Possible Montana Secession?

mijopaalmc said:
The problem here is that a contract is defined as a document that provides offer, acceptance, and consideration.
Click to expand...

Ah, but it isn't.

In order to have a contract you MUST HAVE offer, consideration, and acceptance. Montana had all these things, therefore the compact with the United States is a valid contract.
Click to expand...

If A then B.
B.
Therefore A.

Affirming the consequent. All contracts must have offer, consideration and acceptance, but that does not necessarily mean that all things with offer, consideration and accpetance are contracts.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Then what are the essential characteristics of a contract? Which of these does the Enabling Act not fulfill?
Click to expand...

The defining nature of a contract is an agreement (yes with offer, consideration and acceptance) which is made under contract law and is subject to contract law.

The enabling act is a piece of legislation, which was made by a legislative process , not an a agreement made under contract law, it is not subject to contract law.
Tiddles is still a kitten.

If the Enabling act were subject to contract law it would not be able to stand for a number of reasons, for instance the fact that it has no time limits and contracts in US law cannot run indefinitely.

Legislation is not subject to contract law. I'm not sure how many ways I can say this...
 
brodski said:
If the Enabling act were subject to contract law it would not be able to stand for a number of reasons, for instance the fact that it has no time limits and contracts in US law cannot run indefinitely.
Click to expand...

brodski said:
Legislation is not subject to contract law. I'm not sure how many ways I can say this...
Click to expand...

Not being a lawyer or someone who has systematically studied US law, I am just trying to understand how legislation is not a contract because I lack that modicum of knowledge to make the distinction on my own.
 
Let me clarify:

The argument, as I understand it, is that Article 1 of the Montana Constitution (a.k.a, The Compact With the United States) states:

All provisions of the enabling act of Congress (approved February 22, 1889, 25 Stat. 676), as amended and of Ordinance No. 1, appended to the Constitution of the state of Montana and approved February 22, 1889, including the agreement and declaration that all lands owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United States, continue in full force and effect until revoked by the consent of the United States and the people of Montana.
Click to expand...

Now the Montana Secretary of State and some Montana lawmakers contend that the Compact constitutes a contact and that a "collective rights" ruling in Heller would cause the Montana Constitution "repugnant to the Constitution of the United States" therefore violating the terms of the Compact as put forth in the Enabling Act of 1889. This would render the Compact null and void and terminate Montana's statehood.

I don't agree with with the less-than-iron-clad reasoning, but I thought it was necessary to clarify that the actual "contract" was considered to be the Compact and not the Enabling Act (which lays out the terms of the Compact), as I implied earlier.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Not being a lawyer or someone who has systematically studied US law, I am just trying to understand how legislation is not a contract because I lack that modicum of knowledge to make the distinction on my own.
Click to expand...

So if you admit that you don't know what the difference is, why are you so adamantly insisting that a legislative act or a constitutional clause is a contract?
 
dudalb said:
Why do Libertarians seem to have such a soft spot for the Confederacy?
Click to expand...

Because the law did not allow for the invasion of sovereign States by the Federal government.

It was an usurpation of power by force.

My own State had it's legislature imprisoned without cause.
 
drkitten said:
So if you admit that you don't know what the difference is, why are you so adamantly insisting that a legislative act or a constitutional clause is a contract?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to adamantly insist that a legislative act or constitutional clause is a contract; I'm just trying to figure out what essential elements of a contract are not present in the legislation and the constitution. The truncated definition if a contract that the people with whom I am discussing the matter elsewhere are using is a document contains offer, acceptance, and consideration. The problem (and my disagreement with them) arises from the fact that I don't think that the a document that has the form of a contract is necessarily a contract. However, because of my aforementioned lack of legal education, I do not have the ability to justify this stance off the top of my head, so I am asking for help from people here, while also trying to accurately portray what I consider to be an absurdly framed argument.
 
I just had a rather extended discussion with the guy I quoted is post 33. It is now very clear to me that he is not interested in reasoned debate because he insists that the statements "if a document has offer, acceptance, and consideration, it is a contract" and "if a document is contract, it is has offer, acceptance, and consideration" are "functionally equivalent" along with the the syllogisms:

All valid contracts have these elements
The Compact has these elements
The Compact is valid

All of these elements make a valid contract
The compact has all of these elements
The compact is valid
Click to expand...
are "functionally equivalent".
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
I just had a rather extended discussion with the guy I quoted is post 33. It is now very clear to me that he is not interested in reasoned debate because he insists that the statements "if a document has offer, acceptance, and consideration, it is a contract" and "if a document is contract, it is has offer, acceptance, and consideration" are "functionally equivalent" along with the the syllogisms:


are "functionally equivalent".
Click to expand...

While the first statements are not functionally equivalent, your syllogisms are functionally equivalent (or imprecisely worded I suppose)
 
brodski said:
Legislation is not subject to contract law. I'm not sure how many ways I can say this...
Click to expand...

You've made a pretty clear and concise case. It makes perfect sense to me. A legislative act isn't the same as a contract. If it were, I suppose, then maybe Montana could sue the federal government in civil court?

The whole thing is idiotic gun nut paranoia. Maybe they should work on their self-esteem, instead of spending all their time and energy on phallic surrogates.
 
quixotecoyote said:
While the first statements are not functionally equivalent, your syllogisms are functionally equivalent (or imprecisely worded I suppose)
Click to expand...

Except that the middle term is undistributed in the first and distributed in the second (or at least I think that it is correct).
 
mijopaalmc said:
Except that the middle term is undistributed in the first and distributed in the second (or at least I think that it is correct).
Click to expand...

"Has these elements" is the same as "Has all of these elements" within this context.

For example:

X needs A, B, and C
X has them

X needs A, B, and c
X has all of them
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Because the law did not allow for the invasion of sovereign States by the Federal government.

It was an usurpation of power by force.

My own State had it's legislature imprisoned without cause.
Click to expand...

Missouri?

If so, forming a militia with the aim of attacking the Federal Government in support of the enslavement of fellow human beings seems rather unlike 'without cause' to me.

But I have long given up being surprised about how many people who call themselves libertarians complain about the Federal Government usurping State Government rights during the civil war while ignoring the fact that those State Governments were hell-bent on denying a large chunk of their population the individual right to not be a slave.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't the Compact explicitly require both parties to agree to revoke it? I read "all provisions. . .continue in full force and effect until revoked by the consent of the United States and the people of Montana."
Just because you violate your lease doesn't mean I must consent to the lease's termination.
But I could be wrong.
 
quixotecoyote said:
"Has these elements" is the same as "Has all of these elements" within this context.

For example:

X needs A, B, and C
X has them

X needs A, B, and c
X has all of them
Click to expand...

Nonetheless, the first one at least has an undistributed middle term, much like:

All cats are mammals
A dog is a mammal
A dog is a cat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom