How much sovereignty should the states wield?
920584
The States should definitely have more say in their own affairs. For the most part, they do, but the Feds always threaten to cut funding to the States that don't pass certain legislation. One recent example being the speed limit in Montana. Until this year, there was no speed limit in that State, but they caved in to the Feds to hold on to funding.\n\nThe Federal government should only exist to protect its citizens, act as our representative to the rest of the world, and help maintain national infrastructure. Everything else should be left to each State to provide.
36566
Your country can only be free if there are certain rules to ensure your freedom. If everyone were completely free from rules, we would be spending most of our time guarding our property.
776705
Probably war.  I think Texas is the only state that put into its terms of statehood that it has the right to secede.
546447
The US Constituion say no but not only that it is one of those unalienabel rights that have been endowed by our creator.  The hand of big government can slap anyone so I say challenge the cult of the omnipotent state.\n\nIn Liberty,\nEric H. Smith
644593
At some point in the future there should certainly be a referendum on the subject. I'm not altogether sure that independence would be a good thing. Small states tend to get picked on by bully boys. You know who I mean.
688509
It's hard to come up with a definite answer, as there are countries not recognized by others, or only some others, etc. Also, former territories, that some countries still lay a claim on, and so on.\n\nFor all intents and purposes, "about 192" is correct, but this number is open to debate.
938744
Technically, a country is simply a geographical territory.  When you say a country, you probably mean a state, which is an independent territory with a government, a population, and sovereignty over these.  Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself.  So to be a politically recognizable state, the state much meet the above requirements.
112865
Yes, within the context of the delegated powers and sovereignty of the Constitution.\n\nState. A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities of the globe.
1154471
you know,\nthat's also my argument.\ni agree with you.\nthey should be given the option of\nbecoming a state or be treated as a foreign country
104707
So what is your point, States have some rights.
590210
Nigeria, a sovereign state?
316314
A few rules to rule a country.&#92;\nWho has the biggest guns.\nWho has the most money.\nWho can geographically own the most land.\nHow one uses his or her leadership.
581161
Yes, the UN does have limited legal personality (Reparations Case) as functional neccessity requires. It it not a State, but has standing to bring a claim against sovereign States.
624775
No they do not have the right. Every nation should have the right to sovereignty, as long as they do no threaten other nations or commit heinous crimes against their entire populace.
1094370
Hello dear!\nWhy should all states get the political system we want for ourselves?\nI do not know what people of Burma want, neither which is better for them!\nFor the second part of the question, which is easier, Burma and any country, deserves and democracy s a good political system only if the residents feel like citizens, free and are promptly educated!
1099151
It depends on what you mean by "actually."\n\nIn a pragmatic sense, whatever the U.S. Supreme Court says is constitutional is "actually" constitutional.\n\nPerhaps you mean, "Should it be constitutional?"  Well, obviously there are arguments on both sides -- and they were raised in Marbury v. Madison -- but I would have to agree with the Supreme Court:  What would REALLY throw off the balance of powers is if there were no checks and balances to prevent Congress from passing unconstitutional laws.\n\nFinally, perhaps you mean, "Was this what the Framers intended?"  Again, this was argued in Marbury v. Madison.  Probably the answer would be that some did, and some didn't.  However, what is the point of writing a constitution that limits the powers of Congress if there's no way to enforce the limitations?
421579
Ask yourself a question if you were in a climate that allowed other countries rights to be violated at will by any neighboring country with impunity,a country that more resources than your country,would you not look for a way to level the playing field? When Russia was an empire, the U.S. did not dare pull these kinds of ploys because there was a balance. the balance is now gone. Noone holds the administration in check. Do your research!!!  Yes!!Peace.