User talk:Rrius

This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes

So, what is the problem? Why are you trying to conceal the fact that PIGS is a racist slur directed against Mediterranean people? Aleged by some? Yes, we could ask the 150 Million people living on those countries what do they think of you or the US/UK press calling them PIGS. In fact I would love to see you in person making the case in any of those countries.

Welcome to my talk page.

I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page unless you tell me otherwise. You may want to Watch this page until you are responded to. If I placed a comment on your page, I have added it to my watchlist, so please reply there. Also, please don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Finally, don't forget to assume good faith; I make a lot of mistakes.

Archives

Sept. 2007 to Sept. 2008 Sept. to Dec. 2008 Jan. to Feb. 2009 Feb. to Aug. 2009 Aug. to Oct. 2009 Oct. to Dec. 2009 Jan. to Feb. 2010 Feb. to May 2010 May to Jun. 2010 Jun. to Oct. 2010 Oct. to Dec. 2010 Jan. to May 2011 May to Oct. 2011 Oct. to Dec. 2011 Jan. to May 2012 May to Sept. 2012 Sept. to Dec. 2012 Jan. to Mar. 2013 Mar. to Sept. 2013 Sept. to Dec. 2013 Jan. to Dec. 2014 Jan. to Dec. 2015 Jan. 2016 to Mar. 2018 Mar. 2018 to Dec. 2020 Dec. 2020 to present Index

Hanky panky NY Governors

Jumpers, first it's Spitzer & his prostitute. Now it's Paterson having a closet fling (or sabateurs making it up, to get Paterson out of the gubernatorial race)? Ravitch, stand by for possible promotion. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, can you imagine. The lieutenant governor they had to go to court to establish could actually be appointed taking over as governor? Good grief. -Rrius (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, he'd be one of the oldest NY Govs to boot. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Goodness, what if he took over, then died? Malcolm Smith, the Temporary President, would take over, leaving a 30–30 Senate to pick a new Temporary President. I suppose Malcolm would appoint a new lieutenant governor, but I'm guessing that person wouldn't get a vote on that. We could see a repeat of last summer. -Rrius (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Holy smokers. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

LKL: No closets in the Gov's Mansion? Err, Paterson may've boo booed. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a new piece in this story? -Rrius (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

U.S. State segment on sovereignty

Good afternoon - I am brand-new to Wikipedia editing, so if I am using this incorrectly please let me know. I was the person who made the change earlier today in the U.S. state entry on sovereignty vested in the American people, not in either the federal or state governments. I believe, if I read the edit history correctly, that you exercised the "undo" feature and marked it with a comment essentially asserting that this was not germaine to the entry. I would most respectfully disagree, as the issue of sovereignty as vested in the people as a whole and not retained in any form by the states or the federal government was at the root of the American Civil War, where the final role of states in the Union was determined and ratified by the SCOTUS decision Texas v. White. The rest of the existing entry reads in a way that suggeste a "delegation of sovereignty" argument relying heavily on a specific and contested interpretation of the 10th Amendment. That, in turn, suggests to me that the difference in our opinion of this entry may rest in a difference of political philosophy. This, then, suggests that rather than engage in editing and counter-editing indefinitely, we should seek whatever mechanisms of objective outside review Wikipedia offers. Does this seem reasonable to you? Thank you for your time and attention Justin(History) (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand what the sentence means. The first sentence of the article says, "A U.S. state is any one of 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government." That is absolutely correct. It is also correct that the people are the ultimate sovereign. While that seams to be a contradiction, it is explained by the fact that in a republic, the people are sovereign, but transfer that sovereignty to a government, which rules by their consent. They do so because, for one reason or another, they have decided not to engage in pure democracy. So when we say that the national and state governments "share sovereignty", we are talking about the sovereignty delegated by the people, not something originates with the governments jointly or separately.

Far from being based on "a specific and contested interpretation of the 10th Amendment", that is fundamental to understanding [representative democracy]]. In fact, the discussion of the transfer does not attempt to rely on the Tenth Amendment; you are merely misinterpreting the paragraph. The only reference to the Tenth Amendment you could be referring to is not at all "specific and contested"—it says, "all powers not delegated to the U.S. government nor prohibited to the states are retained by the states or the people." That is not an interpretation, but a paraphrasing of the the Amendment's text actually says. Instead of somehow explaining delegated sovereignty (and I still don't understand how you came to think that's what t does), the role of the sentence is to set up the following sentence, which lists areas of responsibility generally considered to be within the ambit of the states (while noting that the feds do fund and regulate even in those spheres).

