The United States Is a Union NOT A Sovereign "Nation" - Part I
The Path to New Christendoms REQUIRES this basic understanding of The Constitution, States, Nations & Borders - Part I of Many
In this multi-part series I am going to flesh out ways forward and out of the political and moral crises we ‘Muricans find ourselves in. To be clear, I will make all arguments, historical, polemical and spiritual with the conviction that all solutions must arise from the desire to live under the social kingship of Christ; if that tweaks your “keep your religion out of my politics, TKD!” panties and binds them in a wad, I’m sorry to see you go to The Benfather for answers he sells that don’t work.
What will be striking to many readers is that this includes all questions of the political and practical. Christ did not “dwel[l] among us” to be ruler over things that happen in the Church and a sterile observer of all else. “Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God” isn’t a suggestion, it’s an imperative command spoken by the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity and made out of total love by our Creator. We should stop pretending otherwise internalize the task. I aim to make the case that especially when reading, amending and “interpreting” our Constitutions the mistake that’s been uniquely American is that our kingdoms are the “kingdom of god” i.e. “the shining city on the hill”; “the greatest country [kingdom] in the history of the world” et al. It is a fact that at best, we’re runners up. “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
IN PART I WILL EXPLAIN
The United States is NOT a “country” or “nation” or “state”.
The state of Louisiana IS a state or country or nation. This nation is made up of regions, cities then kingdoms whose smallest entity is the family.
The U.S. Constitution is clear in its recognition of the right of States to defend their borders this ante cedes and post cedes “invasion”.
One of the practical applications of defending a border is to preserve Christian human flourishing.
THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A “NATION”
First things first! The term nation has a robust etymology:
c. 1300, nacioun, "a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language," from Old French nacion "birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland" (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) "birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe," literally "that which has been born," from natus, past participle of nasci "be born" (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.
In view of this it’s easy to see how the tribes that loosely identified as romans became the “nation of Italy” or the frank tribes that became “France”. i.e.
late Old English, from Old French France, from Medieval Latin Francia, from Francus "a Frank" (see Frank). Old English had Franc-rice "kingdom of the Franks," more commonly Franc-land.
Today, the term “nation” is used primarily to distinguish massive populations of people who, per the Oxford Dictionary.
“…live in a particular area under one government.”
Viewed as an extraterrestrial visitor, this does not describe the people of these United States considering that our alien friend may transport himself in an instant from an abortuarium in Manhattan to a “house for life” in Covington, LA; The government of one condones human slaughter while the latter forbids it. This while there is supposedly one towering, central menace that governs both “one Ring to rule all” per Tolkein. Yet in the Dobbs case, Justice Alito clearly states that The United States is not a nation but a union of nations i.e. states.
But the people of the various States may evaluate those interests differently. In some States, voters may believe that the abortion right should be even more extensive than the right that Roe and Casey recognized. Voters in other States may wish to impose tight restrictions based on their belief that abortion destroys an “unborn human being.”
I will return in a later post to Alito’s ruling that lamentably does not make the case that I will make here but instead issues a rule based on what is politically possible in the reality we currently live in. What is the desideratum thus differs from what is possible. Still, the Dobbs decision contains the term “states” on 111 of it’s 213 pages. This doesn’t “suggest” it confirms that the Federal gubbmint and its Judicial branch are creatures of the states, brought forth to, where possible, “make regular” agreements for the parties to live by in their legal machinations. That is not a “nation”, it’s a union of legal entities who act together for certain ends. Put another way as my old friend professor Don Livingston puts it…
Say a gathering of the owners of 50 country clubs got together to complain about the high price of golf carts and decided that it was in their interests to form “The League of Country Clubs” that would exercise the purchasing power of 50 clubs to purchase golf carts at a vast discount. The individual clubs would then enlist The League to place the order for the golf carts while each club would receive the carts and pay for them COD. From this example it’s obvious that The League isn’t a country club but a creature of country clubs. This is, in a bucket of balls, a perfect explanation for the gubbmint of The United States i.e. it isn’t a “nation” but represents nations i.e. states.
