nope


-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth H. Thiers
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 10/26/2002 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: i little tid bit for our discussions

I'm late with this and haven't read anything but, my gander would be
either Hawaii or Massachusetts.

Beth T.
>
> From: "Barber, Kenneth L." <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 2002/10/24 Thu AM 09:30:02 EDT
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: i little tid bit for our discussions
>
> No not with russia.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathy Salkin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:51 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: i little tid bit for our discussions
>
> Was it with Russia?  I'm thinking Alaska, with the Steward Purchase.
>
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:41:14 -0400 "Barber, Kenneth L." <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > No, not the uk.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kathy Salkin
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:31 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: i little tid bit for our
> > discussions
> >
> > This treaty is still in force, I suppose?  Was
> > it with the UK?
> >
> > Kat
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 07:55:59 -0400 "Barber,
> > Kenneth L."
> > wrote:
> >
> > > With all the discussion of the constitution,
> > > the articles of confederation
> > > (pre-constitution) and in general history, do
> > > any of you know the one state
> > > that can still legally maintain it own navy?
> > > The clue is that a treaty
> > > supersedes the constitution. This fact is one
> > > reason why there is so much
> > > scrutiny of treaties in this country.
> > >
> >
>