Gordon L. Weil
“Your home is your castle.”
“Keep out of my space.”
Both are everyday expressions of a key legal principle at the
center of current conflicts. It is a
concept that Greenland and Minnesota have in common.
It is sovereignty.
The standard legal dictionary has long defined it: “The
supreme, absolute and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is
governed.”
Now, President Trump seeks to violate the sovereignty of nations
and U.S. states. Greenland is a
territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Trump threatens to overrule Danish sovereignty, raising the possible use
of force. He threatens military control
of Minneapolis, Minnesota’s largest city, and launches legal moves against the
state’s governor.
In the U.S., the people are sovereign. They have given the power to state
governments to act for their civic benefit.
The states exercise sovereignty.
They have agreed to cede some, but not all, of their sovereign power to
the federal government. This was
accomplished by the Constitution, adopted in a series of state conventions by “We,
the People.”
The result is shared sovereignty. The federal government exercises some of the
people’s powers as do the 50 states. In
legal terms, that arrangement is called a compact and that’s what the
Constitution creates.
Throughout American history, especially after the Civil War,
many sovereign powers have been shifted from the states to the federal
government. This transfer often takes
place through Supreme Court orders, especially when the Court’s majority favors
a strong central government.
The shift of sovereignty has been driven by the need for the
U.S., as a great world power, to have all the tools necessary to project that
power and influence. It also results from
the need for uniform laws governing the entire country to ensure the rights of
all and the development of a national economy.
There now appears to be little, if anything, left of state
sovereignty. The federal government can
act wherever and however the president pleases.
With the assertion of presidential power to deploy military
force to exercise control within states, the shift has almost become total. Shared sovereignty is dying. Presidents want to increase their power,
often at the expense of states. Trump’s extreme
actions have either received Supreme Court approval or it has simply stood
aside.
The Court set itself up to ensure laws and actions conform
to the Constitution. Unchallenged in
this role, it acts as a legislature that backs the president. Congress recedes, mainly because the president’s
own party puts loyalty to him ahead of loyalty to the Constitution. The country suffers.
However extreme Trump’s policy toward Minnesota and other
states, his claims for foreign territory are stunning. He wants Canada as the 51st state. He wants Greenland and openly discusses taking
it from Denmark. Canadians and Greenlanders
do not want U.S. rule. But he regards
the sovereignty of others as disposable, especially when he dislikes their
leaders.
His moves have probably destroyed the NATO alliance. Other members recognize that American forces
won’t defend them in case of a Russian attack.
They see him threatening a NATO member and promising to raise U.S.
tariffs on products of countries opposing his involuntary acquisition of
Greenland. He does not consult with U.S.
allies.
His outsider view has correctly spotlighted the inadequate
military effort of other NATO countries and the alliance’s lack of an Arctic
defense capability. But his solution would
impose U.S. dominance instead of proposing a joint strategy. That deeply worries the Europeans.
Above all, Trump seeks to replace the rules-based order that
developed to prevent the resurgence of Nazi-style aggression. Instead, he favors control exercised only by
the most powerful nations. He sees multilateralism
as an unjustified limit on America pursuing its own objectives, no matter the
effect on others.
Western nations have sought to protect sovereignty while
promoting joint action. Each country
would recognize the right of each nation to its sovereignty within secure and
recognized borders. That made respect
for the territorial integrity of each country the guarantee of sovereignty.
Trump’s demands at home and abroad have inspired disbelief. They affront widely held, historic
understandings that had been accepted as reliable and permanent. His policy stems from his personal and often
contradictory views that meet little effective opposition. Leading a willing government, Trump has
brought change and toppled conventions.
Trump is not discouraged by the growing loss of respect for
the U.S. in the world. In relying
excessively on American economic and military backing, other countries accepted
U.S. world leadership. As they are now
forced to react to MAGA-like demands on them, the U.S. is losing power and influence.
Trump’s neo-isolationism cannot be explained as America
Alone. It is America First, using its power
to force American citizens and foreign nations alike to accept his ego-driven definition
of that principle.
What comes next?
