Sovereignty is not a word to
be casually used, especially if in overreaching. In both the E.U. and U.S.,
state governments have overreached at the expense of the delegated competencies
or enumerated powers of the respective Unions of states. The Nullification Crisis
in the U.S. and de facto unilateral refusal of the E.U. state of Hungary to
observe E.U. law both demonstrate how the overreaching by state governments can
compromise a federal system.[1]
In the E.U. the refusal to do away with the principle of unanimity in the
European Council and the Council of the E.U. enable and even invite such
overreaches at the expense of the E.U. itself, and its distinctly federal
officials. Even a state government’s pursuit of it’s state’s economic interests
does not justify holding the E.U. hostage. The case of supporting Ukraine in
the midst of the invasion by Russia is a case in point.
The full essay is at "The E.U.'s Hungary Overreaching on Sovereignty."
[1] In 1832-1833, the government of South Carolina held that the U.S. tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were null and void within the state. “The resolution of the Nullification Crisis in favor of the federal government helped to undermine the nullification doctrine,” which holds that states have the right “to nullify federal acts within their boundaries.” Britannica.com (accessed August 25, 2025). I submit that the European Court of Justice could do worse than declare the same with regard to state laws, including the refusal of a governor or state legislature to implement federal directives, that are in violation of E.U. law and regulations. Monetary sanctions by the European Commission have not been a sufficient deterrent. If either de facto or de jure nullification becomes the norm, then it would only be a matter of time before the Union dissolves and the states could once again take up arms against each other.