The Civil War was not fought to say that the state governments had no sovereignty. Rather, it was fought to deny that states have the right to secede without the consent of the national government (well, really, over slavery). Put in terms of sovereignty, the national government fought to deny that the states, using the sovereignty entrusted to them, could withdraw the sovereignty entrusted to the United States. Texas v. White says nothing like what you accuse it of saying. -Rrius (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is Justin - I'm not sure I'm formatting this reply correctly, so please bear with me and let me know if I make a formatting error. Sovereignty by definition can neither be divided nor transferred. It is the final authority in any system of government. For America, that final authority is the American people, not either of our primary levels of government as you say. Those governments, state and federal alike, draw their authority from the consent of the people, not a delegation or transfer of that authority. This is the primary reason the Union is indissoluable, for the entire American people would have to consent to its dissolution, net merely those people in a single state who might want to secede. That is in fact the issue over which the Civil War was fought - the secession of the southern states might have represented the will of their (free) people, but not the will of the American people as a whole. That is the core idea articulated by Chase in Texas v. White, and why he concludes by saying not that secession is impossible, but merely something that cannot be done unilaterally. The consent of the national government is relevant only in so far as it represents the consent of the sovereign American people as a whole.

The idea that the states retain sovereignty and delegate a portion of that sovereignty to a national government was the animating idea at the root of the failed Articles of Confederation, and repudiated during the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. In effect, the final defense of the idea of sovereign states was the idea of unilateral secession, as articulated by Jefferson et al in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which formed the core of the state sovereignty argument until it was defeated in the Civil War and formally repudicated in Texas v. White. Since the Civil War, the struggle in our federal system has been between those who value states' rights (not state sovereignty) as expressed in the 10th Amendment, which also espouses the idea of unenumerated rights for the American people. Given that the 10th Amendment and the Elastic Clause are in appearent conflict, we've relied on the actions of the Congress and the Supreme Court since then to draw the fine line.

In essence, the idea that states are still sovereign, as they were under the Articles of Confederation, leads inevitably to the idea that states, as the sovereign final authority in that system, could secede. No soveriegn entity can be forced to remain within a compact or confederation. For the Union to be made indissoluable, or "more perfect," the majority of the Founders had to abandon the idea of sovereign states and turn to the idea of sovereign people.

However, the gap between our positions is the gap that articates the different ends of the modern American political spectrum. The "state sovereignty" resolutions appearing in many state legislatures today are the hallmark of what is generally accepted as conservative political thought, as is the idea of delegated state sovereignty. The idea of soveriegn people who neither transfer nor delegate their sovereign power to either the state or federal government is at the core of ideas that often clash with conservative views. My concern in editing the U.S. state entry earlier today was to clarify what I held to be the common legal and political understanding of sovereign people, just as your concern in undoing my edit seems to me to be your intent to clarify what you held to be the common political understanding of sovereign states and delegated sovereignty. Given that this gap exists, I still think we should seek whatever outside decision-making process this format offers for this kind of disagreement on fundamental political theory. Do you agree? Justin(History) (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Justin

Your first assumption is that sovereignty is indivisible. That is not the understanding that underpins American political thought. I am not disputing that the union is indivisible, and I really wish you would stop trying to rely on that as somehow supporting your argument. Texas v. White has nothing to do with anything. You refer to the states not having sovereignty under the Constitution as they did under the Articles of Confederation. What you don't understand is that the notion of sovereignty lying with the people did not originate with the Constitution. The same was true under the Articles. So, when Chase wrote in Texas v. White that "Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty...", he was referring to the transferred sort of sovereignty.

You also seem to assume that I believe that the states granted sovereignty to the national government. You could only believe that if you didn't actually read what I wrote. I said that the people granted sovereignty to both. Your further dismissal of state sovereignty is muddled, bizarre, and wrong. Texas v. White said absolutely nothing about state sovereignty. Part of your argument hinges on the assumption that "No soveriegn entity can be forced to remain within a compact or confederation." Aside from being baseless, it ignores the fact that when sovereignty is divided between the whole and its parts, they must stay together until the ultimate sovereign decides to withdraw its consent from one of them.

Even scholars working for the Congress recognize that state have sovereignty.[1] Moreover, that sovereignty is necessary to understanding why states have sovereign immunity. Most importantly, the idea that both states and the federal government have sovereignty is enshrined in case law. See, e.g., Bartkus v. Illinois.[2] Not even the minority in that case argued that states don't have sovereignty. Modern case law continues to recognize that states are sovereign entities. Your view, while interesting, simply has no basis in law or fact. -Rrius (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

More cases:

• Alden v. Maine (1999): "Rather, as the Constitution’s structure, and its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States’ immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or by virtue of their admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States) except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments."[3]
• Hans v. Louisiana (1890): "This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every state in the Union."[4]
• Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996): "That presupposition, first observed over a century ago in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), has two parts: first, that each State is a sovereign entity in our federal system..."

