This is why I for one have always advocated a preemptive military strike on Canada, just to ensure they don’t get any ideas like this. But I suspect the chances of such a preemptive strike happening are roughly equal to a state capital ever being outside its state.
The OP specified that they wanted to know about USA states, so yeah you were verging off-topic into irrelevance.
When people are suggesting that certain things that are not legally prohibited are inconceivable or impossible, offering examples from actual things that have happened in the world are absolutely relevant.
As mentioned in passing, the Constitution requires Congress to designate a seat of government and it did so with the Residence Act of 1790. Camp David is not the “summer capital” of the US in any way.
While Congress moved around like a circus during the Revolutionary War, the seat of the United States government is factually and legally Washington, DC, until a new law designates some other seat of government.
It is conceivable that Congress may have to move to the basement of the Greenbriar Hotel in West Virginia in case of a national emergency, but it is baseless to conclude that the Greenbriar would then be the capital of the United States.
Ever since the Washington Post revealed the existence of the secret bunker at the Greenbriar, it has ceased to be the designated emergency location for Congress. There’s a culinary school in there now, and they give tours and I think they even let people camp out there.
The United States recognized the governments in exile of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonian for a half a century. So there is certainly a precedent in American political philosophy for a recognized government to exist while seated outside the territory so governed.
The entire premise of it made me laugh. How weird it would be if Wisconsins capital was somewhere in the Blue Mountains of Oregon.
In the internet age, it’s certainly not impossible for all the necessary political business to be done remotely. As noted, other countries have managed it on occasion.
I can’t be the only one thinking of the following scenario after reading the OP…
[Thick Indian Accent]Tank you for calling the South Carolina Statehouse… this is Governor “Steve”… how can I help you today?[/Thick Indian Accent]
A natural disaster or chemical spill destroys a state capital or renders it temporarily unusable for official services. It is decided that this city should remain the capital in the long-term, but another city will need to serve as capital for the next few years during rebuilding. It’s decided that moving to another existing city in the state may trigger some sort of unwanted power shift or result in people attempting to make that city the permanent capital. Or possibly simply that there’s a nearby city that would serve the purposes better but is across state lines.
I could almost imagine this being the case if Madison, WI was somehow demolished. Rockford, IL is only an hour or so away and would probably have the infrastructure in place to provide temporary facilities for the WI government. The only problem being…well, it’s Illinois. We’re not exactly famous for our helpful, selfless, not-pocket-picking-of-any-organization-than-crosses-our-borders ways.
And in that case, Milwaukee is about an hour away, too.
Look, the clear answer is that in some states states, the capital is designated by the state constitution. In some states, the capital may be designated by law. So the capitals, in any realistic sense, aren’t moving anywhere. Could those laws be changed? Yes, and could my mother be a car? Yes, if I add wheels and an engine to her.
In the end, this is the same sort out outlandish scenario investigated by asking whether President Obama could use a recess appointment to give Malia a seat on the Supreme Court to help improve her college applications. Sure, in weirdo world he could do such a thing, but that doesn’t mean it is a relevant question. It just isn’t going to happen, because people would freak out if someone attempted such bizarre political maneuvers.
I don’t really count ‘government in exile’ scenarios as moving the capitol, because in those cases I would expect that the Capital city remains the same, and that whatever is left of the government meets at a temporary location, even if it takes years to get back to the real capital. In the case of Canada occupying Maine, you’re still going to have most of the day-to-day government functions in the state, the Canadian Overlords are just going to direct them from above. I still don’t see a scenario where you’d want to move your actual capital out of the state.
I think it’s going to be a very long time before criminal trials and appeals or management of law enforcement are handled remotely. And I don’t think the general legislative business is ever going to be handled entirely electronically, since that leaves too much of a record of deals that people want kept private.
The other countries that have ‘managed it’ don’t have sovereign, indivisible subunits as far as I know. There is a big difference between putting a county seat of government in a city that isn’t part of a county when both derive their authority from the state and both only exist at the whim of the state, or putting the head of a province in another province when both derive their authority from the country and both exist only at the whim of the Federal government. US states have much more authority in their own territory and no real recourse in another state’s territory, and governments aren’t going to voluntarily set up shop in territory they don’t actually govern.
Right. Many of the most interesting GQ questions have to do with legal theory questions that don’t have a lot of practical use because they involve scenarios that are politically, socially, economically, or cosmologically unfeasible and are thus unlikely to come up in real legal cases or law review articles. Is it legal for men over 90 to wear miniskirts during a blizzard? Almost certainly yes, but very few men will do so and so no one thought to pass a law against such a peculiar act. If, however, some jurisdiction did pass such a law forbidding such, that would 1) be inherently interesting and 2) Provide an interesting insight into political attitudes, ideas, and systems in that jurisdiction (like, why do they care more about that than, say, beefing up their environmental protection laws?).
Thanks, for what I think amounts to a defense of my question.
If practical unlikelihood trumps possibility in theory when determining which questions are worth considering, then probably 75% of GQ should just go away.
I never thought it was likely; I wondered, basically, whether any state, while drafting its constitution or amending it sometime after, was nervous enough about the possibility (or perhaps had other reasons) that they thought they’d better come right out and forbid it, just in case. If my OP doesn’t reflect that, I apologize.