Skip to comments.North Dakota statehood called into question
Posted on 07/15/2011 11:30:51 AM PDT by CalinectesSapidus
North Dakota earned its star on the American flag on Nov. 2, 1889, becoming the 39th or 40th state as it was admitted to the union along with South Dakota or maybe not.
Grand Forks resident John Rolczynski, 82, said he has discovered a flaw in North Dakotas Constitution that he believes means the state is technically still a territory more than a century after its statehood was approved by Congress and authorized by the president.
He noticed the flaw on Jan. 31, 1995, and soon set out to notify judges, lawmakers and federal authorities, even sending a letter to President Bill Clinton, and said his concerns were largely ignored.
(Excerpt) Read more at grandforksherald.com ...
Lucky them if they can get out from under this government’s thumb.
If You should allow me to live into my eighties, please guide my thoughts and actions that I don’t waste the precious years You gave me in being an obnoxious pimple on the butt of society.
In Jesus’ precious name,
Dont fight it, ND!
Become the Peurto Rico of the north, or just declare independence.
Now’s your chance, ND’ers !
Form your own Free Nation, separate from this 0bamanation while you still can !
Yeah, I am afraid that is all this amounts to, but if he is right they would not have to secede to avoid the abominations the Democrats have tossed on the rest of us .
I might even think of moving there if I can get enough fuel to keep me warm.
That means every vote the North Dakota Senators ever voted on is void!
If this is successful, then is the income tax valid?
We all know that the alleged creation of West Virginia was unconstitutional.
Moving to ND yesterday if that actually happens
Seeing as there is a big oil and natural gas boom going on in ND right now - that shouldn’t be a problem. Rename themselves to North Dakotastan and keep the oil royalties to themselves - all 675,000 of them or whatever. (Alaska on the Red River).
ND is one of the 3/4 of the states that ratified the 16th amendment. By all means, don’t fight this and we all win.
Do we get to keep the ICBM’s that we still have?
I was wondering the same thing. Maybe they can get a rebate on their past federal income tax paid...
So, if you were born before the final change to the state’s Constitution and acceptance into the Union, are you a Natural Born Citizen of the US or not?
Well, West Virginia is a special case since Virginia was in open rebellion against the United States at the time and depending on your point of view, was part of a foreign nation and was not subject to the Constitution of the United States. Under those circumstances, the Congress didn’t need the permission of some foreign nation’s legislature. It would be like checking in with England first before admitting Ohio.
The West Virginians said “Hey, we’re not associating with those people. If Virginia’s out, we’ll replace her.”
I meant invalid for all of us. They were one of the minimum number of ratifying states.
“It would be like checking in with England first before admitting Ohio.”
I’m all for expelling Ohio!
So that’s what my friend meant when he told me there was no such thing as ‘North Dakota’ in 1973. He was from South Dakota and when I mentioned North Dakota he simply replied, “There is no such place.” and would not elaborate. I have been puzzled ever since...............
>>Well, West Virginia is a special case since Virginia was in open rebellion against the United States at the time and depending on your point of view, was part of a foreign nation and was not subject to the Constitution of the United States. Under those circumstances, the Congress didnt need the permission of some foreign nations legislature. <<
The flaw in your argument is that the Yankee government NEVER recognized the Confederacy as a separate nation. WV was created out of VA’s sovereign territory; which violated the Constitution. But then, Presidents from IL seem to have a problem with understanding and upholding the Constitution.
Mere technicalities. The way to secede is like South Carolina did.
If north Dakota can do this, then I propose all those Midwestern states all the way down to Texas form a new country. They can call it Ameristine.
Been there did that got frostbite an trenchfoot all in same day.... Strategic Air Command...SAC trained killer, frozen till needed.
Why not Minot .....not !
Way past stompin snow snakes an such....:o)
Stay safe !
In other words, State officials who don't take the oath are simply in violation of the law. That doesn't make their state a Territory. It's ridiculous. He was not taken seriously by anybody because he's not a serious person.
Yeah. That worked out well.
Yes. Barry Goldwater settled that question 50 years ago.
short answer is no, the weapons are subject to US jurisiction and under the terms of the SALT treaties
would not be able to be transferred to another country.
I’ve always hoped North and South Dakota would set aside their differences and join up to become just Dakota
Right. That’s why I wrote “depending on your point of view.” And that is the flaw. But at the time there was nobody to object but a legislature in rebellion. And they had other things to worry about than the population beyond the mountains. They made their move the the US took advantage. Were I in the government at the time, I probably wouldn’t have bothered checking in with Virginia’s legislature either.
Ukraine had 220 strategic weapon carriers on its territory, including 130 RS-18 (SS- 19), 46 sophisticated RS-22 missiles, and 44 strategic bombers carrying 1,068 long-range cruise missiles. In November 1993, the Ukrainian parliament adopted a resolution On the Ratification of the Treaty Between the USSR and USA On the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Weapons of June 7, 1991 and the Protocol to the Treaty of May 23, 1992. The next stage was the signing on January 14, 1994 of the Trilateral Statement by the Presidents of Ukraine, Russia, and the United States under which Ukraine was to destroy all nuclear weapons on its territory, including strategic offensive weapons.
