Republic of Texas became a unique limitation of scope comapred to other states.

[motla68]

Hey all, I know you love a good debate around here. Well here you go, read the following and bring your hard evidence to the table. E.F. Hutton, Joe or the Informer is not in here so just because they said it, this does not count, none of that slothfulness on this thread. Read on ==>>

Very important case to consider:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/339/707/case.html

After reading that you might notice 2 important references in there.

The resolves of 1845 to cede republic of texas and another reference was
Compromise of 1850 where a ratification had taken place of exactly what
parts of it were ceded. Republic of Texas sold off some of it's land due
to high debt that needed settled. The rest was later transferred to
federal government probably because of that same debt problem
from fighting off mexico.
So it was not done at the nations capital , it was done at the capital
for the republic of texas right underneath everyone's noses.
Although still yet people have their opinions of what really happened at the Alamo.

Also 2 other references to consider:
U.S. Constitution had a equal-footing clause which applied to how republic
of texas transferred the rest of the land, another words the republic still
exists underneath dormant to most who do not use it, but not fully
independent anymore.
Last but not least, since the constitution had guaranteed a republican
form of government this is why the republic of texas in a wood seal
still exists on that floor of their house.
Sad part is I have not been able to find what the details of that guarantee
was as of yet.

[David Merrill]

I was directly involved in chilling this sale.

Click Here.

[Chex]

Does it have any relation to this?

The seven groups of commandments, which was given to the nations of the world through Noah, was to establish a system of law and Courts that would uphold the Noahide Laws, bring justice into the world; and maintain a standard of righteousness and morality in human communities.

The Noahide Laws are growing in popularity. They have even reached the U. S. Congress:

“The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Noahide Laws in legislation that was passed by both houses. Congress and the President of the U. S., George Bush, indicated in Public Law 102-14, 102nd Congress, that the United States of America was founded upon the Seven Universal Laws of Noah, and that these Laws have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization. They also acknowledged that the Seven Laws of Noah are the foundation upon which civilization stands and that recent weakening of these principles threaten the fabric of civilized society, and that justified preoccupation in educating the Citizens of the U.S. of America and future generations is needed. For this purpose, this Public Law designated March 26, 1991 as Education Day.”

These laws along with those who promote them, are telling people there are two sets of laws. One for the Jews (Yahudim) and the other for Gentiles (goyim). We know this is not Scriptural because we are told:

“There is one Torah for the native-born and for the stranger who sojourns among you.” (Ex. 12:49)

[David Merrill]

This Court, therefore, urges the Attorney General of the United States of America, Janet Reno, currently under the Political Leadership of President Bill Clinton to answer to the charge of failure to hear a grievance that is brought before its duly appointed Courts, and it has 90 working days in which to show cause as to why this case should not be heard before this Court and to submit documents showing that it has conformed with all treaties, conventions and wishes of the native peoples and with states accepted or annexed under the Constitutional principles and Noahide law, which was adopted as Law in the United States by Congress.

It shall be so ordered that Plaintiffs...

Yes indeed.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...L_102-14_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...L_102-14_2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...L_102-14_3.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...L_102-14_4.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...L_102-14_5.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...L_102-14_6.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...L_102-14_7.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...L_102-14_8.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...L_102-14_9.jpg



Referring to Exodus 24:7 (The Contract) and Nehemiah 10 (signing the Oath to uphold the Laws of Moses as a Curse), we find the rendition of the Levite priestcraft is a good fit with Christianity considering Jesus is considered the Final Blood Sacrifice appeasing those same Laws of Moses.

[shikamaru]

Very important case to consider:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/339/707/case.html

After reading that you might notice 2 important references in there.

The resolves of 1845 to cede republic of texas and another reference was
Compromise of 1850 where a ratification had taken place of exactly what
parts of it were ceded. Republic of Texas sold off some of it's land due
to high debt that needed settled. The rest was later transferred to
federal government probably because of that same debt problem
from fighting off mexico.
So it was not done at the nations capital , it was done at the capital
for the republic of texas right underneath everyone's noses.
Although still yet people have their opinions of what really happened at the Alamo.

What reference is this in the case presented?

Also 2 other references to consider:
U.S. Constitution had a equal-footing clause which applied to how republic
of texas transferred the rest of the land, another words the republic still
exists underneath dormant to most who do not use it, but not fully
independent anymore.
Last but not least, since the constitution had guaranteed a republican
form of government this is why the republic of texas in a wood seal
still exists on that floor of their house.
Sad part is I have not been able to find what the details of that guarantee
was as of yet.

The case you presented doesn't read that way to me.
Could you please reference the cites in the case presented which supports your claims above?

[motla68]

What reference is this in the case presented?

The case you presented doesn't read that way to me.
Could you please reference the cites in the case presented which supports your claims above?

It is mention in annotation # 2. But also here is the Resolution itself:

https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abou...march1845.html

A mention of what happened in 1850 is mentioned here:

http://www.texasalmanac.com/topics/h...-and-statehood

For the rest of that you will just have to do your own due diligence and labor some to earn the knowledge.

