08-07-2019, 08:32 AM
Iron-When the sovereign nation is ceding the territory things are quite different. See South Carolina's ceding territory upon admission to the union, the Republic of Texas, etc... done through joint resolutions. More recently see the Vienna Convention for all the various means through which International agreements and laws are reached including through separate documents signifying the intent of both parties.
The argument that the U.S. Senate has not been counting votes correctly because it only requires a 2/3rds of yes votes (not 2/3rds of Senators "present" with some abstaining) is a new one to me. Be sure to let them know they've been doing it wrong for 225+ years - I'm sure they value your thoughts on the matter.
South Carolina was one of the original states. It was already part of the US territory when they ceded those lands. Of course a US joint resolution has authority within US territory.
The joint resolution for Texas was to adopt it as a state(which is a power explicitly given to congress in the constitution) and it had stipulations regarding Mexico's claims to Texas, so it's not the same as Hawaii. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo extinguished any claims Mexico had.
And for the last sentence. It explicitly states "senators present" in regards to how treaties are ratified in the constitution. Abstentions count towards the quorum. Why do you think they went with a joint-resolution instead of a treaty?
The argument that the U.S. Senate has not been counting votes correctly because it only requires a 2/3rds of yes votes (not 2/3rds of Senators "present" with some abstaining) is a new one to me. Be sure to let them know they've been doing it wrong for 225+ years - I'm sure they value your thoughts on the matter.
South Carolina was one of the original states. It was already part of the US territory when they ceded those lands. Of course a US joint resolution has authority within US territory.
The joint resolution for Texas was to adopt it as a state(which is a power explicitly given to congress in the constitution) and it had stipulations regarding Mexico's claims to Texas, so it's not the same as Hawaii. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo extinguished any claims Mexico had.
And for the last sentence. It explicitly states "senators present" in regards to how treaties are ratified in the constitution. Abstentions count towards the quorum. Why do you think they went with a joint-resolution instead of a treaty?