--- 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.
>
> 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?
not really
as they consider themselves & are generally considered an independent
country
albeit with a special relationship to the usa
perhaps vaguely comparable to the special relationship liechtenstein
enjoys with switzerland
or monaco with france
etc
tho of course the particulars are all different in every such case
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.