SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (126378)3/16/2004 11:59:41 PM
From: NightOwl  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hi TW,

The curious thing to me has always been why a greater effort wasn't made to plant a few "revolutionaries" north of the St. Lawrence and try to get at least one or two Canadian "states" into the conspiracy.

0|0



To: TimF who wrote (126378)3/17/2004 7:53:46 AM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 281500
 
It was, indeed, a dual notion of sovereignty, and it is possible that some states would not have agreed to it, had it been set out on a thoroughly nationalist basis. The preamble makes it plain that the people are the source of the instrument, but the ratification scheme makes it appear that the states are making a pact, and therefore have ultimate sovereignty. Anyway, it was a confusion that was only resolved by the civil war..........


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News