Nitpick: Zone (no ‘L’)
Also, with a ZIP code, is is not necessary to even put the state name or abbreviation on your letters.
So you’re saying that when I write to my pals in Rhode Island I don’t have to end the address with:
RI 12345
You don’t even to write in the name of the city, just the street address and ZIP code:
123 Main St
12345
PO boxes are each assigned their own ZIP+4 number, so all you have to do to send a letter to those is write the ZIP+4 number.
Yep. I haven’t used a state name on any of my Christmas card addresses for years:
Name
Address
ZIP code
For sorting purposes, the numbers are all they look for.
In theory, if your letter was going to the only resident of a single-family detached dwelling, the 7-digit zip+4 would be all that the USPS required to get them their mail.
Provide me with a citation to written authority that supports this statement?
I’d say a state can call itself whatever it wants to. Nothing in the Constitution that would prevent it from doing so that I’m aware of.
As regards the hijack: the town name and state abbreviation do help if your zip code becomes illegible or was written in a confusing manner.
BTW, Chowder: Your comments here inspired me to start this thread: Clam Chowder Varieties: Rhode Island vs Manhattan vs New England
I think an argument can be made (and probably would be) relating to Article IV section 3:
" Article IV, Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within 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 concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
Congress could argue that changing the state’s name constitutes a significant change as to be “creating a new state” or they could just argue that Congress has the power to dispose and make all needful Rules–including how a state changes its name.
You’d have to change the state’s postal abbreviation, though, wouldn’t you?
There’s Canadian precedent: when Newfoundland changed its official name to Newfoundland and Labrador, the province’s postal abbreviation went from NF to NL. Postal codes of localities in the province didn’t change though.
Now, if a new US state was created out of parts of old states, the ZIP codes of the localities involved would not change, but the name of the new state would get a new postal abbreviation. And woe if they were running out of abbreviations! “Yes, Governor, we welcome the new state of Cecilia, the 661st* territory in the Union, but unfortunately the only postal abbreviations we have left are QX, ZV, and PP. Which would you like?”
There’s Canadian precedent for that as well. When Nunavut was carved out of the Northwest Territories in 1999, it received the new postal abbreviation of NU. Localities in Nunavut were previously part of the NWT and retained their postal codes.
Now, the real headscratcher would be to combine the two postal code systems, for example, if there was a merger between Canada and the US. Neither existing system could be used, because both fully spread out and use themselves up in covering their countries. A new one would have to be created.
[sub]* There would be a maximum of 26*26 = 676 potential two-letter postal abbreviations. Subtract 13 for Canadian two-letter postal abbreviations, which do not overlap with those of the States, and you have 663 available. For there to be three left, 660 territories must already have taken theirs.[/sub]
Changing your name isn’t making a new state, and you know it, and so would Congress.
And the “make all needful Rules and Regulations” is relevant only to property of the United States as a whole, you know, territories and things like that, so it’s not relevant at all.
So, no, there is no foundation for the assertion that you have to get an Act of Congress to make a name change.
The states (& New Zealand) are mentioned by name in the preamble of the Australian constitution; would an amendment be required for one of them to change it’s name?
Lawyers have made cases based on flimsier stuff than this–think of all the situations that have fallen under the interstate commerce clause–in fact, since changing the name of a state may cause out-of-state businesses to have to change their letterhead and endure other expenses, the state changing its name situation could fall under the this clause as well.
It would take an act of Congress to change a state’s name and be thankful that it would otherwise it wouldn’t take long before some Grover Norquist-type person would be trying to name a state after Ronald Reagan.
That’s a rather bold assertion, given that you’ve provided no convincing evidence for it. As far as I know, no existing US state has ever changed its name while a member of the union, so there’s no political or legal precedent. But as it stands, I don’t see how Article IV § 3 could possibly be interpreted so as to proscribe a name change.
I, for one, propose that the State of New York be immediately renamed to the Holy Empire of Hercules Rockefeller so we can settle this question for once and for all.
You have made absolutely no case for this. You have no evidence that it would be required. It is nothing more than your opinion, and that opinion is based upon nothing but your own made-up interpretation of the words “new state” which interpretation you offer no evidence to support.
Case Dismissed, counselor. :rolleyes:
Elendil’s Heir, J., concurring.
I don’t think Congress would have any say in the matter. If, as seems likely, Rhode Island changes its name, it would still have the same territory, republican form of government, population, representation in the House and Senate, Electoral College votes etc. as it did before, and Art. IV, Sec. 3 would not be implicated. I know of no other constitutional provision or Federal statute giving Congress the power to block a state’s name change. Just because no state has changed its name after joining the Union doesn’t mean it can’t happen now. In a democracy, what is not prohibited is permitted.
And as the joke goes… in a dictatorship, what is not prohibited is compulsory.
… and I gotta say, I would so* move* to the Holy Empire of Hercules Rockefeller …
In the case of Rhode Island, it may be that the only things around at the Federal level that explicitly reference it as the State of R.I.&P.P. are whatever documents from before the War of 1812 are still in effect (e.g. the part of the Constitution about how the First Congress would be apportioned) so it would not be any big deal for the Feds. (Now, changing it to the “State of RIPP”, just like that, with the letters no longer standing for anyting a-la-ATT, that would be a curveball)
Objection! You guys completely missed the interstate commerce clause argument: Article I Section 8 Clause 3. The US Congress has the power to regulate commerce between states. A name change could cause a significant cost burden for businesses inside and outside the state.
And my third argument that you’d need an Act of Congress:
“To change the name, lawmakers must alter the state constitution
and need Congress to change the federal Enabling Act, which split
the Dakota Territory into the states of North and South Dakota
in 1889.”
–USA Today, June 27, 2001, Page 3A, Debbie Howlett
(And Congress gets its power for this Enabling Act through Article IV Section 3. Case closed. 
…in the case of North Dakota & other states admitted after the ratification of the Constitution. The original 13 states may be different.)
Enabling acts are granted to federal territories before they become states. The one in particular that your article refers to is the Enabling Act of 1889, a big one which authorized the organization of the two Dakotas (from what used to be the Dakota Territory), Montana and Washington. As federal territories, their names and forms of government are at the whims of Congress, but as states they now have their own sovereign character, and the federal government has never attempted to intervene in such matters of internal state government.
I also don’t buy your interstate commerce argument: that an action would be a burden to interstate commerce (a premise which is dubious in itself) does not compel the federal government to regulate that action.
And of course, New York, being an Original Thirteen, doesn’t have an enabling act at all. So my plans shall continue unabated.