Sovereignty is the "vanishing mediator" btwn the people as a whole collective of individuals and the Supreme Court

 The Doctrine of Sovereignty Under the United States Constitution, Hugh Evander Willis, Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington. Well when Thomas Locke wrote state constitutions he argued that indigenous native people were not sovereign since they did not "improve" the land in the Platonic symmetric irrational magnitude geometry sense of "improvement" (meaning rectilinear Pythagorean Theorem International Building Code improvement). So ever since native indigenous peoples have just "occupied" the land in the U.S. while not being sovereigns.

"Is the State a person? Yes, in just the same way that a cor- poration is a person. But, it may be said, that corporate person- ality is a fiction and if the personality of the state is no more, it is a fiction. The idea of corporate personality is of ecclesi- astical court, not Roman law, origin, and is traceable to Pope Innocent IV. He took the position that a corporation had rights but no duties, because it could not sin, and until corporations and states could sin he refused to admit that they could be real persons."

So in the U.S. - because of our "sovereign" revolution against the Monarchy - we made corporate charters a byproduct of the State governments and thus the Attorney Generals can revoke corporate charters. Unfortunately the Federal government has invoked the U.S. constitutional contract clause and commerce clause to claim corporations have "legal personhood" and thus are "protected by the Bill of Rights" - and thus have "free speech" protection and thus "money is free speech" - and so the US Supreme Court declared unlimited corporate spending on elections, etc. via untraceable "dark money" - thereby undermining individual sovereignty in the U.S. and creating our sovereign "corporate-state" as a fascist dictatorship on the federal level.

"Marshall himself began to see the fallacy of the fiction notion when he came to consider the federal courts' jurisdiction over corporations. The next step was to indulge in another legal fiction that for this purpose the individuals composing the corporation must arbitrarily be held to be citizens of the state chartering the corporation. Now the corporation is regarded by the United States courts as a citizen of the state fathering it...In the same way that the corporation is a person the State is a person....Is sovereignty found in some natural, or divine, law? This doctrine was promulgated in the Declaration of, Independence. Locke was the authority for the Declaration of Independence...

"in the United States, by many organs geared together, both federal and state, including the executive, the legislature, the judiciary and the amending machinery. His [Dickinson's] concept of sovereignty is that it is the function of determining what rules are and what are not law. He thinks that this was the original notion of sovereignty when kings were regarded as sovereign, and that the notions of independency, supremacy, and will not subject to the will of another, added one after another, finally resulted in the doctrine of popular sovereignty, which in turn must give way to the original notion when the circle is completed."

So in that case the Supreme Court is sovereign over the state courts. This case will likely go to the Supreme Court then. "Only the United States can punish for treason. The states cannot punish for treason. Yet treason is the one offense against sovereignty....It is true that the states exercise the sovereign powers of police, taxation and eminent domain, but public callings [utilities] exercise the power of eminent domain, and it is not yet thought that public callings are sovereign. It is true that states through their leg- islatures enact statutory law and through their courts make and apply common law, but so do cities, and no one contends that cities are sovereign.".

"But the true answer is that neither the states nor the federal government is sovereign....Who, then, in the United States is sovereign? It is the people....By the people is meant -the people as a whole, and not the people of the various states, because in the last anal- ysis the people of any particular state may have their social control dictated by the people of other states...the subverted sovereignty was acquired by the whole people, not as individuals, but as a community, or society, or group bound together first by the principles of solidarity and then by the political organizations which they adopted....the sovereignty of the people can best be explained as an original right, 92 or "divine right." It is certainly more appropriate to speak of the people as sovereign by "divine right" than to speak of a king in this way. "

"The doctrine of popular sovereignty, not as Rousseau defined it but as above defined and applied, is also the doctrine of the United States Supreme Court....This clearly held that (at least so far as concerned the nation) sovereignty did not reside either in the legislative or executive branches of the government, but either in the Supreme Court or the people for whom the Supreme Court was acting."