[David Merrill]

Thank you for inquiring Shikamaru.

[shikamaru]

It is mention in annotation # 2. But also here is the Resolution itself:

https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abou...march1845.html

From the link provided, the first paragraph reads:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing Government in order that the same may by admitted as one of the States of this Union.

This is a grant of consent by US Congress to Texas. I saw a passage about ceding of dockyards and such but nothing about ceding the Republic of Texas. In fact, the resolution states the Republic of Texas retains all vacant and unappropriated land in its limits.
Looks more like grants of acceptance to me.

A mention of what happened in 1850 is mentioned here:

http://www.texasalmanac.com/topics/h...-and-statehood

According to that website, Texas ceded its land claims to the US government for assumption of $10 million dollars of its State debt.
This is not unusual. The 13 colonies ceded their land claims to the US government in exchange for assumption of their debts.

For the rest of that you will just have to do your own due diligence and labor some to earn the knowledge.

Hey all, I know you love a good debate around here. Well here you go, read the following and bring your hard evidence to the table. E.F. Hutton, Joe or the Informer is not in here so just because they said it, this does not count, none of that slothfulness on this thread.

Shall you heed your own advice?

U.S. Constitution had a equal-footing clause which applied to how republic
of texas transferred the rest of the land, ...

That is not how the case you presented reads concerning the "equal footing clause" in the U.S. Constitution.
The case you presented speaks of political rights, sovereignty, property rights of navigable waters and the soils underneath them.
The case you presented speaks of Texas attempting to claim territory out over water in the Gulf of Mexico.

Again, what passages from the case you presented supports your claims?

[motla68]

From the link provided, the first paragraph reads:



This is a grant of consent by US Congress to Texas. I saw a passage about ceding of dockyards and such but nothing about ceding the Republic of Texas. In fact, the resolution states the Republic of Texas retains all vacant and unappropriated land in its limits.
Looks more like grants of acceptance to me.



According to that website, Texas ceded its land claims to the US government for assumption of $10 million dollars of its State debt.
This is not unusual. The 13 colonies ceded their land claims to the US government in exchange for assumption of their debts.






Shall you heed your own advice?



That is not how the case you presented reads concerning the "equal footing clause" in the U.S. Constitution.
The case you presented speaks of political rights, sovereignty, property rights of navigable waters and the soils underneath them.
The case you presented speaks of Texas attempting to claim territory out over water in the Gulf of Mexico.

Again, what passages from the case you presented supports your claims?

From the resolution:
2. " the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States "

transmit;
3. To impart or convey to others by heredity or inheritance; hand down.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transmitted

Cede;
1. To yield; to surrender; to give up; to resign; as to cede a fortress, a province or country, by treaty. This word is appropriately used to denote the relinquishment of a conquered city, fortress, or territory, to the former sovereign or proprietor.

Again as stated in from the case as i mentioned, annotation #2;
" Texas ceased to be an independent Nation and was admitted to the Union "on an equal footing with the existing States" pursuant to the Joint Resolution of March 1, 1845, "

land;
6. The inhabitants of a country or region; a nation or people.
http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,land

I do not see your point about taking my own advice, all the keys are there to open the door mostly right from the state of texas resources, all one has to do is pickup a dictionary now an then if they do not understand the words. I do not get where you are coming from unless your calling the state of texas themselves a liar?

[shikamaru]

I do not see your point about taking my own advice, all the keys are there to open the door mostly right from the state of texas resources, all one has to do is pickup a dictionary now an then if they do not understand the words.

So, you draw from an annotation (which is actually a footnote ... details, details), but nothing from the body of the case, is that correct?

I do not get where you are coming from unless your calling the state of texas themselves a liar?

The way I see it, your comprehension as well as write-ups leave much to be desired ....

Some details which I'll shall take the liberty to presume you are missing:

A republic is a commonwealth which is also a corporation. That's from the Informer which you can find easy enough from the resources of Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 as well as Black's Law Dictionary 4th edition.

A state is the People. A government of the state does not compose the state. Same resources mentioned above.
Government of the state means government belonging to the state. Same resources mentioned above.
Government is the medium of the state. Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Ed.

The state is its body of citizens in aggregate as a body. The republic is the FORM of government. There is a caveat to the aforementioned sentence. I'll see if you'll take the initiative to find it or not. If you do, you'll find it in either Bouvier's or Black's.

The state is an association, a body politic and is itself a corporation as well. Same resources mentioned above.

A state is a private association. It does not include all peoples who inhabit the purported territory.

So, a private association of some Europeans claiming a territory by force changed its form of government.
In changing its form of government, it changed its status as well as its capacity for rights.
Said association through its government took an action (claiming land under the waters of the Gulf of Mexico) which the Supreme Court construed as ultra vires per their membership to an international federation composed of the several States.
Association was held to the terms and conditions of its agreement with and between itself and the government of the United States.

Your point being?