To: Non-Sequitur
4CJ: So your theory is that the party, by possessing explicit right of admission, implicitly controls the right of departure?
NS: Yes.
Well, then by the explicit power of a state to control it's assent to ratification (i.e. unilateral assent), IMPLICITLY each state controls the right to depart by the same means - an act of the people of that state in convention.
1,027 posted on
01/14/2005 6:22:19 AM PST by
4CJ
(Laissez les bon FReeps rouler)
To: 4ConservativeJustices
Well, then by the explicit power of a state to control it's assent to ratification (i.e. unilateral assent), IMPLICITLY each state controls the right to depart by the same means - an act of the people of that state in convention. No, because new states ratified nothing. They assented to nothing. New states were admitted only with the approval of a majority of the people through a vote in the House and Senate. Constitutionally the incoming state doesn't even have a say in the matter. So if they don't control their admission then how can you say that they control their departure?
1,028 posted on
01/14/2005 6:25:17 AM PST by
Non-Sequitur
(Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson