--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> 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 am still shaking my head in disbelief over this question
hahahahaha
but what makes you think i didnt ask
yikes
really this is either a joke or a joke
yes isnt it
> 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.
well i am only doubling back here to answer your outstanding questions
for i still consider the conclusion of the united states government
as expressed by van zandt here to be not only the officially correct
reality but the prima facie reality as well for any further discussion
now perhaps your mystery will be answered by a truly deliberative
argument
& perhaps you really should take your quest for that to the
department of the interior
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.
wow
thats very strong headed of you
congrats for your willfulness
>
> 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@h...>
> 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/
> >
> >
> >