To the extent the dissents in those cases address the point, they treat the fact that state and federal governments are sovereign entities as axiomatic. -Rrius (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

--You are correct in that I appear to have misunderstood your fundamental argument, something I am actually quite glad to see. However, the differences between us seem to spring from two quite different understandings of the meaning of the word "sovereignty." At a guess, I would assume these are the differences between the meaning of the word in constitutional case law and its meaning in historical political theory. As a scholar of early American thought, I speak to the meaning of the word as it was used through the colonial, revolutionary, and early Republic era to Reconstruction, and your quite excellent sampling of case law speaks to a meaning within the last century or so of post-Reconstruction law. From your use of it, I would gather the word has come to mean something other than indivisible final wellspring of authority in a political system, but rather a collection of legal rights and privileges accrued to a level of government, such as your reference to "sovereign immunity."

--However, from your use of rather strong pejoratives - "muddled, bizarre, and wrong" - I would gather this is also a matter of some personal importance to you, which I can respect within limits. Allow me to explain my initial concern in editing this page. The idea of state sovereignty has historically been the wellspring of secessionist thought, as well as rather shameful episodes of resistance to desegregation a century later. The idea of states rights, while also used for ill, does not allow for interpetations like nullification and secession. Those who advocate for the latter, even in today's American political thought, do seem to see the idea of sovereign states as meaning what their ideological ancestors believed it meant in the first half-century or so of independent America. To leave in the popular mind's most iconic encyclopedia evidence that can be shifted to support things like the myths of a Texan "right to secede" is to fuel ignorance with our nuanced disagreement over historical versus legal word meaning. I came to this concern back-tracking where claims I had encountered for a "right to secede" came from, and stumbled over three points of concern in Wikipedia. Two I've edited - with a narrow specific quote about Texas v. White's final decision on the issue of secession - without any contestation. The larger issue of sovereignty, however, has obviously triggered contestation, and fairly passionate contestation at that.

--My question then is this. What edit can we agree to that leaves your position unmangled yet addresses my concerns about the propagation of older ideas of "state sovereignty = right to secede?" How, in short, can we see to it that those that disagree with our consensus of an indivisible American union do not use our semantic spat as a wedge to build popular support for the erroneous claims of those who wish to use activism and referendum to seek independence for various states? My suggestion would be the inclusion in the existing entry of a nuanced discussion (brief as it can be) of what sovereignty does mean today, that leaves no doubt that it does not mean "supreme political entity entitled to freedom to depart." Something along the lines of:

--"Although ultimate sovereignty rests with the American people as a whole, the U.S. Constitution saw the people delegate this sovereignty to both the federal government and the states as part of an indivisible union."

--Would that work for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin(History) (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No, because that is not the point of the sentence. The point is that both states and the national government have sovereignty. Something that, despite your allegations, is something the Founders recognized. It is part of the reason the the Constitution was ratified by conventions in the states rather than the legislatures. To the extent you are concerned that state sovereignty would be confused with a right to secede, the concern is already addressed by the sentence as it stands. It was never the case that people believed that the term "state sovereignty" meant that. What they did believe was that the states had granted sovereignty to the national government and could take it back.

A few housekeeping points. I put these not to be rude, but because I am trying to be helpful. There is no need to indent with hyphens. It is unnecessary and distracting. Also, your contributions are much too long. As a result, they are ineffective. I am not alone in not fully reading such long entries. I shouldn't have to work harder because you refuse to edit. I gave you one long response where I read your entire contribution, but I'm done with that. Finally, sign your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end. -Rrius (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Off2riob

If you wish for diffs of anything, you only have to ask, and I will be glad to provide them. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 22:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I managed to track down enough to figure out that I don't care. My point was that it was ironic you would fail to provide diffs in or other useful links in, and disruptively edit over, a comment where in you accused Rob of doing the same things. -Rrius (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PIIGS (Economics)

Just a note to say I just realized I tweaked your edit there. My sincere apologies if you find it at all inappropriate for "that" reason. I'll also add that my remarks elsewhere, although they seem to be hitting 'you' are intended for the ideas strictly contained within the prose - I probably should have used the original entries as my example. In hindsight, my use of your revert (which nicely highlighted the major points I needed to refer to for my argument) unintentionally emphasized you. It was probably counter-productive as it likely needlessly alienated a potential moderate force. C'est la vi. :) _99.144.243.71 (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what comments you are talking about. You did make a few mistakes. First, the lead should be a summary of the article. As such, it generally should have references because references should already be contained in the article. Second, references should be contained in <ref> and </ref> tags. Third, only one reference should generally be enclosed in each pair of ref tags. Finally, You should not duplicate sources without a good reason. If the claim is particularly controversial, a second or third reference can be helpful, but that is not the case here. -Rrius (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)