

That's because when traitors on the Supreme Court continuously give expansive powers to Congress and chip away at federalism, the States lose the ability to resist and NOT be dependent.

It isn't by choice.

The States have been fighting federal encroachment all the way. And they aren't about to pay for programs they didn't pass or agree to.

So yes Justice Roberts, you are technically correct, but you are an ass for your view. What do you suggest as the alternative, secession? Revolution?

Do you suggest the States ignore your court and simply arrest and imprison federal officials who impose Congress' will on the States?

Get off it man.

Or maybe you aren't an ass after all. But the only way you can't be, would be if you did in fact mean the States have a choice, and that choice is submit or fight back, and by fight back, you mean arrest, imprison, secede, and literally FIGHT DC in a WAR.

So which is it Mr. Chief Justice?

what can we expect

When the very federal govenrment that destroys its own constitution appoints the Judiciary responsible to protect the constitution. Its all a bunch of BS so a few can try to enslave the masses by proclaimation and edict.



The courts are waking from a century and a half coma. Now is not the time to pat ourselves on the back, however. Even the decedent institution of the court is recognizing how the states lack the power they are supposed to have. Now, we must not be content, but rise and escalate demands for unconstitutional powers the federal government has to be returned to the states!!!


It's just an excuse being floated so when ObamaCare is "approved" by the Supreme Court they can say, we warned you the states had given up their independence.

Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don't have brains enough to be honest. - Ben Franklin

I don't think it really matters

what they say.
They are all liars crooks and evil doers.

They don't represent the American people. They are usurpers and psychopaths who have taken over the gov't by subterfuge.
Their "assumed authority" has no backing from the people.
The emperor has no clothes.

That includes the SCOTUS. The Constitution grants them no

authority to "declare" laws as constitutional or unconstitutional. They seized that power in their first session.

That sole power lies with the States by the nature of the Constitution itself. It is an agreement amongst sovereign entities. They created it, and they are the sole arbiters of what comports with it.

If they acquiesce to a law, and fail to nullify it, then it matters not what a court says.

You are wrong

The States did not create the constitution. "We, the People of the United States...ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Sovereign people of the United States created the Constitution, the States just agreed to be a party to it.


Just another group of sole out installed prostitute muppet puppets. When supreme court justices are members of the ROCKERFELLER NWO group CFR you go to know we got problems. Clinton installed sodamayer so he could get away with his coke runs out of mensa Arkansaw.


No, Roberts asked that question to hear the defense against that

line of reasoning that was offered in some context by one of the counsels.

I listened to all of the arguements and during this part i got the impression from the justice that he did not agree with that statement but was looking for a defense of it.