Is North Dakota a State?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:53:16 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Is North Dakota a State?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Is North Dakota a State?  (Read 1421 times)
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 14, 2011, 01:05:17 PM »

Ran across this today and had to share it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14142111

Of course, the constitutional lawyer quoted in the piece is right.  But, wouldn't it be funny if North Dakota really were an independent Territory until at least the state constitutional amendment is put in front of the voters in November of next year?

On the minus side, we would have to retroactively subtract our electoral votes from the last 30 presidential races, kick our three guys out of Congress and adjust Congressional voting records accordingly.  Smiley

On the plus side, as an independent Territory, I'm fairly sure that North Dakota would have to be reckoned the world's third largest nuclear power.  So, here is the list of things we want...
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2011, 06:27:30 PM »

Technically, if North Dakota were not a State then it would revert to its previous status as an organized incorporated Territory, so the Dakota Territorial Militia wouldn't be in control of the nukes.
Logged
Dgov
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,558
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2011, 07:06:36 PM »

Wasn't Ohio technically not a state until the 1950s or something?
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2011, 07:29:33 PM »

Technically, if North Dakota were not a State then it would revert to its previous status as an organized incorporated Territory, so the Dakota Territorial Militia wouldn't be in control of the nukes.

Ah.  Well...shucks.  I had a nice list of demands worked up.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,700
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2011, 11:06:25 PM »

I'm going to encourage my parents to vote against this, just because I like the novelty of this current status, which I'm disappointed I never learned of while living there.
Logged
CultureKing
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,249
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2011, 10:26:18 AM »

This should be used as an opportunity to merge with South Dakota. Then we can admit Puerto Rico as the 50th state to maintain the balance.
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2011, 01:36:03 PM »

I would do everything I could to avoid merging with South Dakota, CultureKing.  I know there would be some upsides.  We'd get to share in their huge tourism revenues, and we could finally just call ourselves "Dakota," as we've mysteriously wanted to for many years.  But the downside, for me, offsets all these potential advantages.  South Dakota politicians are...what's the right word?...crazy.
Logged
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,656


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2011, 02:17:17 PM »

Ran across this today and had to share it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14142111

Of course, the constitutional lawyer quoted in the piece is right.  But, wouldn't it be funny if North Dakota really were an independent Territory until at least the state constitutional amendment is put in front of the voters in November of next year?

On the minus side, we would have to retroactively subtract our electoral votes from the last 30 presidential races, kick our three guys out of Congress and adjust Congressional voting records accordingly.  Smiley

On the plus side, as an independent Territory, I'm fairly sure that North Dakota would have to be reckoned the world's third largest nuclear power.  So, here is the list of things we want...

If North Dakota was not a state they would lose their two senators and their representation in the House... but would no longer pay Federal Income tax.....

I wonder if it was put to a referendum which option they would choose... statehood... or no income tax?

Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2011, 05:45:33 PM »

If North Dakota was not a state they would lose their two senators and their representation in the House... but would no longer pay Federal Income tax.....

I wonder if it was put to a referendum which option they would choose... statehood... or no income tax?

Actually, that would not be the case.  The non-payment of Federal income tax by residents of the territories is by law, not the constitution and the Internal Revenue Code names the territories it applies to by name and not surprisingly the Territory of Dakota is not among those named, nor is Wake Island, Palmyra Island, or any of other minor outlying island possessions of the United States.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2011, 05:49:47 PM »

So, Bush actually didn't win then?
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,178
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2011, 06:30:05 PM »
« Edited: July 15, 2011, 06:32:15 PM by Ohne Romney »

So, Bush actually didn't win then?

Why didn't Bush win when he had 268 electoral votes and Gore 267?
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2011, 07:02:56 PM »

So, Bush actually didn't win then?

Why didn't Bush win when he had 268 electoral votes and Gore 267?

Thought Gore hit 268, off the top of my head. My mistake.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 12 queries.