National Rejection

[Czarcasm]

We all know about the process of adding states to the U.S.A., but is there a way to UN-make or reject a state by Congress? Can the charter be revoked?

[RealityChuck]

Article IV Section 3 of the Constitution seems to cover it.

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into the union, but no new state shall be formed or erected withing the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States involved as well as of the Congress.

If you eliminated a state, you'd be divvying up its territory among existing states, so it requires the legislatures and Congress to agree.

You could, in theory, sell a state to Canada, but that would require the legislature, Congress, and Canada (and maybe even the Canadian province) to agree (as a matter of fact, I think the U.S. has occasionally ceded small parts of existing states to Canada). However, if this actually becomes a serious issue, all bets are off; by the letter of the clause, the formation of West Virginia was unconstitutional (Virginia was part of the CSA at the time. Since the USA still considered the rebels part of their jurisdiction, it required Virginia's approval).

------------------
www.sff.net/people/rothman (http://www.sff.net/people/rothman)

[coffeecat]

Do you suppose they'd be interested in buying Kansas?

[Czarcasm]

But could you do it WITHOUT that states permission? Is there a specific set of laws that cover this?

[NanoByte]

But why are you saying an ejected state has to become part of an existing nation, or that the US has to even worry about what happens to it? I don't, in what was quoted here of the Constitution, anything that says the US can't get rid of a state.

What if the Philippines had become a state while it was a US commonwealth, but later we decided it was too much of a different culture and decided to eject it? I don't know whether you're also considering states that choose to secede. Socorro County, NM never seemed to be able to get anywhere with its attemps to secede; of course, it's surrounded on all sides by other NM counties.

The news reported that a town in TX, El Cenizo (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/08/13/MN18989.DTL), decided the other day to do official business in Spanish only and to refuse to deal with the INS. Considerable trouble was predicted for it.

Ray

[NanoByte]

Oh, and, coffeecat, I hope you aren't asking much for Kansas. Maybe you could make a good trade though. I think almost anything would be better.

Ray (but I don't think we're out of Kansas yet, Dorothy.)

PS: As a Californian, since the state is claimed to have the seventh largest economy in the world, I'm expecting any day that it will proclaim its independence. I'm sure it would've left the Union a long time ago if it could've gotten some kind of protectorate defense agreement. However, if it did opt out, I think I'd move to another state; I hate its rotten government. Actually, though, I think the whole SF Bay Area would secede from CA if the latter left the Union.

[Markxxx]

It is my understanding that Before West Virginia became a state, it was part of Virginia. It also refused to leave with what is now Virgina. So the Union recongnized it as the legitimate government of ALL of Virgina. (Kind of like the US recognizing Taiwain as the legitimate government for all of China till 1978 even though it really wasn't.) Thus Virginia DID give it's consent to be divided up.

As for dividing state without consent they would need to pass an amendment altering that part of the constitution. Even though it is argued that part of the constitution cannot be amended. I believe it could.

[Monty]

Markxxx: that was one hell of a leap from "legitimate government of all of China" to "really wasn't." You left out "the actual government of all of China." Now the same can still be said of the People's Republic of China; it has always claimed, as has the Kuo Min Tan, to be the legitimate government of all of China; yet, they're each only the actual government of a portion of China's territory.

So what do you have to say about the Dalai Lama's claim?

[Czarcasm]

Monty, interesting question, but "slightly" off topic. Start a new thread, please. This is my thread. MINE, MINE, MINE!!!

Sorry. I mistook the aspirin for the lithium again.

[Rich Barr]

According to Article V of the Constitution: "Provided that ...no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Sufferage in the Senate." This is considered unamendable, and in context was clearly meant to be permanent. Since throwing a state out of the Union would be depriving it of its equal sufferage in the Senate, there is no constitutional way to accomplish this. We're stuck with Kansas, like it or not.

West Virginia was the result of Lincoln's view that he could do whatever he liked, constitutional or not, to cope with the rebellion. West Virginia's separate identity was NOT constitutional, but it has been ratified by time, you might say. (Though I, for one, would certainly like to see Virginia sue to get its renegade counties back--would that be fun to watch on Court TV or what?)

As for California seceding...the precedent is that the federal government would bomb, burn, and shoot it to a pulp. Is this precedent constitutional? No, but as the Supreme Court liked to put it in cases arising from the Civil War, the issue was "settled on the battlefield." In other words, the winner is ALWAYS right.



------------------
Nature abhors a vacuum, which means there are a lot of people whose brains are in mortal peril.

I was involved in a discussion on this subject on another board and someone said that Virgina had to retroactively approve the creation of West Virgina when they were readmitted to the Union after the Civil War. So while the original creation of West Virginia may have been shakey on constitutional grounds, it's too late for Virgina to protest it now.

Sorry for the poor spell checking. I meant Virginia.

[Rich Barr]

[[someone said that Virgina had to retroactively approve the creation of West Virgina when they were readmitted to the Union after the Civil War.]]

I hadn't heard that, Mike, though it could well be that was one of the conditions imposed during Reconstruction. On the other hand, it seems to me that such a requirement would have been an outright admission that the creation of West Virginia was illegal in the first place.

Any Virginians or West Virginians with a position on this?


------------------
Nature abhors a vacuum, which means there are a lot of people whose brains are in mortal peril.

[Lumpy]

Well that gets into the whole subject of the former Confederate states having to ratify constitutional amendments as a condition of readmission to the Union. Every so often I read in various places about how such 'extorted' ratifications are legally void. I would presume that such claims have been tossed out of court before now, but you could pretty much start an entire new thread on the subject.


------------------
Point and Click: How Custer discovered he'd run out of ammo.

[RealityChuck]

But could you do it WITHOUT that states permission? Is there a specific set of laws that cover this?

Nothing specific, but since Article IV Section 3 essentially requires a state's approval for any change in its territory, it would most likely be construed as requring approval to be kicked out of the union.

------------------
www.sff.net/people/rothman (http://www.sff.net/people/rothman)

[Markxxx]

Why couldn't you pass an amendment saying article V of the constitution is repealed? Since it was passed later it would supersede all other parts of the constitution and render that part null.

I also don't see what's so wrong in saying that Taiwain's claim to be the legitimate governement of China was at best ludicrous(spelling??). It never had control over 99.9% of the country. Just like the Britsh saying Rhodesia wasn't independent cause they didn't recognize it. It still was.

Back to WV though. After the war VA asked WV to reunite and it refused. Then had to pay for part of the state debt it had when still part of VA.

[earendel1]

Notwithstanding the Constitutional provisions previously cited, it is my understanding that under the terms of the treaty by which the nation of Texas became a part of the US, they were granted the right to form as many as five states -- a right which (according to my admittedly faulty memory) still remains to this day. Thus it might be possible for the area around the D/FW metroplex to be one state, another could form around Houston/Galveston, etc. Each new state would receive admission to the union and be entitled to representation in Congress (two senators and a number of representatives based on its population).

[AWB]

Re: West Virginia

A few years ago, then-Gov. George Allen referred to WV as "the counties that call themselves West Virginia". Seems to me that there's still some official disagreement in VA that WV is its own state.

But then, all the official logos in VA that have the state silhouette show VA w/o WV.

Also, the US flag w/ 50 stars is flown in VA. (But then, maybe VA just doesn't recognize the symbolism that the stars represent states.)

Frankly, being a Virginia taxpayer, I don't want them back. They'd drag down the economy of VA.

[matt_mcl]

Do you suppose they'd be interested in buying Kansas?

We don't want it. We already have Alberta, which is bad enough.

[manhattan]

How 'bout we swap Kansas for Alberta and a territory to be named later?

------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[Rich Barr]

[[Notwithstanding the Constitutional provisions previously cited... under the terms of the treaty by which the nation of Texas became a part of the US, they were granted the right to form as many as five states -- a right which... still remains to this day.]]

Yes, I've heard of that, and as far as I know the right theoretically still exists. How it would work in practice, I don't know. (This wouldn't violate any constitutional provision, though--it would be the State of Texas, rather than Congress, causing the breakup of the state.)

An interesting counterpart (which has nothing to do with the subject, but oh well) is the formation of the United Nations. Stalin originally insisted that the component repubilcs of the Soviet Union be full members--a way of padding his vote totals, in effect. Roosevelt told Uncle Joe that was fine, but all 48 states would have to be full members too. This should have put paid to the whole idea, but Stalin apparently couldn't back down completely (it might have been a sign of weakness internally) so he compromised. The Soviet repubics of Belarus and Ukraine became full voting members of the UN, and the United States was given the right to name two states to full membership as well. (No states were ever named--constitutionally it wouldn't have worked--but the theoretical right probably still exists.)

------------------
Nature abhors a vacuum, which means there are a lot of people whose brains are in mortal peril.

[Monty]

Wouldn't you say that it's the State of Texas initiating the breakup? As it is, the Congress would still have to admit the new states into the Union.

[Monty]

Drat! Hit the button too soon!

Please add "before the new states could be considered part of the union. The Congress is under no obligation so to do."

Cheers!
-Chip

[Big Iron]

[[We already have Alberta, which is bad enough.]] Matt


Hey, Alberta's got Calgary, Banff, and gobs of oil -- how bad can it be?

[Contestant #3]

IIRC, a couple of years ago it was discovered that by virtue of some document-filing technicality, Ohio was not actually a state.

I remember that some people started scheming ways to get out of their Ohio State Income taxes, but some declaration was passed that righted the technicality and alas, Ohio remained a state.

------------------
Contestant #3

[John W. Kennedy]

IIRC, a couple of years ago it was discovered that by virtue of some document-filing technicality, Ohio was not actually a state.

I remember that some people started scheming ways to get out of their Ohio State Income taxes, but some declaration was passed that righted the technicality and alas, Ohio remained a state.


More complicated than that. They claimed that the 16th amendment, authorizing the federal income tax, was invalid because Taft was not really President because he wasn't a native-born American because Ohio was not really a state.

The truth:

A) The "paperwork" in question is not required.

B) In any case, Congress made the paperwork a dead issue as soon as the first Ohio senator or representative was seated.

C) Besides that, Ohio was part of the United States before it was a state, so Taft was a native-born citizen anyway.

D) Besides that, law doesn't work like mathematical theorems or computer programs. Even if it were to be shown today that Taft had not been eligible to be President, it wouldn't legally invalidate anything he did. (This is because of a legal doctrine that is known by a Latin phrase that loosely translates as: "Get real!")

E) And in any case, the President has nothing to do with the process of amending the Constitution.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[matt_mcl]

Hey, Alberta's got Calgary, Banff, and gobs of oil -- how bad can it be?

Pff, it's also got Ralph Klein, Preston Manning, mosquitoes, racist lunatics, and police who blow up oil wells and blame it on environmentalists. As far as I'm concerned it's already a de facto US state. It's, like, Utah North or something.

And no, you can't have any of our territories. Or Quebec.

[Big Iron]

[[And no, you can't have any of our territories. Or Quebec.]]

Sorry, Matt -- once Quebec secedes (and we don't want them), we'll be coming for the Maritime Provinces. Look out!

[Monty]

Matt:

Are you sure? I'd kind of like to have your newest territory, Nunavut. Two reasons for that: (1) I love the sound of the name, and (2) the territorial flag is pretty cool.

Cheers!
-Chip