We are not "one nation". Expelling a myth

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

Bundy's in Nevada, not Arizona. Also, Arizona's statehood wasn't contingent upon giving up land.

Ok, maybe Nevada's was. And besides, I don't think looking at it as giving up land is the proper way to look at it.

Thanks for the correction though-- I fixed my post.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Originalist

?

a description of those who seek to administer, perhaps.

and as long as i'm on this thread, i would like to highlight the difference in "nation," which is the people, v "country" or "republic," which are statist terms; further verifying the thread title.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

When the whole Bundy fiasco unfolded, I distinctly remember that in order for the territory of Nevada to join the Union, a certain portion of their land had to be ceded to the Federal government for Federal purposes.

I am thinking that all of the "States" give up sovereignty when they joined the Union, under the current Constitution.

Didn't the U.S. Senate do away with the Articles of Confederation? I know that at some point, the Articles became obsolete.

Nevada is a poor example simply because they became a State after the war that destroyed State sovereignty.

As far a States losing their sovereignty when joining the Union, not to be rude, but why do you think that? Did the Founders teach that? Is it is in the Constitution?

I will be addressing this in the near future.

[shazeep]

"entered into an incestuous relationship" might be a better way to put it