Are you unhappy about the intrusiveness of the federal government into you private and personal business? Are you interested in insulating your private and personal life from such intrusion? Then you need to understand the proper role your Union State is suppose to play in the structure of your Constitutional Republic, how that role has been subverted, and what can be done to get that essential role restored. Recently, there has been much talk about 'Liberty' and 'State Sovereignty' and the losses thereof. However, while it is encouraging to have these talking points make their way to the forefront of the main-stream, talk alone will accomplish nothing. The Reformation of Union State Sovereignty is an arsenal of well researched and well cited legal principals, as well as specific actions that can be taken in the battle to re-establish the Sovereignty of the Union States, and ultimately restore the cherished Liberties of We The People. "It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this [the Revolutionary] war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the People for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war will remain on us long, will be made heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion." -Thomas Jefferson on the drafting of the Virginia State Constitution

This book argues that the introduction of popular sovereignty as the basis for government in France facilitated a dramatic transformation in international law in the eighteenth century.

Written during a moment in English history when the political and social structures were in flux and open to interpretation, Leviathan played an essential role in the development of the modern world.

Nelsen and Guth contend that religion, or "confessional culture, " plays a powerful role in shaping European ideas about politics, attitudes toward European integration, and national and continental identities in its leaders and citizens. Catholicism has for centuries promoted the unity of Christendom, while Protestantism has valued particularity and feared Catholic dominance. These confessional cultures, the authors argue, have resulted in two very different visions of Europe that have deeply influenced the process of postwar integration. Catholics have seen Europe as a single cultural entity that is best governed by a single polity; Protestants have never felt part of continental culture and have valued national borders as protectors of liberties historically threatened by Catholic powers. Catholics have pressed for a politically united Europe; Protestants have resisted sacrificing sovereignty to federal institutions, favoring pragmatic cooperation. Despite growing secularization of the continent, not to mention the impact of Islam, confessional culture still exerts enormous influence. And, the authors conclude, European elites must recognize the enduring significance of this Catholic-Protestant cultural divide as the EU attempts to solve its social and economic and political crises.

This book traces the connections between diverging postwar European integration policies and intra-Christian divisions to argue that supranational integration originates from Roman Catholic internationalism, and that resistance to integration, conversely, is based in Protestantism. Royce supports this thesis through a rigorously supported historical narrative, arguing that sixteenth-century theological conflicts generated seventeenth-century constitutional solutions, which ultimately effected the political choices both for and against integration during the twentieth century. Beginning with a survey of all ecclesiastical laws of seventeen West European countries and concluding with a full discussion of the Brexit vote and emerging alternatives to the EU, this examination of the political theology surrounding the European Union will appeal to all scholars of EU politics, modern theology, religious sociology, and contemporary European history.

In 2011, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, authorizing its member states to take measures to protect Libyan civilians from Muammar Gadhafi’s forces. In invoking the “responsibility to protect,” the resolution draws on the principle that sovereign states are responsible and accountable to the international community for the protection of their populations and that the international community can act to protect populations when national authorities fail to do so. The idea that sovereignty includes the responsibility to protect is often seen as a departure from the classic definition, but it actually has deep historical roots. In Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect, Luke Glanville argues that this responsibility extends back to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and that states have since been accountable for this responsibility to God, the people, and the international community. Over time, the right to national self-governance came to take priority over the protection of individual liberties, but the noninterventionist understanding of sovereignty was only firmly established in the twentieth century, and it remained for only a few decades before it was challenged by renewed claims that sovereigns are responsible for protection. Glanville traces the relationship between sovereignty and responsibility from the early modern period to the present day, and offers a new history with profound implications for the present.

The author is presenting a broadly structured study about the first fifty years of European integration, its geopolitical context and academic reflection. His study is based on the two-fold thesis that since a few years, the European Union is going through a process of its Second Founding while simultaneously changing its rationale.