To make the point more relatable let’s say that you, dear reader, are a husband father of 6 kids. In your kingdom i.e. home, under your sovereign authority as husband and father, you exercise unilateral power over purchasing limits and educational topics; for argument’s sake, we’ll say that there are 100 families in this town who have similar familial compositions. You are the “sovereign” of your little kingdom and that’s not nothing. In the same way, this state, Louisiana is a sovereignty, made so by the grant of the families who live herein. So let’s introduce that term: sovereignty.
sovereignty (n.)
mid-14c., "pre-eminence," from Anglo-French sovereynete, Old French souverainete, from soverain (see sovereign (adj.)). Meaning "authority, rule, supremacy of power or rank" is recorded from late 14c.; sense of "existence as an independent state" is from 1715.
Let’s say the town you live in is “governed” by a mayor who is also a husband and father; he selects the police chief who enforces laws that the town council passes from time to time and he is called “our town Father”, we’ll call him Mayor Marvin. Now Marvin has learned that your dietary choices and chosen religion, Catholicism, are not what he thinks are best for children and thus issues an executive order commanding you, under his authority as town Father, to go vegan and become Amish. For pretending he could exercise the authority of fathers because he’s the Father of the town, with powers and stuff; Marvin is captured, bound and gagged and sent on a one-way trip to Portland Oregon. In this system of hierarchy, actual fathers hold all the individual powers and have delegated some powers, like maintaining roads and bulk purchases of natural gas but Marvin is not a father as God has made you. Priests act in this same capacity and we actually call them “Father” with the point being that sovereignty cannot be shared but the powers of a sovereign can be delegated e.g. an appointed “Treasury Secretary” discharges the power of maintaining a treasury even though it is that power was granted to The President (which is why e.g. Trump could fire Jeff Sessions at will). I could spend another 300 pages fleshing this argument out but I pray readers get the point so that when I treat on the following, my arguments for “nations” and “sovereignties” will make sense. This image should make the flow of sovereignty clear
A BORDER DIVIDES NATIONS NOT UNIONS
Enter Edward J. Erler writing at American Greatness on this subject.
Professor John Yoo, constitutional law professor at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has published a remarkable article in National Review. He contends that Texas Governor Greg Abbot’s November 16 letter upbraiding Joe Biden for refusing to honor the Constitution’s guarantee that the federal government shall protect the states against the invasion of illegal border crossers is a misrepresentation of the Constitution because no actual “invasion” has taken place. In fact, says Yoo, the Texas governor’s plan to use the Texas National Guard to prevent illegal aliens from entering Texas is itself a violation of the Constitution, because immigration and border control fall within the plenary power of the federal government even if the Biden Administration refuses to exercise this exclusive power.
Under the Constitution, Congress is granted power to “establish an uniform Rule Naturalization.” By extension, this means that Congress has the power to determine, as an aspect of the nation’s sovereignty, the conditions for entry into the United States.
Note Professor Erler’s confusion i.e. the United States both a “nation” AND a “sovereignty” at the same time and if so, how is that possible? Erler is basically saying that the U.S. created itself then rules out of it’s created self’s powers but this is not possible and it’s also not desirable because there would be no force on earth, outside of an actual sovereignty waging a successful war against it, that could claim authority to regulate its abuses and excesses. Erler’s confused position is, at this time however, the de facto situation we find ourselves in i.e. who/what is going to tell Pelosi’s Congress, Biden’s Executive or Robert’s Court that they are illegitimately nay tyrannically exercising powers reserved to the sovereign states and to the people1?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. - 10th Amendment To The U.S. Constitution
The Constitution doesn’t use the term “Nation” to describe itself as a Creature and only refers to “Nations” when it treats of dealings in commerce and war with “foreign[ers]”; when it refers domestically to nations it calls them States, to see the distinction see, e.g.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
When it speaks of the plurality of the States it exclusively uses the term United States. You can clearly see the relation in use in Article I, Section 8.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
These distinctions are THE key to re-ordering our civil affairs so that the order of Christ The King is restored2 and yes, Christ recognized sovereignties and borders, see here and here. As St Thomas Aquinas has been quoted on the issue of citizenship and immigrants, borders and sovereignties, alien friends and enemies, these distinctions are necessary to proper order and Christian human flourishing.
