Printable View
I could be wrong on that one, but I think a territory had to wish to join as well as congress approving it. Are you saying congress can deprive the vote of the people if it is a territory?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I know. How about we go one step farther, and vote on Alberta, Canada becoming a state!
I'm saying the admission of new states is totally up to Congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
If we invade and conquer it, there is nothing stopping Congress from doing so. Now there are plenty of treaties that would have to be broken, but that's just paperwork.Quote:
I know. How about we go one step farther, and vote on Alberta, Canada becoming a state!
Read the constitution and tell me where it gives any rights for determining statehood to the residents of a territory.
I'm waiting.
I didn't neglect that at all. In fact, Lynette Clark is the Chairman of the party. The chief petitioner is a LIBERTARIAN! This is not an AIP petition. Will you admit that?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
My point is, is that it is not an AIP petition. Some members want separation. That does not make it a party position.
I will go another step and suggest that the four options are there on the goals to keep all party members happy. There is obvious disagreement among the idea. That's why they have the range of ideas. No matter how you slice it, they are for states right.
Not Alberta! The asses who voted 27 of 28 seats for the Conservatives?
We don't need anymore right-wing, evangelical states.
Why not BC or even the Prairie Provinces?
OK, I'll go along with British Columbia. That way, Alaska would be part of the 'contigiuous' United States!Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
:lol It's the position of the chair and former chair of the party. These are the people who lead the AIP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
It's their stated ultimate goal.Quote:
My point is, is that it is not an AIP petition. Some members want separation. That does not make it a party position.
They are for independence, they feign inclusiveness to pad their numbers and money. I don't blame them for doing that -- but only an idiot like you would try to pretend the leaders of this party from the start want anything other than an independent Alaska.Quote:
I will go another step and suggest that the four options are there on the goals to keep all party members happy. There is obvious disagreement among the idea. That's why they have the range of ideas. No matter how you slice it, they are for states right.
Agreed. Admission. But when you go to the theatre, you cannot be adnitted without waiting to be there.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I'm not sure it's there. Never podered that one until today. However, like I pointed out, I though the terretory had to also request to be part of the states.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I could be wrong on that one.
Damn you are an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
For a self-proclaimed constitutional expert, you don't know much.Quote:
I'm not sure it's there. Never podered that one until today. However, like I pointed out, I though the terretory had to also request to be part of the states.
I could be wrong on that one.
Read the constitution and tell me where it says that. Quit making shit up and read one sentence.
I'm waiting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PixelPusher
<gasp> :wow :sleep
Actually, I wish the same thing for Texas.
Yeah you evil liberals! How dare you scorn Sarah Palin, just because her husband was part of an Alaskan Independence Party! Just because the founder said that he hated America! You should know it's not fair to judge people by the company they keep!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I bet they had dinner at each others homes!
http://www.alaskareport.com/images/sarah-palin2.jpg
=
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Jjportrait.jpg
Sarah Palin is the Jar Jar Binks of the Republican party.
maybe WC is confusing "secede" with "succeed." Maybe that's why he can't understand what's happening here. He's probably like "damned libtards don't want Alaska to succeed."
If Wild Cobra ever read the Constitution, he would know that Congress has the sole power to admit a new state and the people of a territory really don't have much of a say in the matter.
If Wild Cobra ever familiarized himself with Supreme Court decisions like Texas v. White, he would know that there is no recognized secession by plebiscite.
So, with a vote and a stroke of the pen, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands can all be states without the consent or their people?
So be it. That's not very friendly, is it?
Have you read it yet?
Read what? Which posting are you referring to a source in?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Don't bother. It doesn't matter. I have acknowledged I can be wrong about the requirements to become a state. That was not the purpose of my responses here. I find it laughable with all the clear language and facts, you take a position of some, and make it the position of all.
The Palin Hoax started as a thread of lies regarding the Palin's. We started discussing one particular lie. My major point is that it is not the parties platform to separate. Your evidence is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence, but even the goals do not clearly say they with to separate. I have acknowledged that some members of the party want to separate, and you do nothing but twist that fact into making it a party platform. There are several questions I could ask, but your methods of answering end up avoiding the real questions. I'll ask just one:
If the parties goal is to separate from the union, why didn't the party, as a whole, support the measure you brought up?
You have proven I don't know enough of the facts regarding making a territory a state. Be happy with that. At the end of the day, you still have evidence to show separation as a party goal.
You know what, I don't even care if whey wish to separate. They continually, as a state, get fucked by congress. Maybe it should be a goal. I know this much, from what I read and learned recently about the AIP, I would probable join them if I lived in Alaska. I am not a member of any political party. Never have been, and even though I thought I would for my version of operation chaos against Gordon Smith, I an still registered as "Not Affiliated." I consider myself a conservative libertarian. The libertarian party has isn't conservative enough for me, but the AIP seems to be a great mix of both ideals.
Funny now how people vilify others for their desire to be free from federal tyranny. Liberals like yourself, should be a champion of such ideals. Not a pundit against. I guess that just proves once again the hypocrisy of liberal ideals.
Th Constitution of the United States of America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I took the stated goal of the party and made it the stated goal of the party.Quote:
Don't bother. It doesn't matter. I have acknowledged I can be wrong about the requirements to become a state. That was not the purpose of my responses here. I find it laughable with all the clear language and facts, you take a position of some, and make it the position of all.
Yeah, you couldn't even understand that. You probably still haven't figured it out.Quote:
The Palin Hoax started as a thread of lies regarding the Palin's. We started discussing one particular lie.
If an independent Alaska isn't their goal, they should say it isn't their goal. They say it is their goal.Quote:
[long winded bullshit]
If you ever read definitions of words in legal documents like the constitution you would understand the word "admit" better:Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
To allow a territory to be a state means they wqant to be one in the first place. The question I see the AIP trying to resolve is if the people ever wanted to be admitted!Quote:
to admit (third-person singular simple present admits, present participle admitting, simple past and past participle admitted)
(transitive) To allow to enter; to grant entrance, whether into a place, or into the mind, or consideration; to receive; to take; as, they were into his house; to admit a serious thought into the mind; to admit evidence in the trial of a cause.
(transitive) To give a right of entrance; as, a ticket admits one into a playhouse.
(transitive) To allow (one) to enter on an office or to enjoy a privilege; to recognize as qualified for a franchise; as, to admit an attorney to practice law; the prisoner was admitted to bail.
(transitive) To concede as true; to acknowledge or assent to, as an allegation which it is impossible to deny; to own or confess; as, the argument or fact is admitted; he admitted his guilt.
(transitive) To be capable of; to permit; as, the words do not admit such a construction. In this sense, of may be used after the verb, or may be omitted.
We see this differently. I do understand the constitution far better than most. I take words as what they do mean rather than that I want them to mean. Beyond that, when some words definitions change over time, I take what the words and phrases meant at the time.
Again, to allow someone enterance, like to a movie, means they have to want to go in first. You don't just drag someone from the home and make them go to the theatre.
It depends on the legal question trying to be resolved. If someone does make the case that Alaska was never properly admitted to the states, secession is not required.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I like my sig.
So you haven't read the United States Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
That explains your complete ignorance.
So, you haven't read the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Wait....Africa's a continent too? :wtf
Right...the next thing you will tell me is that Australia is a country too. Hah!
I am not falling for that propaganda!
:lol