Subject: Re: whats wrong with this picture
Date: Jan 16, 2004 @ 20:52
Author: m06079 ("m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


in fairness to both tennessee & texas & you lowell
i should add
it took west north carolina 6 years to get this erection in the first
place
under all manner of vicissitudes
& then 6 more years with the erection to finally get admitted
so tennessee is technically a delayed flake off state
& not one of the 4 direct ones we have already enumerated
& thus is offered as a role model for texas only in the sense of its
extreme contentiousness
but i would still multiply its full value by 4 in estimating a 48
year potential lifespan for these 4 new texas sized erections

& i really do wish you would take this to the secretary of the
interior for a letter
indicating at least his disavowal or indifference

& why not take the opportunity ask him if he could use a new edition
of bus&ss too while you are at it & to tell him that you know a bunch
of clowns who might like to try it

i will be proud of you in any case but especially if you can get this
corrected

--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> --- 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/
> > >
> > >
> > >