Skip to comments.Who, what, why: Is North Dakota really a US state?
Posted on 07/14/2011 10:00:21 AM PDT by the scotsman
'North Dakota is amending its constitution because of a long-standing technical omission that some claim makes its statehood invalid. So does that mean it's really just a US territory and not a state at all?
Every American child is taught there are 50 states in the US.
But an 82-year-old care home resident in Grand Forks, North Dakota, is throwing the truth of that universally held statement into some doubt.
While reading the state constitution, which is 40 years older than he is, John Rolczynski noticed it omitted to mention the executive branch when explaining which new officers need to take the oath supporting the US Constitution.
This, he says, makes the state constitution invalid because it is in conflict with the federal constitution, which requires all officers of the three branches of state government - executive, judicial and legislative - be bound by the oath.'
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
Yeah, given North Daktoa’s every-growing oil reserves, I’d say they should seceed and call themselves ‘Baja Siberia’.
One thing about it, they probably could go it alone with the oil that has been discovered under North Dakota don’t really think they will or even could if they wanted to...
If by "bound" they mean "take their oath seriously" then we haven't had a legitimate federal gov't in decades.
The federal constitution has no requirement for state constitutions, except that the federal constitution does guarantee a republican form of government.
BBC, as usual, doesn’t do well when it reports on US law.
Exactly. Not 57 or 59.
Darn! You beat me! Curses!
Would they be stupid enough to sign up now if they can escape?
So all the federal tax dollars the sent to DC over the years should be refunded to the state with interest, right?
On February 19, 1803, President Jefferson signed an act of Congress that approved Ohio's boundaries and constitution. However, Congress had never passed a resolution formally admitting Ohio as the 17th state. The current custom of Congress declaring an official date of statehood did not begin until 1812, with Louisiana's admission as the 18th state. Although no formal resolution of admission was required, when the oversight was discovered in 1953, Ohio congressman George H. Bender introduced a bill in Congress to admit Ohio to the Union retroactive to March 1, 1803. At a special session at the old state capital in Chillicothe, the Ohio state legislature approved a new petition for statehood that was delivered to Washington, D.C. on horseback. On August 7, 1953 (the year of Ohio's 150th anniversary), President Eisenhower signed an act that officially declared March 1, 1803 the date of Ohio's admittance into the Union.
Something similar happened when Ohio was admitted in 1810. The error was discovered in 1950 and corrected by the Ohio Legislature.
“The federal constitution has no requirement for state constitutions”
Article VI states: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”
If a state’s constitution provides for no such oath to be taken by members of the executive branch, doesn’t that at least raise questions about whether the state is in compliance with this provision? I suppose a state could hypothetically make this a statutory requirement, but by definition, a statute could be repealed at any time.
Many states were not legally admitted.
New states have to be admitted on the same basis as (and with equality to) old states.
That means, among other things, that the federal government cannot attach conditions to a new state as a basis for its admission.
(Oklahoma wanted to be admitted but the feds insisted the state capital be at Norman, and not Okla. City. That federal condition was ruled to be invalid and illegal.)
Most western states were admitted under the condition that vast areas of their lands remain under federal control. (The most blatant example is Alaska.)
However, those conditions were (and are) illegal.
Ergo, either those conditions are invalid; or else the ‘conditional’ admission of those states was not legally valid.
It does actually. Read Article VI carefully.
It requires state legislatures/executives/judicials to be bound by an oath.
The only think between North Dakota and the North Pole is a barbed wire fence.
And that got blowed down last year.
I thought they were going to change their name to simply ‘Dakota’.
That doesn't mean the oath has to be part of their respective Constitutions. As a matter of fact, because of the Supremacy Clause, they're already required to take the oath by the US Constitution, and no further further Constitutional or statutory provision is required.
When I was a schoolboy there, we actually created a fantasy simulation game about North Dakota secession. We'd start the war in the winter, bribe off all our near neighbors and blackmail the rest of the country into going along with it.
This was before the days of computer simulations when these games actually had to be created by drawing maps on paper with hexagonal grids and making square counters to represent military and militia units.
Funny that Ohio is called the “Mother of Presidents.”
Nothing to do up there in winter was there ?
And there is no father, which says something about presidents from Ohio. :-)
So when will South Manitoba secede?
I did that by adding local USGS maps to published games. Funny how the High School was always hit by artillery missions from both sides.
Doubt the wording cited in the US Constitution is enough cause to rule the state constitution invalid.
Now if you wan to have a serious debate about constitutionality of statehood, examine West Virginia.
People eventually tire of snowmobiling, snow shoveling, ice fishing and hunkering down watching television.
OTOH, we could play baseball until 10:30 p.m. or so in the summertime. We never seemed to tire of that. But there was weed pulling, garden growing, regular fishing and a cornucopia of other outdoor diversions. Nobody spent much time indoors between Memorial Day and Labor Day except to sleep.
Did you ever play the biggest one they ever made? I think it was called War in the East, a tactical/operational level simulation of the entire Russian Front.
Our parents, of course, complained about us wasting too much time indoors, but we learned our history and geography.
Could someone check on MA, CT, NY, RI, DL, ME, well any blue state for that matter and see if they are legal?
You nailed it. Congrats!
that is what elections and impeachment are for.
an impeachment is a political trial. To make it work you have to have charges that get the required votes. two thirds of the senate and a majority of the house, at last time I checked.
but they wouldn’t have the codes...
but they wouldn’t have the codes...
I don’t see a direct case that a member of a socialist organization would be in violation of an oath.
So long as the person intended (or practically pretended to intend) to use the constitutional amendment process to implement their socialist agenda, they would not be in violation of their oath.
I disagree with socialism as policy. I think it is contrary to human nature, but I don’t think holding some socialist tenets are grounds for violating the oath of office. Most libertarians I know are “Libertarians but”; there is one issue where they make an exception. For my first wife, of fond memory, it was education. For me it was the military. For another it was health care.
Federal law is binding on the various officers, even if there is no corresponding state law. If the federal constitution requires it, then it is a requirement. If the state constitution forbids it, the “supremacy clause” makes it still a requirement.
The question is: If a governor doesn’t take the oath, is he legally governor? I imagine a president could not answer his mail or requests for disaster assistance. If a governor publicly refused to take the oath, and announced for secession, I imagine that would give the president grounds to teach him the error of his ways.
Or older states, just like the newer ones, could have also agreed to let the federal government retain property. The constitution. Certainly forts, arsenals and other property are owned by the government in older states.
I personally hold that the original intent was for the federal government must have buildings to own property, as in a fort, a shipyard or even runways and barracks. Given a choice I would deed the parks, national forests, national monuments over to the respective states.
Just like the BBC to revive the birther controversy by implying that Obama was never an American child.
I am just kidding you.
I have a customer in Powers Lake(NE of Minot). He tells me how he will play an 18 hole round of golf after work in the summer.
He plays & coaches a lot of basketball in the winter.
And the best Norwegian jokes. The best Sven and Ole jokes. And the best Ole and Lena jokes.
>It does actually. Read Article VI carefully.
>It requires state legislatures/executives/judicials to be bound by an oath.
That oath is specified, IIRC, in the US Code; so isn’t it a moot point?
(IOW, the US Constitution does not specify the wording of the oath either.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.