--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I've stated repeatedly what I find wrong with the picture
that "appears" to Van
> Zandt. You have every right to disagree with my view, but is there
so much
> difference between our respective dialects that you cannot tell
from my writings
> that I have a view?
yes my friend i can tell you have a view
& vive la difference
but i am still trying to understand what specifically you find wrong
in the bible here
& happily there is apparently new hope now
because
from what you have just added here below
even tho you yourself still wont say what part you find wrong
i am beginning to think i may have understood that it is the
following words
right to make the recommendation or request for the division resting
with congress
& particularly the following phrase
recommendation or request
but i dont know for sure & might be putting words in your mouth
& i still dont want to do that
even if you yourself wont
so will you at least confirm that this is indeed your erratum
by shaking your head yes
or shaking no if i am mistaken in this guess
or yes & no if there is actually some additional specific objection
or some other objections entirely
etc etc
do you see what i am trying for
& i am not arguing with you
but only guessing what the interior department lawyers must have been
advising van zandt & his predecessors
& guessing what is in your mind here too
in order to understand your heresy better
& no need to shout even if you are politically incorrect
as i have the greatest respect for the tyrannized minority
but the good news for you is that readers are requested to report any
errors to the government itself
yesss
so you will have your chance not only to change my conclusion
because i am always open
but to change the bible itself if you desire
I'm not going to waste any more keystrokes trying to
> explain THAT.
>
> HOWEVER, when you suggest that: "congress couldnt abdicate to texas
its
> responsibility for admitting new states to the union even if it
wanted to & even
> if it said it did," you have a supportable argument (which is not
to say that I
> necessarily agree). That is perhaps the best argument that could
be made
> against the Texas division proviso, because it is based on the
Constitution.
>
> Let's see what the Constitution says about the admission of states,
the division
> of states, and whether there are any subtle differences in the
prerogatives of
> the Congress in each case.
>
> The Constitution says:
>
> "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no
new states
> shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other
state; nor any
> state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of
states,
> without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as
well as of
> the Congress."
>
> Clearly, the people have given the Congress the authority to admit
new states,
> and the power of that decision is vested solely in the Congress.
Let us now
> ask: What does the Constitution require for the division of an
existing state?
> Two things: (1) consent of the state; and (2) consent of the
Congress. What was
> the subdivision proviso of the act of March 1, 1845, if it was not
the consent
> of the Congress for the formation of up to four new states within
Texas "by the
> consent of said State"?
>
> Congress has given its consent. All that lacks is the consent of
Texas. It's
> that simple!
>
> Now, you might be thinking that each new daughter state would still
need to
> petition the Congress separately to be admitted at whatever future
time, even
> though the Congress had already consented to the division of a
state. Let's
> look at precedent.
>
> Two mother states have been subdivided by the direct admission of
daughter
> states (as opposed to cession to the federal government of lands
from which
> other states subsequently evolved). Those mother states were
Virginia (twice)
> and New York (once).
>
> In 1789, the very year that the federal Constitution became
effective, the
> Commonwealth of Virginia consented to the formation of the
Commonwealth of
> Kentucky within its territory. The Congress gave its necessary
consent by act
> of February 4, 1791 (1 Stat. L. 189) with an automatic effective
date of June 1.
> The Congress did not first give consent to the formation of the new
state, then
> admit it to the Union by a separate act. There was only one act.
>
> A royal decree of 1764 had placed what is now Vermont under New York
> jurisdiction. Vermonters rebelled and formed a rival government in
1777, but
> were refused admission into the Continental Congress, the
Confederation, and the
> federal Union (each in its turn) until after New York gave its
consent to the
> formation of a new state within its territory in 1790. New York's
consent was
> conditional upon Vermont's payment of $30,000 in reparations. That
having been
> done, the Congress gave its consent in a single act on February 18,
1791 (1
> Stat. L. 191), automatically effective on March 4. There was no
two-step
> congressional process.
>
> After the secession of Virginia in 1861, certain Virginia unionists
held a
> convention at Wheeling, declared the state offices at Richmond to
be vacant and
> elected themselves. The federal authorities recognized this rump
government as
> the Commonwealth of Virginia. This was the Virginia legislature
that consented
> to the formation of a new state within its territory. Another
convention was
> held at Wheeling to constitute the State of Kanawha, changing the
name to "West
> Virginia" as an afterthought. The Congress acted only once on the
matter, on
> December 31, 1862 (12 Stat. L. 633), giving its consent to the
separation of
> West Virginia from Virginia, with the division being effective 60
days after the
> President could declare that West Virginia had provided legally for
the eventual
> abolition of slavery. Again, there was no two-step congressional
process.
>
> Perhaps the notion that statehood is a two-step process in the
Congress is
> fostered by the experience of most of the western states. In those
cases, there
> were indeed two acts. The first was the enabling act, by which
Congress
> consented to the erection of a proposed state government by the
people of a
> given region. This was followed some time later by a second act
admitting the
> new state to the Union. An enabling act was necessary in such
cases because the
> proposed states were to be formed within territory subject to the
exclusive
> authority of the Congress. Without Congressional enabling, any
such proposed
> state would be a rival government to the Congress, which would
never do! In the
> cases of Kentucky, Vermont, and West Virginia, however, the new
daughter states
> were rivals only to the mother states. Thus, the constitutionally
required
> consent of the mother states was the practical equivalent of the
enabling act.
> All that was left for the Congress to do was to give its consent.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 4:01 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: whats wrong with this picture
>
>
> perhaps you missed something during my peregrinations too lowell
>
> & i agree you are looking blue in the face
>
> but you still havent said whats wrong
>
> you only say it is wrong
> repeatedly
>
> but i ask again
> whats wrong with this picture
>
>
> & he is not hedging a bit
> but is giving his complete reasoning
>
> please follow the reasoning one more time
>
>
> moreover
> it is not just van zandt talking to us here
> but it is the department of the interior & the united states
> government at large opining about what they perceive to be prima
> facie reality
>
> i think what the government is resting on here is the fact that
> congress couldnt abdicate to texas its responsibility for admitting
> new states to the union
> even if it wanted to & even if it said it did
>
> congress is sworn to uphold the constitution
>
> constitutionally the responsibility still rests with congress
>
> & of course someone would have an uphill climb & run out of breath
> trying to contradict that appearance
>
>
> so now at last i am ready to conclude something
> if thats truly your last word
>
> & my conclusion is
> it is not van zandt who is in denial & who is in error