The fine print: North Dakota may not be a state

The fine print: North Dakota may not be a state

news.yahoo.com

Never doubt the determination of an 82-year-old man to change the world -- or at least the wording of his state's constitution.

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)

What I find most amazing about this is that it's been this way for over 120 years!! How could something so glaring be missed so easily? What this calls into question, for me anyway, is how many other states have similarly mis-worded Constitutions? Has anyone even looked at them? Could there be any other states out there that are illegitimate right now?

TheBorg

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by TheBorg


Holy God, I'm packing my bags now...

ND here I come!!!!!

reply to post by My.mind.is.mine


That made me laugh out loud! I am sure you wouldn't be alone, many would start flocking there. Could you imagine?

reply to post by TheBorg


Go the LCLUT of A!

I wonder if North Dakotan's will get to decide?
With this and California and what we hear from Texas now and again maybe it is indeed time to change the name of our country from The United States of America to The Loosely Connected and Largely Unrelated Territories of America.

reply to post by TheBorg


I wish I could still applaud you, how ever great thread!




I may be mistaken, but by chance this mightbe the peice discussed, which means it is the people of the state, not any single official who has final say on how it's legislation is mandated.

ARTICLE III
POWERS RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE
Section 1. While the legislative power of this state shall be vested in a legislative
assembly consisting of a senate and a house of representatives, the people reserve the power to
propose and enact laws by the initiative, including the call for a constitutional convention; to
approve or reject legislative Acts, or parts thereof, by the referendum; to propose and adopt
constitutional amendments by the initiative; and to recall certain elected officials. This article is
self-executing and all of its provisions are mandatory. Laws may be enacted to facilitate and
safeguard, but not to hamper, restrict, or impair these powers.

North Dakota Constitution

Meaning the recently proposed change, would also be unlawful, as said above, it is the people who have final say, not any single person.

reply to post by ADVISOR


Well, if I recall correctly, the US Constitution requires all government employees to be sworn into office. The issue with ND is that this isn't happening, nor is it required for them to take office. According to the article, the state legislature's trying to amend the state Constitution, but like you said, it's not that easy I don't think.

At the very least, if ND isn't in fact a state, and the citizens choose not to join, then CA can split into two, and we'll be right back at 50 states again!!! Or, we'll rightfully be there anyway..

TheBorg

Yes, but it will only encourage Texans to claim they are their own country, and well every one knows how that ends up. Hmmm, might want to keep tabs on this either way, it could prove serious enough to go all the way up.

reply to post by ADVISOR


Well, while we're discussing the possibility of others doing it, I still shake my head at our US Capitol. How is it that the governing body of our nation is in a territory that isn't a state of the Union? I know the history behind how it was formed and all, but it still begs the question WHY?

TheBorg

Originally posted by TheBorg
reply to post by ADVISOR

 

Well, while we're discussing the possibility of others doing it, I still shake my head at our US Capitol. How is it that the governing body of our nation is in a territory that isn't a state of the Union? I know the history behind how it was formed and all, but it still begs the question WHY?

TheBorg

Easy, so whatever laws are imposed on that union, are NOT imposed on the capital. It may be right around the corner but it is in fact, remote governing.

Originally posted by TheBorg
How is it that the governing body of our nation is in a territory that isn't a state of the Union?

Why would it be in a state? There are some downsides to that. It's too small to be a state by itself. Not being part of a state allows for separation of national and state powers. If it was made part of an existing state, a number of conflicts could arise, such as undue power in one state over the other 49, bias in "pork" distribution (OK that happens anyway but it might actually be worse?). But the separation of state and national powers is probably the biggest issue.

Regarding ND statehood, the guy discovered this in 1995, so it's sure taking them a while to fix it.

Those who joked about moving there better hurry, if voters adopt the proposal it will be official next year.

I'll bet if you go through the constitutions and law books of all the states you could find more discrepancies. Even this one may have gone unnoticed had it not been for one diligent man.

I call dibs on North Dakota....

So if the proper officials never took oath to integrate N.Dakota into the union, then do the citizens that reside in this state, technically ever had to pay any federal taxes? Or for that matter state taxes since they weren't really naturalized as a state? Wait, would those citizens actually be considered American?

NORTH DAKOTA HERE IS YOUR CHANCE, GET OUT!

Come join Canada, we have cookies

Isn't there also questions about Hawaii not being a true state??

BTW, if ND is not a state then what about future or past Presidents that came from there?
Are they eligible??

Maybe it's a ploy to stop Ron Paul..

Maybe this is how states can truly exercise their rights. The US government had a basic purpose back when it was established, and that was to represent the people under the constitution. That no longer seems to be relevant in today's government. If this is how states must challenge the US government so be it. I'll be behind whatever South Dakota wants.

We in the great state of Alaska hereby claim North Dakota (henceforth to be called "Further South Eastern Alaska" ) as our winter vacation spot, where we shall enjoy their balmy, warm winter weather and abundant, dense population of accent-less citizens as our new breatheren.



The more I read on various state constitutions, the more I realize just what a gigantic *facepalm* it is that these loopholes and miswordings have taken so long to discover. I know just by interacting with people on a daily basis that mankind hasn't gotten smarter, so my only explanation for how they seem to just now be making these discoveries is that nobody ever really bothered to actually read the documents in years passed.

That awkward moment when we have to remove a star from every american flag

Originally posted by Elsek
That awkward moment when we have to remove a star from every american flag

Hold off on removing a star.
When Puerto Rico becomes a state then it will all even out.

Originally posted by MrRoboto

NORTH DAKOTA HERE IS YOUR CHANCE, GET OUT!

Come join Canada, we have cookies

That second line got a barking laugh out of me

I'm curious about the technical designation of North Dakota since now it's known to not actually be a state. Territory? I'd assume it is a US territory at the very least, no?
Only in America do we flub statehoods

Originally posted by maybee

Originally posted by Elsek
That awkward moment when we have to remove a star from every american flag

Hold off on removing a star.
When Puerto Rico becomes a state then it will all even out.

Or California splits into North and South.
South California?

Wow! Time for us Canadians and our plans for global conquest to act!

Annex North Dakota!