Does Missing Word Mean North Dakota Isn’t a State?
John Rolczynski has been working tirelessly since 1995 to persuade judges and lawmakers that North Dakota isn’t a state.
The 82-year-old Grand Forks resident finally got a state senator to listen to his argument that a missing word in the state constitution makes North Dakota a territory, rather than a state, the Grand Forks Herald reports. As a result, a state constitutional fix will be put on the ballot in November 2012.
The newspaper summarizes Rolczynski’s argument. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution requires the executive, judicial and legislative branches in the states to be bound by an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. But the North Dakota Constitution requires only the legislative and judicial branches to take the oath. The word “executive” is not included. And North Dakota has to follow the federal Constitution under the enabling act that paves the way for statehood.
Vermont law professor Cheryl Hanna tells the BBC that North Dakota’s statehood is safe, even if voters turn down the amendment. It’s true that Article VI requires all legislative, executive and judicial officers in the states to be bound by an oath to uphold the US Constitution, she says. But Article IV gives Congress the power to decide whether to admit a state to the union.
“Congress approved North Dakota as a state, so theoretically Congress would need to take the decision to disapprove it as a state,” she explained. “I wouldn’t go remaking the U.S. flag any time soon.”
Hat tip to Pat’s Papers.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
