Is North Dakota's Status as a State in Question?

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
  • Tags
    State
In summary, John Rolczynski, a resident of Grand Forks, North Dakota, has been trying to inform legislators that an error in the state's founding document means that technically, North Dakota is not a state. This has garnered attention and sparked conversations about the implications of this mistake. Despite Congress always recognizing North Dakota as a state, it appears that they did not meet the criteria for admission to the Union, leading to questions about the legality and consequences of this error.
  • #1
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,142
1,756
Since N Dakota is a territory and not a State,

Meet John Rolczynski: The Grand Forks, N.D., resident has been trying to tell his legislators that an error in the state's founding document means that technically, North Dakota is not a state.

Sounds like the ravings of a grumpy old man, but as it turns out, Rolczynski was right. News of uncertain statehood has put North Dakota in the spotlight and garnered big buzz.


Here's the story: Back in 1889, North Dakota was carved out of the Dakota Territory and admitted to the Union at the same time as South Dakota. Or so everyone thought...
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/fine-print-north-dakota-may-not-state-195631502.html

And since laws governing territories are different than those governing States, for example

The U.S. Constitution requires a voter to be resident in one of the 50 States or in the District of Columbia to vote in Federal elections...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

I thought it would be interesting to see what violations of the Constitution may have occurred over the last 120 years.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
So we're down to 56 states?

ND has been an ad hoc state (if the claim is true) for over 100 years, why would one minor procedural detail reverse that?
 
  • #3
Ivan Seeking said:
I thought it would be interesting to see what violations of the Constitution may have occurred over the last 120 years.
Huh?
 
  • #4
This is a windfall for me. My father owned a flag manufacturing company. Back in January of 1959 when Alaska was admitted to the union he retooled for the 49 star flag and had built up a good inventory by August when Hawaii was admitted and all of his stock became worthless. We still have it stored away in a warehouse and now we should make a tremendous profit. Thanks Dad, we all still love you. Thanks John Rolczynski too.
 
  • #5
Hmmm...technically Massachusetts, Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania are not states either. They are commonwealths. So it's 52.
 
  • #6
A commonwealth is a title of a state.
 
  • #7
mege said:
So we're down to 56 states?

Vanadium 50 said:
Hmmm...technically Massachusetts, Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania are not states either. They are commonwealths. So it's 52.
Did a lot happen while I was away on vaykay?
 
  • #8
russ_watters said:
Huh?

Huh?
 
  • #9
mege said:
So we're down to 56 states?

ND has been an ad hoc state (if the claim is true) for over 100 years, why would one minor procedural detail reverse that?

Because they were in violation of the Constitution and are therefore not a State.

It was a technical question.
 
  • #10
Congress has always recognized ND as a state. What requirement exists in the federal constitution for a state to require a constitutional oath for admission? (I don't see how it matters if it’s required by the state constitution, as long as it's taken.)
 
Last edited:
  • #11
i've heard this territorist state has a huge stockpile of nukes
 
  • #12
Newai said:
Congress has always recognized ND as a state. What requirement exists in the federal constitution for a state to require a constitutional oath for admission? (I don't see how it matters if it’s required by the state constitution, as long as it's taken.)

The point is that his objection has been taken seriously. This means that ND was technically not a State. That Congress has always recognized ND as a State is one reason why laws were likely technically broken.

It's not like we're going to go back 120 years and undo legislation, but it might be interesting to see what difference it would have made both legally and politically, if ND had been recognized as a territory and not a State.
 
  • #13
Ivan Seeking said:
The point is that his objection has been taken seriously. This means that ND was technically not a State. That Congress has always recognized ND as a State is one reason why laws were likely technically broken.

It's not like we're going to go back 120 years and undo legislation, but it might be interesting to see what difference it would have made both legally and politically, if ND had been recognized as a territory and not a State.

The objection is meaningless as long as Congress recognizes ND as a state, which it did. It was admitted to the Union. The flaw in the state's constitution does not bar it from admission to the Union.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
DaveC426913 said:
Did a lot happen while I was away on vaykay?