[W]hen any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1). The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people. - St. Thomas Aquinas, Question 105, Article 3
In my objection to John Yoo’s insistence and Professor Erler’s suggestion3 that the regulation of borders are purely supra-national affairs I have drawn the distinction between a union of nations and a nation per solo; that the preservation of borders is a natural and practical necessity and that this preservation can only be done by the people the border breach will directly impact.
BLACK BORDERS MATTER
Let us now move to the practical application of why these borders matter to the formation of the states of New Christendom. Both Saint Thomas and St Augustine also weigh in on the conditions that are present in well-ordered Christian republics i.e. nations. Note that St Thomas breaks down the preferred gubbmint to that which is closest to the people who are subjects. Thomas Jefferson would nearly plagiarize this by substituting a few words in his preference that outside [the size of] “a New England township”, good gubbmint was not possible.
Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, where one is given the power to preside over all; while under him are others having governing powers: and yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rules are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers.
Such was the form of government established by the Divine Law. - St. Thomas, Question 105
Saint Augustine confirms our definition of a nation (he uses the term republic) then goes even further and tells us that when “the republic” (nation) is ruled by tyrants there are actually no legitimate rulers at all.
When this question has been handled to the satisfaction of the company, Scipio reverts to the original thread of discourse, and repeats with commendation his own brief definition of a republic, that it is the good of the people. The people he defines as being not every assemblage or mob, but an assemblage associated by a common acknowledgment of law, and by a community of interests. Then he shows the use of definition in debate; and from these definitions of his own he gathers that a republic, or good of the people, then exists only when it is well and justly governed, whether by a monarch, or an aristocracy, or by the whole people. But when the monarch is unjust, or, as the Greeks say, a tyrant; or the aristocrats are unjust, and form a faction; or the people themselves are unjust, and become, as Scipio for want of a better name calls them, themselves the tyrant, then the republic is not only blemished (as had been proved the day before), but by legitimate deduction from those definitions, it altogether ceases to be. For it could not be the people's good when a tyrant factiously lorded it over the state; neither would the people be any longer a people if it were unjust, since it would no longer answer the definition of a people — an assemblage associated by a common acknowledgment of law, and by a community of interests.
Let’s put this whole piece into order.
The United States is NOT a “country” or “nation” or “state”.
The state of Louisiana IS a state or country or nation. This nation is made up of regions, cities then kingdoms whose smallest entity is the family (see illustration above). The family has the rights of a state but can delegate some of these rights as they deem proper. This power to delegate extends vertically and horizontally but there is a “line of sovereignty” above which power conceded is not exclusive.
The U.S. Constitution is clear in its recognition of the right of States to defend their borders this ante cedes and post cedes “invasion”.
In Part II I will get into greater detail of the why these distinctions of nation/state vs Union are vital to the post-Constitution future of the new Christendoms I believe have already begun to form.
A blessed 5h Day of Advent to you and yours!
I am not here making an argument for the Constitutional “system” which begins with the most egregious error of all: that “We The People” can make all laws for Men to live by on our own authority as “free people” and nothing else.
Here I speak of a restoration as we are the descendants of the citizens of what we call Christendom and their practical understanding of the hierarchy that both Church & State observed during that glorious epoch.
For Yoo it’s the “Federal gubbmint” and for Erler it’s the State of Texas but Erler tends to attach his argument to the Constitution and not from the POV I have laid out here that whether Texas is in the Union or not, it’s right to protect its border is unchanged.