1997-08-12 - Re: A peculiar notion

Header Data

From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
To: “Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law” <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Message Hash: 9d91e3404074a7bc1d066ae8a320cc747ca95c0f9c1ed43eae4905555118980e
Message ID: <v03102809b0162dabfc26@[]>
Reply To: <v03102800b013d04c0f1b@[]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-08-12 15:33:42 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 23:33:42 +0800

Raw message

From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 23:33:42 +0800
To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: A peculiar notion
In-Reply-To: <v03102800b013d04c0f1b@[]>
Message-ID: <v03102809b0162dabfc26@[]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>It is consistent with the dual sovereignty thesis to say that "what is
>delegated can be withdrawn" but the entity doing the "withdrawing" is the
>people (by some democratic process, presumably, e.g. a new constitutional
>convention), not the states, for it is the people who did the delegation
>in the first place.

So, if the people (legal voters in the states which planned to withdraw)
had called a constitutional convention, whose vote was for withdrawl, it
might (in your opinion) been a legitimate undertaking with binding result?
I don't think the North would have accepted any withdrawl, not matter how
it was decided within the South.

The Feds, and indeed any government, tends to strongly oppose any move
which lessens its authority.  It is a credit to the USSR that it was able
to allow even those satellite states, forced into survitude, to peacefully