"Each state enjoys sovereign power."
by:
Gouverneur Morris
(1752-1816) represented Pennsylvania in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, author of large sections of the Constitution for the United States, credited as the author of its Preamble
Source:
Commentaries on the Constitution, Vol. III, p 287
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:

 -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
    		•  
    So if I understand properly now, the sovereignty the state has is the collective sovereignty of the individuals extending to the state govt. and through the states to the federal govt. I'm trying to get this clear because the Feds get eminent domain through their "sovereignty" and because of their sovereignty were until The Tucker Act of 1887 (I think the date is right) immune to law suits and to this day through other legislation regulate who can sue them, how they can sue them and why they can sue them. These laws are not restricted to international treaties but extend to the states and the citizens. I admit it makes me wary when I read quotes of this nature. Time for more research.
     -- Dan     
    		•  
    Originally, yes. That's the way it used to be anyway.
     -- Me Again     
    		•  
    Dan; The founder's concepts of eminent domain derived originally from land laws of the Old Testament. Farm land was held in allodial freehold (uniquely possessed by an individual sovereign) with no ability to sell or encumber in any way (by way of taxes, loans, etc.) Because life supercedes all other legalities, once the farmer had exhausted his legal use of the land, God's eminent domain allowed for the survival of the specie by allowing the poor to glean that which had been overlooked by the property owner. Tradition (not lawful mandate) grew that the farmer land owner would intentionally leave an estimated amount to help the community. If and when the land owner changed the use of the land from farming (mill works, mining, etc.) to, say, housing or public industry, the allodial freehold status was changed to titled possession. Titled property (no longer the individual sovereign's allodial freehold) could then be sold, or otherwise encumbered as it became community domain, Under American jurisprudence, the legal nexus to secure allodial freehold was by patent, sovereign held grants, or other State specific legal conveyance. Such perfected land was outside the government's pervue of eminent domain. Land's / property's titled possession fell under the united sovereigns' domain. "Eminent domain is the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in the government, or in the aggregate body of the people in their sovereign capacity." (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition) America's eminent domain application concepts were derived from Europe and early Rome. Now that allodium is an antiquated concept that is no longer recognized within the democratic socialist nation calling itself the United States of America, eminent domain has been transposed into a land grab.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
    		•  
    Excellent, Mike!
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 1
    		•  
    Thanks for that Mike. I finally understand the sovereignty and the land connection. You stated it very clearly. I will save it for future reference. The five stars are for you. I still think sovereign is a dangerous word to let state and in particular federal govt. to use. (It might go to their heads!) ha ha. Sarcasm implied.
     -- Dan     
  • 1
    		•  
     -- Mary-MI      
    A further or possible help to understand the concept of eminent domain within the earliest American jurisprudence could be deduced from an extremely broad view of the earliest discussions on voting. Within the discussion on who could vote were those sovereigns that owned land in a perfected allodium. The concepts of "God" owning land as administered by a formal church, differing from land owned by a sovereign (broken down to and administered by head of household, family, etc.), differing from land titled to commercial entities, etc. all played a part in who was best qualified to vote. Voting was never considered an inalienable right but rather, a duty with moral and social imperative. From earliest Western Hemisphere settlement to 1776, the legal discussion on perfected allodium by sovereign individuals varied greatly by State settlement. The northeast (New England, etc.) was greatly influenced and financed by socialists. When those attempts failed miserably; instead of completely returning back to a personal free economy, government replaced their ultimate god and only commercial title was legally recognized (merging god, church, sovereignty and temporal government as an omnipotent owner of everything). The Articles of Confederation were still open to a personal sovereign's perfected allodium / individual eminent domain. Upon the writing of the Constitution (added to by the 5th Amendment, the last phrase therein stating: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”) the subject matter became vague at best and only addressed titled property in commerce (leaving inalienable rights and perfected allodium ownership out of the written word, legal subject matter and conversation as a concession and settlement compromise with Southern States – The South got slaves, the North got the ability to later define, enforce, legislate and adjudicate from a god/sovereign position). “private property” is a legal reference to titled property in commerce vs. and/or outside government title and an individual sovereign’s perfected allodium. The subject matter was mentions in passing when speaking of – if the Constitution doesn’t give specific authority to do an act, the government can’t do it. Eminent domain, as a legal subject matter has never addressed the eminent domain of individual sovereign’s perfected allodium thus giving an inadequate and false mental image of the government’s governing “god” position. As voting has changed over the years, so has the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land’s presentation and description of ownership. Legally, I’ve not found an Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution argument being set forth to demonstrate that the body politic was only given authority to address titled property in commerce. No authority was ever given to address the individual sovereign’s right to ownership at perfected allodium.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
    		•  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    		 Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    Today's Quotes
    More Quotations
    Most Popular
    Recent Comments
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2024 Liberty-Tree.ca