Montana, SCOTUS and the 2nd amendment

[BernOrange]

possible secession?

 

[A'sD]

Can we import their local politicians to Texas? One of the reasons I have stayed in Texas is for the hotties and the fact Texas reserved the right of secession in the treaty that annexed Texas to the Union.

 

[ScoPro]

There was no "treaty" to annex Texas. It was done by a joint resolution of the US Congress and the Ordinance of Annexation from the Republic of Texas Congress.

There is no such provision in either "act" like that of Montana's as far as I'm aware of.

Texas' subsequent secession in 1861 was ruled illegal by the SCOTUS in 1868.

But I do like the provision that Texas can form 4 new states from it's territory - giving "us" 5 altogether. That would certainly change the US Senate.

BTW - That joint resolution of Congress allowed for the "new states" south of the Missouri Compromise Line formed from Texas territory to be slave states.

 

[washparkhorn]

Interesting to banter, but those reading the tea leaves believe the Supreme Court will find an individual right to bear arms in Heller. The devil is in the details, as it is expected that right will be subject to reasonable restrictions.

The Cato Institute Brief in the case explores the deep roots of a right to bear arms and is worth reading if interested --The Link

[edit: secession issued answered by ScoPro above].

 

[ScoPro]

And I edited my first reply a couple of times.

 

[Brubricker]

If Brad Johnson thinks that gaining statehood = a contract then he doesn't know what a contract is.

 

[ScoPro]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[washparkhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[A'sD]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Brubricker]

It's not a contract because the federal government holds all the final decision-making authority and the state holds none per Article 6 of the Constitution. Think of it this way. Let's say you enter into a "contract" with me which says I have final say over all disputes. If you disagree with a decision of mine you may appeal to me to change my judgment but if I refuse then you are left without any other legal recourse. That's basically what Article 6 does and no matter what you want to call it that's not a contract between equal parties.
The act of gaining statehood is an act of willful subordination to the terms of Article 6. The article actually dictates certain conditions one must meet in order to assume a role as a state-level officer. In effect, you have one party which not only holds final authority over the other party. It is also granted the power (in part) to define what the subordinate party actually is. I fail to see how this state of affairs can then subject to any law of contracts. There is no legal passage anywhere which binds federal/state relations to the standards of any contract law.

 

[washparkhorn]

compact = contract.

The argument is essentially fraud in the inducement; the state was led to believe the 2nd Amendment gave individuals the right to bear arms. If there is no right to bear arms guaranteed, the state was "lied" to when they agreed to join the Union.

In reply to:

---

 

[A'sD]

Where the **** do you see in Article VI that the Federal Goobers have final decision making in modifying a compact or contract they entered into with a state? Please show me I have copied the Article below.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Macanudo]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Brubricker]

washpark,

Your link is absurd and you, as a lawyer, know better. The Montana Compact was not a contract with the federal government because the federal government they never ratified any of it. It was passed by Montana alone and to say that it became legally binding on the federal government simply because they were made aware of its existence is directly contradictory to every notion of contract law. This is the point where you, as a lawyer, should know better. That line of thinking basically suggests that Montana can unilaterally impose contractual obligations on the United States government even if no branch of the federal government ever agreed to any of it. To call such a thing a legally binding contract is not only complete nonsense, it flies in the very face of the notion of democratic representative government.

According to your link, the people of the other 49 states are legally bound by the terms of the Montana Compact even though not one of the Congressional representatives of those 49 states ever agreed to be bound by any part of it. We are told by your link that the mere fact that the federal gov't was made aware of Montana's state-level action means that the entire nation became instantly bound to a so-called "contract" which they never authorized or approved in any way. ********. This line of thinking is absolutely repugnant not only to the basic principles of contract law but also to the very idea of a constitutional democratic republic.

 

[Brubricker]

For the benefit of A'sD....

"Where the **** do you see in Article VI that the Federal Goobers have final decision making in modifying a compact or contract they entered into with a state? Please show me I have copied the Article below."

In reply to:

---

---

---

 

[Michael Knight]

Montana should ask the Indians about how good America is at keeping treaties

 

[scottsins]

A's D:

There is no right to secession retained by Texas. That is pure silliness.

 

[ScoPro]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[A'sD]

Since you seem to purport that the constitution says something it doesn't say why would I expect you to recognize basic rights that have been accepted since the creation of that body politic that was created to serve and not rule?

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Brubricker]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[BernOrange]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[washparkhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Brubricker]

washpark,You better stop right now. You better stop avoiding Article 6 of the Constitution. The oath of office required by Article 6 destroys your entire argument. You have to answer to the terms of US Constitution. Do it and do it now. Answer the explicit oath-bound terms of Article 6. If you don't, you're just spreading lies. Step up to the plate and answer to the oath office required of every state-level politician. You MUST confront this issue NOW!! If you don't you're just a garden-variety message board liar who is running from the obvious truth of the United States Constitution.

The oath of office is binding and cannot be renounced at any point. Either deal with that fact or announce your own defeat. You have no other alternative.

 

[Wesser]

How in the hell could this 'contract' ever be enforceable against the feds? Seriously? Montana was US terrority prior to statehood. Contrary to what Johnson's statement seems to imply, Montana didn't choose to join the Union, the federal government granted them statehood. One way street. Since Montana was federal territory prior to statehood, Montana cannot claim any BS argument of failure to live up to a bargain.

Only we can.

 

[A'sD]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Brubricker]

The oath is a non-negotiable condition of office.

 

[A'sD]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Brubricker]

All contracts are negotiated. Clauses of the US Constitution are subject only to federal court rulings which are non-negotiable. When I used the term "non-negotiable" this was the meaning I meant to convey but maybe I should've been more clear about it.
Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution governs the admission of new states. It says that....

In reply to:

---

---

---

 

[kgp]

The right to secede is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. It presumes a deeper law, a natural or divine one, which supersedes even the Constitution.

 

[A'sD]

In reply to:

---

---