No to Donatism

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@Productive_Mkts @iamBrianBJ Son, I wish you luck in your education.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@Productive_Mkts @iamBrianBJ So you agree that if the United States was not a NATO member, a NATO partner, or an EU member, per Art. X, the US would not be able to have control or significant influence. Got it. Also, US, Denmark, and Greenland are all defined as "Parties" to the agreement.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@Productive_Mkts @iamBrianBJ So if the U.S. left NATO, Denmark and Greenland would have to agree to the U.S.’ continued presence. Pretty simple.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@Productive_Mkts @iamBrianBJ The U.S. is allowed to establish new bases, agree 100%. Art. IX says that no state other than a NATO member may establish a base - different than “have”. But it also says no persistent military presence. So the U.S. could have physical bases but no forces on them.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@Productive_Mkts @iamBrianBJ The plain text says "[n]o state." There is no ambiguity. It says no state. That includes the United States. There is no exception in the language of "no state" that excepts the United States as it does not reference the defined term "Parties" in any fashion.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@Productive_Mkts @iamBrianBJ It does not apply to third states; it applies to all states. Ignore the language re: third states because that's not part of the text. The heading is not law. And the US can have empty bases if it leaves NATO; it cannot have a persistent presence of military forces per the Art. 9

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@Productive_Mkts @iamBrianBJ You don't seem to understand that the language of the heading referencing "third states" isn't an operative part of the agreement. Per SCOTUS - Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. B&O RR, 331 U.S. 519 (1947) - the heading can address doubt but cannot override the plain text.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@Productive_Mkts @iamBrianBJ And it's not just me that says so; the Supreme Court says so. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. B&O RR, 331 U.S. 519 (1947) - the heading can address doubt but can't override the plain text.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@Productive_Mkts @iamBrianBJ Yes, I can read. Please show me where it says "No state other than the Parties" or similar language, excluding the "Establishment of manned or unmanned military installations by third states" because that language is legally inoperative.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@MichaelCasey_ @RepLuna @RepOgles @AbrahamHamadeh @MarkIvanyo Art. IX of the deal also requires the US to cede sovereignty and remain in NATO because "[n]o state that is not a member of NATO shall be allowed ... a persistent presence of military forces in Greenland" absent agreement between the parties.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@CalebBurdett18 Art. IX of the deal also requires the US to cede sovereignty and remain in NATO because "[n]o state that is not a member of NATO shall be allowed ... a persistent presence of military forces in Greenland" absent agreement between the parties.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@Kurt_Steiner Art. IX of the deal also requires the US to cede sovereignty and remain in NATO because "[n]o state that is not a member of NATO shall be allowed ... a persistent presence of military forces in Greenland" absent agreement between the parties.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@RodDMartin Art. IX also requires the US to cede sovereignty and remain in NATO as "[n]o state that is not a member of NATO shall be allowed ... a persistent presence of military forces in Greenland" absent agreement between the parties.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@Productive_Mkts @iamBrianBJ Again, the preamble has zero authority and cannot contradict the plain text of the operative provisions. Source - am lawyer who deals with treaties every week.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@KatiePavlich The US is required to stay in NATO. Art. IX: “No state that is not a member of NATO shall be allowed… a persistent presence of military forces in Greenland, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties”. If US leaves NATO, it violates Art. IX absent agreement between the Parties.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@JayTC53 The US also agreed to stay in NATO. Art. IX: “No state that is not a member of NATO shall be allowed… a persistent presence of military forces in Greenland, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties”. If US leaves NATO, it violates Art. IX absent agreement between the Parties.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@ConradMBlack The US also agreed to stay in NATO. Art. IX: “No state that is not a member of NATO shall be allowed… a persistent presence of military forces in Greenland, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties”. If US leaves NATO, it violates Art. IX absent agreement between the Parties.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@Productive_Mkts @iamBrianBJ I’m reading the plain text of Article
IX, which says “[n]o state”. “State” is not a defined term that excludes Parties. It does not say “no state other than a Party”. The plain meaning of the text of the agreement requires all states with forces in Greenland to be part of NATO.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@BuzzPatterson The US also ceded sovereignty and must stay in NATO. “No state that is not a member of NATO shall be allowed… a persistent presence of military forces in Greenland, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties”

If US leaves NATO, it violates Art. 9 w/o agreement (title has no effect)

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@Productive_Mkts @iamBrianBJ Legally incorrect. The preamble and the title of the provision are not operative provisions and are not legally binding language. Read the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 (to which Denmark is a state party).