That's what I thought too. Maybe they're including the States of Anarchy, Disrepair,Boredom, Mind, Grace, Matter, and Relaxation.
 
  • #15
Newai said:
The objection is meaningless as long as Congress recognizes ND as a state, which it did. It was admitted to the Union. The flaw in the state's constitution does not bar it from admission to the Union.

They didn't meet the criteria for admission to the union. You have things backwards here. Simply breaking laws doesn't undo them. Technically, Congress never should have recognized ND as a State and was in error in doing so. That is the point of the question - albeit a purely technical question, what are the implications of something like this?
 
  • #16
DaveC426913 said:
Did a lot happen while I was away on vaykay?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
Ivan Seeking said:
They didn't meet the criteria for admission to the union. You have things backwards here. Simply breaking laws doesn't undo them. Technically, Congress never should have recognized ND as a State and was in error in doing so.

But that's what I asked earlier: "What requirement exists in the federal constitution for a state to require a constitutional oath for admission?"

What criteria did they not meet?
 
  • #18
daveb said:
... States of Anarchy, Disrepair,Boredom, Mind, Grace, Matter, and Relaxation.

In an astonishing case of synchronicity, virtually this identical quip was made in a planning meeting I just came out of. In fact, the words were uttered about the same time as your post.

No punchline here. God's truth.
 
  • #19
Ivan, you seem to imply that the individual state gets to decide if it is admitted pursuant to its own rules. An Act of Admission does not start at the state level because it is an act of Congress.

I do not have it backwards.
 
  • #20
drankin said:


Sigh. Still on about that huh? It's been over three years. Give it a rest already.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
Char. Limit said:
Sigh. Still on about that huh? It's been over three years. Give it a rest already.

I'm not on about anything, I was answering a question.
 
  • #22
drankin said:
I'm not on about anything, I was answering a question.

Well then I guess redirect that response to whoever brought it up. Mege, right?
 
  • #23
Char. Limit said:
Well then I guess redirect that response to whoever brought it up. Mege, right?

No, Dave did. He didn't seem to understand why people were talking about 57 states.
 
  • #24
drankin said:
No, Dave did. He didn't seem to understand why people were talking about 57 states.

I mean the person who brought up "57 states" in the first place. Which now that I look, is Mege who first mentioned it.
 
  • #25
Char. Limit said:
I mean the person who brought up "57 states" in the first place. Which now that I look, is Mege who first mentioned it.

Yes, Mege was referring to Obama's gaffe. I was showing Dave where the number came from that Mege was referencing. Are we clear yet? LOL
 
  • #26
drankin said:
Yes, Mege was referring to Obama's gaffe. I was showing Dave where the number came from that Mege was referencing. Are we clear yet? LOL

Yup, and so now, I direct this commment:

Char. Limit said:
Sigh. Still on about that huh? It's been over three years. Give it a rest already.

To Mege and Vanadium.
 
  • #27
Char. Limit said:
Yup, and so now, I direct this commment:



To Mege and Vanadium.

LOL, ok we're good!

How about those N Dakotans? :)
 
  • #28
drankin said:
Yes, Mege was referring to Obama's gaffe. I was showing Dave where the number came from that Mege was referencing. Are we clear yet? LOL

It really wasn't a gaffe - he wanted to acknowledge all of the voters - IMO.
 
  • #29
Char. Limit said:
Yup, and so now, I direct this commment:
To Mege and Vanadium.

I agree, it's a bit odd that they just can't seem to let that go. And after all the gaffes made by other presidents (anyone remember W?) and candidates...?

I think, though, that it's a case of the exception proving the rule. Obama is an exceptionally skilled speaker, so when he does goof -- it's news, and people remember it.
 
  • #30
lisab said:
I agree, it's a bit odd that they just can't seem to let that go. And after all the gaffes made by other presidents (anyone remember W?) and candidates...?

