Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: editor-surveyor

Ok, now things are getting silly. I don’t remember the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago mentioned in any of the Federalist Papers.


63 posted on 04/19/2014 12:42:42 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]


To: 1rudeboy

Yes - they truly are silly. He never posited that the treaty was in the Federalist Papers, he said the land within said treaty does not fall within the bounds orf the clause in the Constitution you cited.

You have at least twice now been intentionally and sophomorically obtuse. In light of this, your pretense of having read the FP with any understanding, if at all, is laughable.


74 posted on 04/19/2014 12:50:40 PM PDT by GilesB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: 1rudeboy

Cute!

The treaty preserves all private interests within its boundaries.

Nothing about the treaty transferred any land ownership whatsoever.
.


83 posted on 04/19/2014 12:57:23 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson