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

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    State
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the controversial claim by John Rolczynski that North Dakota is not a legitimate state due to a procedural error in its founding document from 1889. Participants debate the implications of this assertion, highlighting that while Congress has historically recognized North Dakota as a state, the lack of a required constitutional oath for admission raises questions about its legal status. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of such a claim, including potential violations of the U.S. Constitution and the historical context of state admissions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of U.S. statehood and territorial laws
  • Familiarity with the U.S. Constitution, particularly Article VI
  • Knowledge of the historical context of North Dakota's admission to the Union
  • Awareness of the implications of constitutional oaths for state officials
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the historical context of North Dakota's admission to the Union in 1889
  • Examine the legal requirements for statehood as outlined in the U.S. Constitution
  • Investigate the implications of constitutional oaths for state officials
  • Explore case studies of other states with similar historical claims or controversies
USEFUL FOR

Legal scholars, historians, political scientists, and anyone interested in the complexities of U.S. statehood and constitutional law.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,213
Reaction score
2,657
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
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
Hmmm...technically Massachusetts, Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania are not states either. They are commonwealths. So it's 52.
 
A commonwealth is a title of a state.
 
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?
 
russ_watters said:
Huh?

Huh?
 
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.
 

Similar threads

News The Obama Administration is Violating the Law
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K