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.
> >
>