08-07-2019, 01:00 PM
Kaimana - South Carolina was one of the original states. It was already part of the US territory when they ceded those lands.
Um, no. South Carolina ceded the territory on March 8, 1787 and didn't become a state in the union until May 23, 1788. To say that Territory already belonged to the United States is to grossly misunderstand the sovereignty of the individual states during the Articles of Confederation (see Article II), which had their own constitutions, presidents, etc...
The joint resolution for Texas was to adopt it as a state(which is a power explicitly given to congress in the constitution)
True - however it still was a sovereign Republic that was annexed to the U.S. through a joint resolution. So this whole "no treaty, no annexation" opinion seems to ignore this history. And Texas was a state 3 years before the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, so the treaty was just Mexico finally coming to terms with the reality of the previous annexation (along with having to cede much more land after the war).
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?
Abstentions count toward having a quorum, but do not count towards the required majorities. This has been long established policy and is the general approach used at all levels of government, in Roberts Rules, etc... Sorry, but your interpretation of the Constitution doesn't make any difference to the long settled procedures of those responsible for actually making law.
https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/577d2a5e-...e41461.pdf
They went with a Joint Resolution in 1898 as there was not the required votes previously in the Senate for a treaty. However, all these objections to a Joint Resolution were raised at the time and voted down.
Why is there so much fervor placed on a 125-year-old argument that failed then and has even less legal standing now?
Um, no. South Carolina ceded the territory on March 8, 1787 and didn't become a state in the union until May 23, 1788. To say that Territory already belonged to the United States is to grossly misunderstand the sovereignty of the individual states during the Articles of Confederation (see Article II), which had their own constitutions, presidents, etc...
The joint resolution for Texas was to adopt it as a state(which is a power explicitly given to congress in the constitution)
True - however it still was a sovereign Republic that was annexed to the U.S. through a joint resolution. So this whole "no treaty, no annexation" opinion seems to ignore this history. And Texas was a state 3 years before the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, so the treaty was just Mexico finally coming to terms with the reality of the previous annexation (along with having to cede much more land after the war).
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?
Abstentions count toward having a quorum, but do not count towards the required majorities. This has been long established policy and is the general approach used at all levels of government, in Roberts Rules, etc... Sorry, but your interpretation of the Constitution doesn't make any difference to the long settled procedures of those responsible for actually making law.
https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/577d2a5e-...e41461.pdf
They went with a Joint Resolution in 1898 as there was not the required votes previously in the Senate for a treaty. However, all these objections to a Joint Resolution were raised at the time and voted down.
Why is there so much fervor placed on a 125-year-old argument that failed then and has even less legal standing now?