I am not a lawyer and do not know how to research this. I was reading the US constitution this evening and came across a clause which I don’t understand.
Article 4 Section 3: “…nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
What does that mean? What is a Claim of the United States? It sounds like some specific legal term but I have no idea what a Claim is. I know what a claim is, but even that doesn’t compute for me.
Any ideas?
For reference:
Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State 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.
TBH, I think the place to start is this page, the opening of 4 sect.3.
The section has two backgrounds; one that places had existence and laws before entering the union. Many of the early new states after the original 13 were carved out of land claimed by the original 13 and they wanted to ensure that they weren’t getting screwed.
The other was that everybody was either in debt or owed money by those in debt. America was deeply broke, and there were huge concerns about whether colonial debts or those founded on debased continental dollars would be honored. The answers were that new states would be treated exactly as equal to the old states, and that their debts and obligations would be honored. (As did Amdt14.S4.1.1 after the Civil War.)
But it also referred to the endless squabbles of states rights vs. federalism. Were states supreme over their citizens as so many then and after insisted, or did federal power supersede everything when asserted. It took a very long time for the latter to be the answer in the courts. The Civil War settled the issue except for the people who refused to listen, still a nuisance.
I wonder if it might have been in part inspired by disputes between the states and the central government and disputes among the states as to the extent of various state borders. Basically saying that “for those of you with disputes, have no fear: we will not take your decision to ratify this Constitution as evidence you are conceding your disputed claims.”
For instance:
I believe some of those “cessions” arose in part as resolution from disputes (like the part of New York claimed by Massachusetts until 1786).
And how about that part of a Connecticut situated along the… western border of PA?!
What it means is that the federal government (the United States) and individual states had existing assertions (claims) on disputed territories. This section was not to be read (construed) to dispose of (prejudice) those claims.
It was recognising the existence of ongoing territorial disputes and saying “this section doesn’t settle them.”