The United States Constitution asserts that the people are the creators of the law thus making them one nation combined by one system of government. This tenet rests on the theory of popular sovereignty. The people referred to in the constitution, include citizens of all 50 states coming together to contribute towards governmental power (sovereignty). Kilberg (2014) asserts that the US constitutional power comes through the consent of the people of each individual state and not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the whole nation. Madison reiterated that all collections of power under the general and state governments irradiated from the people (Kilberg, 2014). In “imperium in imperio,” the states, through the people, diverted some of the sovereign state powers from one form of government to another (Kilberg, 2014). This indicates that the people and not the state have always been sovereign and thus consider US sovereignty is a popular opinion since all the people are one.
Arizona’s Proposition 122 is a matter of imperium in imperio. The proposition indicates that the state of Arizona may exercise its “sovereign authority” to reject federal laws deemed unconstitutional by the people of Arizona. Imperium in imperio envisioned sovereignty as unitary and indivisible through a system that combined multiple sovereigns into one polity (Ablavsky, 2019). Therefore, proposition 122 is an issue of imperium in imperio because it goes against the US Constitution, which states that “…and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…”(Ablavsky, 2019). Through proposition 122, Arizona defies the authority of the US federal government as the supreme law of the land. Arizona’s “sovereign authority” extends to the state being the ultimate judge of what is constitutional (Ablavsky, 2019). The supremacy clause ensured that states retained sovereignty to prevent possible federal overreach by provisioning the federal government with “limited and enumerated powers” (Ablavsky, 2019).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Bill of Rights is a compilation of the first 10 amendments made to the constitution, and is mandatory to be included in the document. Delegates such as George Mason envisioned the idea of adding a bill of rights to the constitution, explicitly indicating the rights, freedoms and civil liberties of the people and states (Munson, 2013). State delegations rejected his proposal by arguing that state constitutions already provided their own form of rights. The founders chose correctly in adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution since it enabled later generations to transform its constituents into powerful instruments of protection against violation of American freedom (Munson, 2013). Ensuing generations reaped the benefits of the Bill of Rights by preventing states from usurping and infringing rights. The original constitution failed because it allowed states to provide their own set of rights in their constitutions (Munson, 2013). This would place significant limits on federal power in safeguarding individual liberties.
The concept of civil disobedience is a non-violent violation of the law used in protest of government policies that infringe the rights of citizens. Civil disobedience, created by David Thoreau in 1849, is a direct attempt to alleviate for justice and bring about change in law (Myers, 2017). Since its formation, civil disobedience has driven numerous protests, rebellions, revolutions, and revolts (Myers, 2017). Martin Luther King regarded this concept as the best way black people could abolish racism (Myers, 2017). Civil disobedience allows people in the West to protest injustices within legal confines. King understood the limitations of the legal system and indicates, “legislation and court orders could only recognize rights but never deliver them to the people” (Myers, 2017). Successfully, he used boycotts to oppose the segregated bus system (Myers, 2017). King’s efforts have overseen a radical change in laws and public sentiment regarding race relations and antidiscrimination ideals (Myers, 2017). Civil disobedience may be practiced effectively when done for the right reasons.
References
Ablavsky, G. (2019). Empire States: The Coming of Dual Federalism. The Yale Law Journal , 128(1792), 1792-1868.
Kilberg, A. (2014). We The People: The Original Meaning Of Popular. Virginia Law Review , 1061-1109.
Munson, H. (2013, May 22). Basic facts about the Bill of Rights. National Constitution Center . https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-the-bill-of-rights
Myers, P. (2017). The Limits and Dangers of Civil Disobedience: The Case of Martin Luther King, Jr. The Heritage Foundation , 65(1), 1-20. https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/report/the-limits-and-dangers-civil-disobedience-the-case-martin-luther-king-jr
