|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
superacidjax
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Which international law that existed before 1845 was violated, exactly? |
Treaty: a formal agreement between sovereign states or organizations of states.
In the US Constitution is mandates that treaties are negotiated by the Executive and ratified by the Senate. As Texas was a sovereign state and therefore not subject to US law a treaty was the only means by which annexation could have occurred.
As the Ordinance of 1845 was NOT a treaty, but a piece of legislation, it has no legal binding effect upon another sovereign nation. It's like the United States passing a law setting the speed limit in Zaire. Just because the Zaire government might agree with the law, it is not a binding agreement since treaties govern agreements between countries.
As far as the "law," treaties are the oldest form of international law. By definition a treaty is an "agreement between sovereign states." As there was no treaty in the case of Texas annexation, there was no agreement between the sovereign states in question (Texas and the US.)
No treaty, no agreement, no annexation. As I said, the annexation was de facto, but not legal. And it's certainly not legally binding.
Essentially what happened is that the US and Texan governments simultaneously agreed to the same thing but in 1861, Texas voted to leave that agreement, but they were crushed by the US military invasion. So, in effect, Texas was a voluntary participant in the Union until 1861, following that, they have been essentially an occupied country.
To use the speed limit in Zaire example, let's say the US and Zaire both decided that the Zaire speed limit should be 60kph through mutual acts of their respective governments, however no treaty was ratified. Zaire decides later that they want to raise the speed limit. The US response would be to send in troops to force the speed limit to remain the same despite Zaire's internal wishes.. that's what happened to Texas in 1861 and continues to occur now.
No treaty. No legal agreement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That response is not what I asked for.
I want the name, text, and collection of nations that agreed to the international law that existed before 1845 that states a treaty is required for an annexation to be legal under international law.
You said international law required it:
| Superacidjax wrote: |
| HOWEVER, under international law, the Ordinance itself is illegal because the annexation was not done by a treaty but by a simple majority vote of Congress. Since Texas was NOT a territory of the United States prior to annexation, but in fact a separate country, international law requires a ratified treaty for annexation. The Congressional vote to annex was illegal, because Texas, as an independent nation was not subject to US Congressional action. |
I want to know which law that existed in 1845 that was, please. Without the name and text of the specific international law in question, how can your claim that the U.S. annexation of Texas was illegal under international law be confirmed and validated?
Thanks in advance, I'm looking forward to reviewing the text of this famous law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So, in effect, Texas was a voluntary participant in the Union until 1861, following that, they have been essentially an occupied country. |
Interesting view.
You are skipping one important event. On March 30, 1870 Texas was re-admitted into the Union. It's original admission in 1845 was irregular. It's second admission followed the same procedures as all the other 'territories' in a similar situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
superacidjax
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
I want to know which law that existed in 1845 that was, please. Without the name and text of the specific international law in question, how can your claim that the U.S. annexation of Texas was illegal under international law be confirmed and validated?
Thanks in advance, I'm looking forward to reviewing the text of this famous law. |
The Final Act of the Congress of Vienna in 1815 established the existing norms for diplomatic discourse (i.e treaties, envoys, etc.) However, the US wasn't a part of that Congress, it did establish the standards of international diplomacy.
Of course, you'd like to know the "law" that was broken. The US Constitution acknowledges the treaty-powers of the president. As I've so clearly stated, the definition of treaty is not in dispute. The Constitution didn't need to spell out what a treaty was: it's an agreement between sovereign states. As the Constitution admits that treaties DID exist and we both know what a treaty IS, and it's pretty darn obvious that there WAS NOT a treaty of annexation, then it would take an idiot to think that the annexation in 1945 was legal since it was BETWEEN TWO SOVEREIGN STATES.
Article 2, section 2of the US Constitution: He [the President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..
It seems like you are just being an argumentative child. The US government admitted that treaties existed (in the Constitution.) Treaties are agreements between sovereign states (and the oldest form of international law) and there was no treaty of annexation. What's the problem?
Are you suggesting that there was a treaty? If you are, then the annexation was a violation of the Constitution because the senate ratified no treaty, nor did the president create the treaty.
The annexation was through legislative action, NOT through the treaty process.
Any more argument with you is pointless. The POINT is that there WAS NO TREATY. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
superacidjax
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| You are skipping one important event. On March 30, 1870 Texas was re-admitted into the Union. It's original admission in 1845 was irregular. It's second admission followed the same procedures as all the other 'territories' in a similar situation. |
That is an area I haven't really studied, but it does add an interesting element to the issue. Good point! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| superacidjax wrote: |
| The Final Act of the Congress of Vienna in 1815 established the existing norms for diplomatic discourse (i.e treaties, envoys, etc.) However, the US wasn't a part of that Congress, it did establish the standards of international diplomacy. |
Well, given the Congress of Vienna, as you say, didn't include the United States (which makes it not binding regarding the United States in any case, unless a coalition of other powers could possibly enforce it), and further upon review of it I can see no mention of treaties being requried for annexation, I think we can dispense with the fiction of international law at the time being against this and move on with the discussion in a more focused manner.
| superacidjax wrote: |
| Of course, you'd like to know the "law" that was broken. The US Constitution acknowledges the treaty-powers of the president. As I've so clearly stated, the definition of treaty is not in dispute. |
I agree, no one is questioning what a treaty is, nor has anyone questioned it. All that's in question is if a treaty is legally required for annexation, so let's stop talking about what a treaty is and focus on that.
| superacidjax wrote: |
| and it's pretty darn obvious that there WAS NOT a treaty of annexation, then it would take an idiot to think that the annexation in 1945 was legal since it was BETWEEN TWO SOVEREIGN STATES. |
I agree, there was no treaty. Now show why one is legally required for annexation. I'm personally not familiar with any United States law that requires a treaty for annexation, but I'm not that familiar with United States Law I have to admit. So if you would, show me the United States Law (since there was no such international law it seems) that states, in no uncertain terms, that any annexation which is not based upon a treaty is illegal. I'm very interested in this, and would like to review it.
I just want proof that your undoubtedly valid point is true so I can research it further. Without such a law, there's nothing that would make the annexation of Texas illegal, because something can only be illegal if it goes against a law. As such, I am sure you can understand why I'm interested.
In summation: does Texas' atypical introduction into the union really break any laws? I don't know, that's why I'm asking you, since you are quite certain it does. Sorry if asking for more information is child-like and argumentative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is another complication to this issue.
In 1836 Santa Ana recognized Texas independence, but the government of Mexico quickly rescinded that on the grounds that Santa Ana was a prisoner of war and was not acting as a free agent. Coercion and all that. It does put the sovereignty of Texas in question. Some other governments recognized Texas independence, others did not. Texas was de facto independent, but so is Taiwan. Anyway, those issues were dealt with by the Treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo in 1848 in which Mexico did accept that Texas was part of the US and that treaty was ratified by the Senate.
Summary: The treaty that Santa Ana signed in 1836 had an ambiguous result; the annexation resolution of 1845 was irregular; the clarification came in 1848 with the defeat of Mexico in a regular treaty between two sovereign states.
How Texas became a state is less important than that she clearly acted in good faith as a state except for the brief period between 1861 and 1865. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