Ukraine, Washington and Moscow reached an agreement in January that allowed for the dismantling of Ukraine's 176 Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBMs) ahead of Kiev's formal ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). France and China provided unilateral security assurances in the form of diplomatic notes. The missiles130 SS-19's and 46 SS-24'scarried about 1,800 nuclear warheads altogether.
Before voting on accession, Ukraine demanded from Russia, the USA, France and the United Kingdom a written statement that these powers undertook to extend the security guarantees to Ukraine. Instead security assurances to Ukraine (Ukraine published the documents as guarantees given to Ukraine) where given on 5 December 1994 at a formal ceremony in Budapest (known as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances), may be summarized as follows: Russia, the UK and the USA undertake to respect Ukraine's borders in accordance with the principles of the 1975 CSCE Final Act, to abstain from the use or threat of force against Ukraine, to support Ukraine where an attempt is made to place pressure on it by economic coercion, and to bring any incident of aggression by a nuclear power before the UN Security Council.
Ukraine was scheduled to submit its instruments of accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear state and formally enter into START at the OSCE summit in Budapest in December 1994. The Rada resolution on accession to the NPT, however, was ambiguous as to whether Ukraine was acceding as a nuclear or non-nuclear state, which was unacceptable to the Russians. The compromise reached after intense negotiations was to attach a diplomatic note from the Ukrainian president to the Rada resolution stipulating that Ukraine was acceding as a non-nuclear state.
The "Yankee" government was the government of the United States of America. Not even Jefferson Davis disputed that claim.
NEVER recognized the Confederacy as a separate nation.
NO COUNTRY ON EARTH recognized the "Confederacy" as a separate nation.
WV was created out of VAs sovereign territory; which violated the Constitution.
This is your opinion, but it is not the opinion of the people of West Virginia, or the Supreme Court of the United States. Article IV Section 3 makes clear that new states may be formed from existing States by acts of their legislature. The legislature of Virginia declared itself void by its act of secession. The Wheeling Convention was therefore legitimate to represent the people of Virginia. It did so, and announced the formation of a new State in compliance with Article IV Section 3. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, and the admisssion of West Virginia was ratified by Congress.
The theory that the Constitution was a compact among States which retained their rights to remove themselves from it was settled when the various armies in rebellion surrendered. You can refight that war if you wish, but that won't change the historical outcome, nor invalidate decisions of the Supreme Court, nor acts of Congress.
“That means every vote the North Dakota Senators ever voted on is void!”
No, but maybe everything one or both of them voted on that passed by a single or a couple votes.
“depending on your point of view, was part of a foreign nation and was not subject to the Constitution of the United States”
The point of view of the U.S. government was and is that it was a state all along. That’s why they were fighting a war with it, duh.
“The way to secede is like South Carolina did”
You mean by giving a much larger and more sophisticated entity an excuse to crush you?
If you are going to secede secede. Otherwise stand and deliver. I am starting to study the Constitution. There is no reason to secede and every reason not to when you begin to understand it.
The Dakota Territory was an organized, incorporated territory. This means it was a fully integrated part of the national territory of the United States. All provisions of the Constitution fully applied there. Every person born there was a natural born citizen, except Indians.
Until the Constitutionally questionable Insular Cases, in the early 20th Century, there was never a question that the residents of all territories were fully defined as citizens just as were the citizens of each State.
The insular cases created the constitutionally questionable distinction between incorporated territory and unincorporated possessions.
It was a poor attempt at a joke. :)
But, I do appreciate you taking the time to share more information about citizenship with me.
No, a technical irregularity will not void a states admission, it did not for Ohio in 1953, it will not for North Dakota in 2011.
Every act by North Dakota’s government and Congressional delegation is fully lawful. One missing word cannot void the clear will of the Congress and the people of North Dakota.
I kinda got the joke, but I’ve seen people (not on this forum) try to argue that territorial residents and even Washington, DC residents were not citizens, when that clearly was not the founders intent.
Don’t even get me started on the insular cases...
Just because everybody says something is right, doesn’t make it right. The Supreme Court has been wrong n so many cases that it is laughable to cite them as supreme anything (see Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, Wickard v. Filburn, Kelo v. City of New London, etc.)
Just because slave masters and their apologists claim the cotton States had the "right" to secede, that doesn't make it so.
And of course, just because slave owners and their sympathizers claim West Virginia had no right to secede from Virginia (an interesting contradiction, since they think Virginia had the right to secede to begin with) that doesn't make it so, either.
But in fact, the people of West Virginia acted according to the US Constitution. The people of Virginia didn't. Saying they didn't doesn't make it right, 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.