Btw, forgot to add, if you want to know more about the law with regard to Chamizal, take a look at 22 USCA 277(d)-17. Yeah, I have too much time on my hands. 
Well, all we need do is wait until continental drift takes Point Roberts north of the 49th parallel, then!
BTW, while you picked up on the Panama Canal Zone, the classic example of Congress’s power to alienate land held by the United States and not part of a state is the transferrence of the Philippine Islands, a territory of the United States since 1899, to the newly-formed Republic of the Philippines in 1946.
I suspect similar examples could also be constructed from the new Micronesian nations that were part of our Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, though the U.N. trusteeship might confuse the issue in that case.
Bah. 54º 40" or Fight!, thats what I say about the whole matter!
Certainly, a treaty cannot contravene the Constitution. The government, for example, cannot enforce a treaty which would require it to abridge our freedom of speech. My intent in citing the Supremacy Clause was to argue that, although a state cannot take itself out of the Union, the more powerful federal government can kick out a small part of a state.
If I were the solicitor general, my argument defending the Point Roberts Treaty would be:
(1) Clearly the federal government can alienate land not belonging to a state–we conferred independence on the Philippines, retroceded the Canal Zone to Panama, ceded part of the Louisiana Purchase to Canada via the Convention of 1818, and so forth.
(2) Clearly also the federal government can resolve boundary disputes, even when the land involved is part of a state. We have the Webster-Ashburton treaty settling the border of Maine, and the Chamizal Treaty. In the Chamizal case, the land was settled by people believing they were living in the United States and in Texas, and the United States, prior to the treaty, had been defending that claim. Nevertheless, the land was ceded.
(3) It’s but a small jump, then, to cede land belonging to a state for other reasons. If the federal government can cede land to settle a boundary dispute, surely it can do so to further the convenience of the people living there, so that they can order pizzas and walk to school. 'Tis but a small distinction from Chamizal.
In the unlikely event that my amateur lawyering lost the case 
, we could still cede Point Roberts by constitutional amendment. So I think the more fruitful argument is not can we cede Point Roberts but should we. But I don’t know jack about Point Roberts, so I don’t have much to say about that.
Pt. Roberts should become an independent and soverign nation. Once Angle Inlet becomes independent too, they could ally, and world conquest would be theirs.
Hmm, maybe they should be stopped now?
While we’re at it, let’s make all of the Eastern Shore part of Maryland, and give Wisconsin the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
And let’s lop off those damn panhandles. Texas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma can just give those up. Idaho, too.
Except nobody wants those panhandles, do they?
Not only should all of the Eastern Shore be a part of Maryland - Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware and Virginia should join together into one giant super state. The Dakotas and the Carolinas should fuse, since there’s no point in having two of them. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, and Rhode Island should become the giant state of New England. Oregon divied up between Washington and California. Sell Oklahoma to the Japanese for some extra cash to pay down the debt with.
The UP was given to us as as part of the settlement of the little-known (though you may know) Toledo War between us and the barbaric monsters of Ohio. (State motto: Drive through us to get to Michigan!). Do you really want to open up old wounds again?
“Never Forget!” is our motto…
While we’re at it, we need to connect up the Northwest Angle with Minnesota, so Canada should just cede Manitoba to the US. Seems like a fair swap.
This is actually what I was asking. Thanks for posting it, as I haven’t had coffee and my fingers and brain aren’t working right yet.
We’ve already had one example (W. Va) where a state was “split” (although the legality of it was disputed by Neurotik). But what about Maine? Maine was, IIRC, part of Massachusettes until 1820, was it not? And it was split off into another state.
Zev Steinhardt
Ah, but was it done so with Massachusetts’ permission? Because if Massachusetts had given permission for Maine to be made its own state, then it would be legal.
Not meaning to be obstructive or obnoxious here, Johnny, but this is what popped into my head when I read the OP.
“Should Great Britain give Ulster to Ireland?”
A government that’s of-the-people, for-the-people, and by-the-people ought to consult the people before making a change like this, doncha think? 
You folks are all so busy discussing territorial relations between American states that you’re forgetting that we’re talking about two different sovereign nations here. You can’t just break off a chunk of one nation and sign it over to another nation. Poland and Eastern Europe was divvied up post-WWII. Was that a Good Thing?
http://www.polishworld.com/polemb/english/poland_history.html
Those folks weren’t given much of a choice–move.
The Alsace goes back and forth between Germany and France.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/alsace_history.asp
870–German
1648–French.
1871–German.
1918–French.
1940–German.
1945–French.
It gives me a headache just to read it–I can’t imagine what it must be like to live there.
DDG: I don’t know enough about the Troubles to discuss them, but I think this is different. (For example, there aren’t people killing each other over Pt. Roberts.) So I’d rather not bring No. Ireland into it.
In any case, if all parties are agreeable, why not?
Well, if all parties are agreeable, then sure. But all parties needs to include Canada, British Columbia, the US, Washington state, the government of Pt. Roberts and every single person in Pt. Roberts.
Otherwise, it’s a no go.
Well, sure, we can have a conversation about ‘should’ we give it away, I just thought that answering the threshold question of whether we can do so might be a good place to start.
Carry on!
All the dopers from the major lakeside city of Cleveland, Connecticut, should be aware of other cessions of land by the states to the Federal government. Seems to me I remember something about the Northwest Ordinance, too.
I didn’t know folks were forced to live in such depravation, away from schooling and pizza? If folks don’t like it there can move, there is no need to give it to Canada, there is no problem.
Agreed, and it’s clear from Article IV of the Constitution that you need to have the permission of the state. Now assume Washington gave permission to the feds to give Point Roberts to the Canadians.
Zev Steinhardt
I’ve actually been to Pt. Roberts myself. Personally, I think it’s kind of neat that there’s a place in the US (along with the Northwest Angle of Minnesota) that the only way one can get to it by land is by first going through another country. But I guess I’m a geek when it comes to such geographic oddities