I saw this, and it seemed like a more reasonable conclusion was that ND was, in fact, a state, but they haven't ever had a legal governor. Of course, legal reasoning has no requirement to obey the normal laws of logic, but I don't see the connection between, "The...Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers...of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution," and one of the Several States not being a state.
So, little did they know that they were living in anarchy.
1 comment:
I saw this, and it seemed like a more reasonable conclusion was that ND was, in fact, a state, but they haven't ever had a legal governor. Of course, legal reasoning has no requirement to obey the normal laws of logic, but I don't see the connection between, "The...Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers...of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution," and one of the Several States not being a state.
So, little did they know that they were living in anarchy.
Post a Comment