--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "kontikipaul"
<contikipaul@h...> wrote:
> Texas and Vermont, upon once both being independant countries and
> joining the Union were both given the right to leave the Union. I'm
> not a constitutional expert but its what I was taught in school and
> what I read in the encyclopedia. I don't double check every single
> fact or statement I hear and I doubt anyone does. My president
sold
> me on a war against a sovereign nation based on an imminent threat
> and weapons of mass destruction that have turned out to be BS. But
> that doesn't mean I disbelieve (or believe) everything I hear.
Who's
> to say your facts or interpretations are correct. Van Zandts
> arguments may be 100 percent correct.
well it might have been funny to see an adoptive rhode islander
testing this question with an adoptive texan
i mean speaking as an adoptive connecticutie here
but after rereading all the relevant messages i am not sure there is
even any disagreement between you two
funnier tho to see you lowell
who usually say
van zandt tells us this & van zandt tells us that
duking it out with van zandt himself here actually
van zandt btw is about 101 if still alive
so he is not very likely to ever actually tell us anything
& nothing more is known of him than that he is or was the most recent
redactor of our great american boundary bible
but if anyone can disprove anything in this bible it must be big news
here at bp
so without being provocative
i wish you would explain lowell what exactly he is wrong about
when he says
if indeed this is the passage you would correct
as follows
texas does not appear however to have acquired by the quintipartition
proviso any advantages over other states
as it merely can give its consent to a division of its area
the right to make the recommendation or request for the division
apparently resting with congress
for i would have thought all those shrewdly gerrymandering texas
politicos would have figured out a way to leverage 2 senators into 10
by now if it really could have been done legally
i mean without losing a bit of their intrinsic texanness too
like what about just calling these 5 states
north texas
east texas
west texas
south texas
& texas
or justatexas
or whattatexas
etc
etc
if anyone prefers
with the old texas we already have
as well as the new quintet & totality
simply continuing to be known as good old texas
& continuing to look like good old texas on a map
as is proper
albeit with these 5 primary subdivisions superceding the county level
now you see it
now you dont
& no problem
so unless i have misunderstood
i believe it would be yours to demonstrate
not only that texas could legally initiate such a multiplication of
itself into 5 texases
but also that there is no way in hell or rather no way in texas that
it could ever happen
since i believe you were actually making both claims at once
>
> By the way we sold about 15 islands/atolls/coral reefs that were
> partially awash last year to Kiribati that nobody knew existed and
> gave away another 5 or six to Russia to settle a border dispute.
So
> its happened before. A more realistic question is the Commonwealth
> of the Northern Marianas Islands (ie Saipan) are they part of the
> US? They have the right of abode here, they can join the FBI, I
> can't move there legally and they don't have to abide by any US
labor
> laws. They were once a part of the US and now consider themselves
> independant.
>
> I mean you're right that essentially they wouldn't leave, but
> some politician looking for a vote with a 10 gallon hat would bring
> it up. At the end of the day its something that people can point
to
> and use as a point/counterpoint in an argument. By the way if
you
> read past my point about Texas being able to suceed at anytime
you'll
> see I agreed with you about NM not being able to get 'three miles'
> back.