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

[BobG]

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.

 

[Newai]

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

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/

 

[DaveC426913]

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...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

 

[SW VandeCarr]

If North Dakota is not a state, maybe it should just remain whatever it is. With the nation's lowest unemployment rate and a budget surplus, why change now?

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/oil-riches-let-north-dakota-s-governor-dalrymple-bank-surplus-in-hard-time.html

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.”

This doesn't contradict anything I wrote unless Section 4 offers a remedy that includes removing North Dakota's statehood status.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This doesn't contradict anything I wrote unless Section 4 offers a remedy that includes removing North Dakota's statehood status.

Who said anything about changing their status? Didn't I specifically say that we are talking technicalities here?

The point was that they were never eligible in the first place [at least, so it seems to have been successfully argued]. Were this recent history and not a 120 year old mistake, it could easily lead to legal issues of all sorts; from challenges to tax laws, to commerce laws, to election results.

They are moving to change the oath, not to remove a star from the US flag.