[oneJob]

the "full faith and credit clause", i.e. article iv, sec. 1 of the u.s. constitution, was written after the constitutions of the states that would eventually sign onto the constitution (clearly), and a long (long) time after the term "state" was being used (c.1300 [1]).

Given that a cursory reading of the wikipedia page on this clause states that"At present, it is widely agreed that this Clause of the Constitution has little impact on a court's choice of law decision," I'm at a loss as to how I'm to interpret your one line response as relates to your argument that U.S. states are not as sovereign as a state such as Germany or China.

idk, maybe you were just bored and threw this out into the universe, to see if it would stick, or something.

[1] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=state

[vacri]

You have me genuinely puzzled at how you somehow claim that because the term 'state' in this context is 800 years old, it means that law made later than this is somehow weak. I genuinely don't get this age-of-etymology argument you're using.

In any case, age of a law is not an automatic trump card. There are multiple sites on the web listing silly laws from the 19th century that never get enforced, for example.

> to see if it would stick, or something.

What, you mean like saying that the individual US states are as sovereign as China?

Also, "I've got a BS and my partner has a PhD in topic X, and I can verify my point by my reading of Wikipedia"? Seriously? Well, my reading of Wikipedia says that you're completely wrong! I'm also King of Namibia and my bestie is the Pope. Just take my word for it.