Is North Dakota's Status as a State in Question?

[SW VandeCarr]

If North Dakota is not a state, maybe it should just remain whatever it is. With the nation's lowest unemployment rate and a budget surplus, why change now?

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/oil-riches-let-north-dakota-s-governor-dalrymple-bank-surplus-in-hard-time.html

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That flaw,” writes the Grand Forks Herald, “also could be at odds with Section 4 of the Enabling Act of Feb. 22, 1889, which said North Dakota and the three other territories then under consideration for statehood could not draft a state constitution that went against the national document.”

This doesn't contradict anything I wrote unless Section 4 offers a remedy that includes removing North Dakota's statehood status.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This doesn't contradict anything I wrote unless Section 4 offers a remedy that includes removing North Dakota's statehood status.

Who said anything about changing their status? Didn't I specifically say that we are talking technicalities here?

The point was that they were never eligible in the first place [at least, so it seems to have been successfully argued]. Were this recent history and not a 120 year old mistake, it could easily lead to legal issues of all sorts; from challenges to tax laws, to commerce laws, to election results.

They are moving to change the oath, not to remove a star from the US flag.