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. 
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?
