I don't think so. That has to do with war, not political nonsense like this. Also, it says "with another state," not "any body or agency of another state."
I think that probably there would have been some Constitutional safeguards against this sort of thing if the authors had imagined that someone would do something so durn devious. I mean, can you believe that the founding fathers wouldn't have loaded their muskets if they had witnessed something like this:
At a news conference inside the hotel Tuesday, Richardson had a message for Texas Republicans, including U.S. House Majority Floor Leader Tom DeLay, who the fleeing lawmakers say is part of the remapping effort."I think [DeLay] should back off," the governor said.
Poised in front of a Texas flag, Richardson [the freaking governor of another state] said the Republicans [of a state that he has no business in] should "put redistricting on the back burner and deal with issues affecting people, like health care and education."
From California to New Jersey to Florida to Texas to New Mexico, this is what the Democrats are all about: finding or inventing loopholes so they can do what they wamn dell please.
Many parts of the Constitution have run-on sentences that combine separate issues. The First Amendment is a combination of what was several proposed amendments. Just because parts of Article I Section 10 Clause 3 refer to war, I don't take the entire clause to be about war. What does it mean "enter into agreements or compacts...?" Let's create a "penumbra" of the Constitution of our very own.
Also, it says "with another state," not "any body or agency of another state."
What is "another state" if not its executive or legislature, since those are the elected representatives of the people of the state?
-PJ