Sovereignty and the American Constitution: Reflections on Greenland and the Principles of Territorial Integrity

In the annals of human governance, few principles stand as resolute as that of sovereignty—the right of a people to determine their own destiny, free from external dominion. This week, a joint statement by President António Costa of the European Council and President Ursula von der Leyen of the European Commission on the matter of Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, has brought this enduring principle to the forefront of international discourse. Their declaration, affirming the importance of territorial integrity and sovereignty as cornerstones of international law, reverberates beyond the icy shores of Greenland to touch upon the very foundations of our American constitutional order. As Publius, in the spirit of those who penned the Federalist Papers, we undertake to examine this development not merely as a geopolitical event but as a lens through which to view the enduring questions of sovereignty, federalism, and the constitutional framework crafted by our Founders. We begin by recognizing that the issue of sovereignty is no mere abstraction but a vital concern that animated the debates of the Constitutional Convention and the writings of those who defended the proposed charter of government. The statement on Greenland, though issued in a European context, compels us to reflect upon how the United States, as a sovereign nation, navigates its own territorial and international relations under the Constitution. Greenland’s status as an autonomous territory under Danish authority raises questions of self-determination and governance that echo the struggles of our own early Republic. How, we ask, would the Founders view such a pronouncement, and what guidance does the Constitution provide in matters of sovereignty and territorial integrity? To answer, we must turn to the historical context of our founding, the text of our fundamental law, and the principles of originalism that bind us to the intent of those who framed it. ### Historical Context: Sovereignty in the Founding Era In the late 18th century, the concept of sovereignty was not a settled doctrine but a fiercely contested ideal. The American Revolution itself was a bold assertion of sovereignty, a rejection of British dominion in favor of self-governance. As Thomas Jefferson declared in the Declaration of Independence, governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed,” a principle that undergirded the very legitimacy of the new nation. Yet, when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to draft the Constitution, they faced the delicate task of balancing sovereignty between the states and the newly proposed federal government, as well as defining the nation’s standing among the powers of the earth. Alexander Hamilton, writing as Publius in Federalist No. 9, addressed the necessity of a strong union to preserve the sovereignty of the whole against external threats and internal discord. He argued that “a firm Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection.” Hamilton’s vision was one of a sovereign nation capable of defending its territorial integrity and speaking with one voice in foreign affairs. This concern for unity in matters of sovereignty is evident in the Constitution’s allocation of powers over foreign relations and territorial matters to the federal government, a point to which we shall return. James Madison, too, grappled with sovereignty in Federalist No. 39, where he described the Constitution as a compact that blended national and federal elements, preserving the sovereignty of the states in their spheres while vesting supreme authority in the federal government for matters of national concern. The question of territorial integrity, as it pertains to Greenland in the present context, would likely have struck Madison as a matter requiring careful delineation of authority—between Denmark and Greenland, and between national and international actors. The Founders, having wrestled with their own territorial questions in the Northwest Ordinance and the Louisiana Purchase, understood that sovereignty over land and people was both a domestic and an international concern. ### Constitutional Provisions: The Framework of Sovereignty Turning to the text of the Constitution, we find several provisions that bear upon the question of sovereignty and territorial integrity, though the Greenland statement arises in an international rather than domestic context. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” and “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” This authority, coupled with the President’s role under Article II, Section 2 as the chief executor of foreign policy through the making of treaties (with the advice and consent of the Senate), establishes a clear framework for the federal government to address matters of sovereignty in the international arena. Moreover, Article IV, Section 3 provides that “new States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union” and that Congress shall have power “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” While Greenland is not a territory of the United States, this clause reflects the Founders’ intent to vest in the federal government the authority to manage territorial questions, a principle that extends by analogy to how the United States might view the sovereignty of territories under other nations’ dominion. The Constitution’s silence on the internal governance of foreign territories underscores the originalist view that such matters fall outside the purview of American constitutional law, save where they intersect with U.S. interests or international obligations. The Tenth Amendment, reserving to the states or the people all powers not delegated to the federal government, further clarifies that sovereignty in the American system is a shared enterprise. Yet, in matters of foreign policy and territorial integrity, the federal government reigns supreme, a design intended to prevent the disunity that plagued the Confederation under the Articles. As we consider the European statement on Greenland, we must ask how the United States, guided by these constitutional principles, would approach a similar question of territorial sovereignty in its own sphere. ### Supreme Court Precedents: Defining Territorial Sovereignty The Supreme Court has, over the centuries, provided guidance on the constitutional dimensions of sovereignty and territorial integrity, though often in contexts distinct from the Greenland situation. In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), the Court affirmed the broad authority of the federal government in foreign affairs, declaring that the President possesses “plenary and exclusive power” in this domain as “the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.” This precedent underscores the constitutional design that vests in the federal government the primary responsibility for matters of sovereignty on the international stage, a principle relevant to how the United States might respond to or interpret statements like that of Presidents Costa and von der Leyen. Additionally, the Insular Cases, decided in the early 20th century, addressed the status of U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico and the Philippines, establishing that the Constitution does not fully apply to unincorporated territories. While Greenland is not a U.S. territory, these cases illustrate the complexity of territorial sovereignty and the balance between self-governance and overarching national authority—a balance Denmark and Greenland must navigate in their own context. From an originalist perspective, these precedents affirm the textual allocation of powers to the federal government in matters of territory and foreign relations, consistent with the Founders’ intent to create a unified national voice. ### Originalist Interpretation: Sovereignty as a Fixed Principle As originalists, we hold that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original public meaning at the time of its ratification. In the context of sovereignty and territorial integrity, this approach directs us to the clear textual assignments of power in Articles I, II, and IV, which vest authority over foreign relations and territorial matters in the federal government. The Founders, having emerged from a war for their own sovereignty, would likely view the European statement on Greenland as a commendable affirmation of the principle of territorial integrity, provided it respects the consent of the governed—a core tenet of American political philosophy as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. We contend that the Constitution provides no direct mandate for the United States to intervene in the internal affairs of Greenland or Denmark, save where American interests or treaty obligations are engaged. The originalist view prioritizes a strict adherence to the separation of powers and federalism, ensuring that the federal government acts within its enumerated powers while respecting the sovereignty of other nations. Hamilton, in Federalist No. 23, argued for the necessity of federal power to address external threats, but he did not envision the United States as a meddler in the domestic concerns of distant lands absent a clear national interest. ### Progressive Counter-Arguments and Refutation Those who espouse a “living Constitution” might argue that the United States has a moral or strategic obligation to weigh in on matters of territorial sovereignty like Greenland’s status, even absent direct constitutional authority. Progressives could contend that the evolving norms of international law, as reflected in the European statement, impose upon the United States a duty to promote self-determination and human rights globally, interpreting the Constitution’s foreign affairs powers expansively to accommodate such modern imperatives. They might cite the Preamble’s call to “promote the general Welfare” as justification for a broader role in international governance, adapting constitutional meaning to contemporary global challenges. While we acknowledge the sincerity of this perspective, we must respectfully dissent. The originalist lens demands fidelity to the text and structure of the Constitution as understood by those who ratified it. The Preamble, though aspirational, does not confer substantive powers beyond those enumerated in the document, as Chief Justice John Marshall clarified in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). To expand federal authority into the internal affairs of foreign territories without clear textual warrant risks undermining the separation of powers and the limited government the Founders envisioned. Moreover, the progressive view risks entangling the United States in disputes far removed from its national interest, a folly Hamilton warned against in his advocacy for a restrained yet unified foreign policy. ### Implications for Federalism, Separation of Powers, and Liberty The European statement on Greenland, though distant from American shores, prompts reflection on the principles of federalism and separation of powers within our own system. The Constitution’s design ensures that matters of sovereignty and foreign relations are not diffused among the states but concentrated in the federal government, preserving national unity in the face of external challenges. Were the United States to face a comparable question of territorial integrity—say, regarding Puerto Rico or Guam—the originalist approach would demand that Congress and the President act within their constitutional roles, respecting both the text of the law and the rights of the people in those territories to self-determination. As to individual liberty, the issue of sovereignty indirectly touches upon the rights of citizens to live under a government of their choosing. The Founders, particularly Jefferson and Madison, viewed sovereignty as inseparable from consent, a principle that must guide any resolution of territorial questions, whether in Greenland or closer to home. The European statement’s emphasis on territorial integrity aligns with this ideal, provided it does not become a pretext for denying legitimate aspirations for self-governance. ### Conclusion: The Founders’ Perspective on Greenland In closing, we ponder what the Founders might say of this joint statement on Greenland and its implications for sovereignty. Hamilton, ever the advocate for a strong national government, would likely approve of the emphasis on territorial integrity as a bulwark against chaos in international relations, provided it did not encroach upon the rightful authority of the United States in its own sphere. Madison, with his keen sense of balance, might caution against overreach by international actors in matters of local governance, urging respect for the principle of consent that animates legitimate authority. Jefferson, the champion of self-determination, would insist that the voice of Greenland’s people be paramount in any resolution of their status. As Publius, we conclude that the Constitution, rightly understood through an originalist lens, offers a timeless guide to questions of sovereignty and territorial integrity. It vests in the federal government the authority to navigate international waters with prudence and unity, while reserving to the people and the states their rightful spheres of autonomy. The European statement on Greenland, though not directly within our constitutional purview, serves as a reminder of the enduring importance of these principles—principles that the Founders enshrined in our fundamental law to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Let us, in all matters of governance, remain steadfast in our fidelity to their vision, ensuring that sovereignty, whether at home or abroad, rests upon the unalienable rights of mankind.