Mike,
I am shaking my head yes and no at the same time.
(If you wanted to know the specific words to which I object, why didn't you just
ask?)
I disagree with both of Van Zandt's two "appearances." The second one is
embodied in the phrase that you suggest (the one regarding congressional
"recommendation or request"). The first, and to me the most obviously
erroneous, is that Texas acquired no advantage over other states by the Brown
Amendment.
Throughout the current protracted exchange (and for 27 years before), it has
been a mystery to me how the great man could have written that Texas has no
advantage, when the Congress has clearly given it a consent that no other state
currently holds. I think that (just tonight) I am beginning to see where he
went wrong (or the divergence of his reasoning from mine, if you prefer), and
I'm endeavoring to perceive his logic--though I shall never agree.
Only in light of Van Zandt's second "appearance" does his first one even begin
to follow with any logic at all. Only if one can believe that the Congress has
the power to "form" new states does the prerogative of Texas become reduced to
that of "merely" its consent to the congressional decision--which would be equal
to any other pregnant mother state under similar erroneous circumstances.
Hold on, though! No American states are "formed" by the Congress, as if they
were mere counties being formed by some state legislature. On the contrary,
states are "formed" and invested with sovereignty by their people (the very
essence of republican government). It is only their admission to the Union that
comes by congressional consent.
If you will reread Milton Brown's curious and awkwardly worded amendment with
this proper sense for the "forming" of states firmly in mind, I think that you
will begin to understand my problems with Van Zandt's two appearances (though
you still might not agree).
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 1:45 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: whats wrong with this picture
> --- 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
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>