I think, though, that it's a case of the exception proving the rule. Obama is an exceptionally skilled speaker, so when he does goof -- it's news, and people remember it.

It wasn't a goof - it was wishful thinking that US Territories could vote for him. If anyone is considering a place to retire - check out the Medicare benefits in Puerto Rico.
 
  • #31
Newai said:
Congress has always recognized ND as a state. What requirement exists in the federal constitution for a state to require a constitutional oath for admission? (I don't see how it matters if it’s required by the state constitution, as long as it's taken.)

Article VI of the Constitution (as was mentioned in the article Ivan linked to).

Ohio had a similar situation, except theirs was imaginary. Congress has to recognize the state once the state has done all its stuff. Congress recognized Ohio as a state on Feb 19, 1803, but they didn't give an official date for statehood. In 1953, Eisenhower finally signed a new bill recognizing Ohio as a state effective March 1, 1803.

Except there was actually no requirement for Congress to declare an official date for statehood. That was just a custom that started with Louisiana, the state admitted immediately after Ohio, and was followed for all the subsequent states admitted to the United States.

By the way, only one person knows whether North Dakota or South Dakota was admitted to the United States first. President Harrison signed the bills admitting each of them to the United States on the same date and refused to tell anyone which order he signed them in (as if it really mattered one way or the other). So, if anything, at least Rolczynski has provided a possible resolution to that question.
 
  • #32
Which is why I wrote, "I don't see how it matters if it’s required by the state constitution, as long as it's taken." The state constitution didn't require the oath be taken (by omission), but was taken nonetheless as declared in Proclamation 292:
Whereas it was provided by the said act that the delegates elected as aforesaid should, after they had met and organized, declare on behalf of the people of North Dakota that they adopt the Constitution of the United States, whereupon the said convention should be authorized to form a constitution and State government for the proposed State of North Dakota

Wikipedia said:
Federal and state legislators, executive officers and judges are, by the third clause of the article, bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.

I'm sorry guys, but I just don't see the problem here.

Kinda sums up my point:
Now, Article VI of the US Constitution does require that “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,” but even that is a moot point. To the best of my knowledge, these officials in North Dakota are sworn in even if the state constitution doesn’t specifically require it.

I hate to rain on this old duffer’s parade, but he’s wrong. If at some point in North Dakota’s history state officials took office without taking their oaths that, specifically, would be unconstitutional. But the lack of such a mandate in the state constitution, redundant of the US Constitution, does not mean North Dakota isn’t a state.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/north-dakota-isnt-really-a-state/
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Char. Limit said:
Yup, and so now, I direct this commment:



To Mege and Vanadium.

I had never heard about this. Thanks. Sorry drankin for getting you in trouble... :smile:
 
  • #34
There were a couple of conjectures in this thread that don't seem to have basis in law.
1. That the executive officers of a territory "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution". It only says that the executive officers of a state must do so. Therefore, there was no error in admitting ND. But once it became a state, apparently it was in violation of article 6.
2. That if a state is found to be in violation of article 6, then it ceases to be a state. This is not written in the constitution, so I don't see how it could hold. In fact the constitution doesn't say what remedy should be taken.
 
  • #35
Jimmy Snyder said:
There were a couple of conjectures in this thread that don't seem to have basis in law.
1. That the executive officers of a territory "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution". It only says that the executive officers of a state must do so. Therefore, there was no error in admitting ND. But once it became a state, apparently it was in violation of article 6.
2. That if a state is found to be in violation of article 6, then it ceases to be a state. This is not written in the constitution, so I don't see how it could hold. In fact the constitution doesn't say what remedy should be taken.

That flaw,” writes the Grand Forks Herald, “also could be at odds with Section 4 of the Enabling Act of Feb. 22, 1889, which said North Dakota and the three other territories then under consideration for statehood could not draft a state constitution that went against the national document.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/8230-will-north-dakota-finally-become-a-state-in-2012
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top