To: 4ConservativeJustices; Non-Sequitur
If such things were capable of being inferred, the mere mention of the rules under which a state might be admitted would be sufficient. Instead, part, parcels, divisions of states are explicitly listed.
It is, therefore, illogical to conclude that rules regarding secession might be inferred.
458 posted on
10/02/2003 8:19:13 AM PDT by
Maelstrom
(To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
To: Maelstrom
It is, therefore, illogical to conclude that rules regarding secession might be inferred. It seems illogical to me to assume that when the Constitution reqires the approval of other states for a state to be admitted, and the approval of the other states for any change in status while in the Union, that it would not require the approval of the other states in order to leave.
To: Maelstrom
It is, therefore, illogical to conclude that rules regarding secession might be inferred.Why have a written Constitution if anything can be inferred? Look at the court decisions of the past 50 years - justices have inferred everything under the sun to push their political views, because the people of the several states would never amend the Constitution to those ends.
539 posted on
10/03/2003 5:55:12 AM PDT by
4CJ
(Come along chihuahua, I want to hear you say yo quiero taco bell. - Nolu Chan, 28 Jul 2003)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson