As I understand it (no cite), North Dakota is thinking of changing it’s name to just “Dakota” so that it doesn’t sound so… cold. Really? Is that all they need to do to attract tourists is charge their state’s name? I don’t think so…
Wouldn’t that put West Virginia east of Virginia? Are they going to have to change their name to East Virginia? Or will Virginia have to become West West Virginia?
I think I saw that on “How the States Got Their Shapes.”
The state constitution doesn’t forbid other oaths or affirmations. It just says they’re not required.
However, I agree that section of the North Dakota Constitution is wrong. The United States Constitution (which has precedence over a state constitution) does require the governor and other state executive officers to take an oath or affirmation.
It’s apparently always been a moot point. North Dakota executives have apparently never chosen to invoke the part of the state constitution that gives them the option of not taking an oath and therefore have never come into conflict with the federal constitutional requirement that they take such an oath. And there’s currently a bill in North Dakota to amend the state constitution to close this loophole.
Interesting we currently have three separate debates going on about the three sections of Article VI.
As mentioned, that was a serious proposal for a time, before the states were formed. But I believe the plan was rejected because it would have put all the good agricultural land in the East, leaving the West with bupkis for growing. In the days when a lot of food was made locally, that was an important consideration.
I’ve heard that too, but if that’s their goal, I recommend changing it to “North Florida”. No sense in being timid about this.
It’s not as if the rest of us think of South Dakota as balmy. They’re hung up on the wrong half of their name.
In 2001, changing the state name was reported to be a positionof the ND Chamber of Commerce, but it is not currently listed among that organization’s policy positions and legislative agenda.
I believe (without doing the research to prove it) that old flags can be used indefinitely.
You forgot:[ul][*]Secede and join Mexico.[/ul]
Darn, I guess this means I can’t get out of paying my income tax.
Oh I thought this was going to be about how the guy, whoever it was, shuffled the papers when they were to be signed so we don’t know which Dakota was the 39th state and which one was the 40th. This was a popular story told to us when I was in grade school.
ND unemployment rate is 3.2% see what being illegal does
If they want tourists, how about changing the name to North Takoma? And then change the name of Minot to Springfield. All the Simpsons’ fans will then flock to there (Not!).
Actually, many South Dakotans routinely refer to East River and West River; the river in question being the Missouri River. Although the river doesn’t cut the state in half, there is a distinct difference in terrain and land use. Obviously the distinction isn’t black and white as the change in terrain is gradual and not abrupt. Still, the distinction works well if one knows the geography of South Dakota.
Yes, they can. You & I know that, but it seems that a bunch of the conspiracy theorists don’t. Or don’t believe it. Somehow the flag, or gold fringe on it, or something like that renders null & void any court decisions in a courtroom with such a flag, etc.
Well, that and having oil there.
We can recycle all of the flags used 4 July 1959 to 4 July 1960.
Not sure I understood your post exactly (re: degree of humor vs. seriousness), but I just dropped in to relate this fun little fact:
The State (Commonwealth) of Virginia is actually further west than West Virginia.
ETA: Now that I think about it a little, it seems calling them “North Virginia” and “South Virginia” might have made more sense.
Well, we definitely don’t want North Dakota to become a sovereign state. Probably don’t want to let the Canadians have it either, for much the same reason.