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. > > > > > >