AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion  (Read 1055 times)

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4114
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 15
  • Location: boston metro area
  • Last Login: June 21, 2019, 04:13:02 PM
    • Interstate plans
Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2019, 05:35:27 PM »

BTW, while the whole concept is silly in the first place, basic Constitutional law would teach us that Montana is not the USA's to sell, because the USA is a creation of the states, not the other way around.  If you want to make a business analogy, Montana owns a 1/50th share in a corporation known as the "USA".

And they'd need Montana's willingness and agreement to go in any case as no state can be removed from the Union without its own consent.
Well, the constitution could be changed.

Almost nobody would agree to make that change.
Just saying that the other 49 could kick Montana out if they really wanted to.
Logged
I'm a young roadgeek who has been interested in roads since I was a little kid.

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10202
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: June 21, 2019, 04:53:28 PM
Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2019, 05:55:02 PM »



BTW, while the whole concept is silly in the first place, basic Constitutional law would teach us that Montana is not the USA's to sell, because the USA is a creation of the states, not the other way around.  If you want to make a business analogy, Montana owns a 1/50th share in a corporation known as the "USA".

And they'd need Montana's willingness and agreement to go in any case as no state can be removed from the Union without its own consent.

Well, the constitution could be changed.

I don't buy it.  There is, to my knowledge, no part of the Constitution that basically says "these are the rules by which a State may leave the Union."  Rather, the Constitution is a construct of a Union of States, and it has therefore been determined by no less than the US Supreme Court to not allow a State to leave said Union except through the consent of the States.  This is not simply something you can alter in the Constitution by amendment, but rather extant constitutional law.

Quote from: US Supreme Court, Texas v. White
… the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? … And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that ... "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." … The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.  When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

I think it's fairly clear that the phrase "consent of the States"—along with everything else about indissolubility, indestructibility, finality, and perpetuity—means all states, including the one in jeopardy of leaving the Union.  It should therefore be considered constitutional law that a State cannot be kicked out of the Union by the other 49.  Changing the Constitution would not un-write that constitutional law, and any amendment intended to contradict it would be determined inadmissible.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4114
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 15
  • Location: boston metro area
  • Last Login: June 21, 2019, 04:13:02 PM
    • Interstate plans
Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2019, 09:15:31 PM »



BTW, while the whole concept is silly in the first place, basic Constitutional law would teach us that Montana is not the USA's to sell, because the USA is a creation of the states, not the other way around.  If you want to make a business analogy, Montana owns a 1/50th share in a corporation known as the "USA".

And they'd need Montana's willingness and agreement to go in any case as no state can be removed from the Union without its own consent.

Well, the constitution could be changed.

I don't buy it.  There is, to my knowledge, no part of the Constitution that basically says "these are the rules by which a State may leave the Union."  Rather, the Constitution is a construct of a Union of States, and it has therefore been determined by no less than the US Supreme Court to not allow a State to leave said Union except through the consent of the States.  This is not simply something you can alter in the Constitution by amendment, but rather extant constitutional law.

Quote from: US Supreme Court, Texas v. White
… the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? … And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that ... "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." … The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.  When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

I think it's fairly clear that the phrase "consent of the States"—along with everything else about indissolubility, indestructibility, finality, and perpetuity—means all states, including the one in jeopardy of leaving the Union.  It should therefore be considered constitutional law that a State cannot be kicked out of the Union by the other 49.  Changing the Constitution would not un-write that constitutional law, and any amendment intended to contradict it would be determined inadmissible.
But these are just pieces of paper. If the other 49 really wanted to kick Montana out they could.
Logged
I'm a young roadgeek who has been interested in roads since I was a little kid.

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6399
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:33:20 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
« Reply #28 on: February 22, 2019, 09:39:15 PM »

I think it's fairly clear that the phrase "consent of the States"—along with everything else about indissolubility, indestructibility, finality, and perpetuity—means all states, including the one in jeopardy of leaving the Union.  It should therefore be considered constitutional law that a State cannot be kicked out of the Union by the other 49.  Changing the Constitution would not un-write that constitutional law, and any amendment intended to contradict it would be determined inadmissible.

I'm not sure about that, since there is only one part of the Constitution (equal Senate representation) that can't be amended without consent of the affected state.

I wonder whether any border adjustment has happened without consent of the affected state(s). Lots of adjustments have happened where the affected lands were not yet part of a state. One that didn't was the resolution of the Chamizal border dispute in El Paso/Ciudad Juarez, which changed the Texas-Chihuahua border long after Texas became a state. But maybe Texas' consent was required, and given, to make that treaty happen. Another was how West Virginia was carved out of Virginia during our Civil War. But conveniently, Virginia had left the Union, and was required to agree to the loss of West Virginia before it was readmitted.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

kalvado

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2782
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 07:47:47 AM
Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
« Reply #29 on: February 22, 2019, 09:40:12 PM »

I hate to say that... but did anyone asked what Canada thinks about the offer?
Logged

jp the roadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2871
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Outside the I-291 beltway
  • Last Login: Today at 02:55:30 AM
Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
« Reply #30 on: February 23, 2019, 07:21:42 AM »

US without Montana would be some real bordergore.
Would look something like the Southwick Jog on the CT/MA border.
Logged
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8055
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: June 25, 2019, 06:27:34 PM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
« Reply #31 on: February 24, 2019, 02:45:31 PM »

If you want to make a business analogy, Montana owns a 1/50th share in a corporation known as the "USA".

I'd argue the actual fraction is 5/538ths, but the point still stands.
Logged

Big John

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1837
  • Age: 51
  • Last Login: June 25, 2019, 11:10:40 PM
Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
« Reply #32 on: February 24, 2019, 02:55:18 PM »

^^ How do you figure 5/538 since Montana has only 3 electoral votes?
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8055
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: June 25, 2019, 06:27:34 PM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
« Reply #33 on: February 25, 2019, 04:36:36 AM »

For some reason I was thinking 'Montana = 3' and thought '3' was the number of House seats, and added 2 to that. So I essentially double-counted the Senators. It's a mistake I make a lot.
Logged

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1669
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: Today at 01:26:39 AM
Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
« Reply #34 on: February 25, 2019, 12:09:45 PM »

For some reason I was thinking 'Montana = 3' and thought '3' was the number of House seats, and added 2 to that. So I essentially double-counted the Senators. It's a mistake I make a lot.

It is funny to think that we have states with more Senators than House Representatives.  Then you go the other way, where the House Representative count for a state drowns the amount of Senators by an order of magnitude plus.  How overworked is the single Representative from low population states?  How overworked are Senators from states with large populations?  Having never served in either office or being involved in the legislative process of DC, I always did wonder about this.

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

abefroman329

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3151
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Chicago
  • Last Login: April 29, 2019, 05:55:26 PM
Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
« Reply #35 on: February 25, 2019, 01:05:09 PM »

For some reason I was thinking 'Montana = 3' and thought '3' was the number of House seats, and added 2 to that. So I essentially double-counted the Senators. It's a mistake I make a lot.

It is funny to think that we have states with more Senators than House Representatives.  Then you go the other way, where the House Representative count for a state drowns the amount of Senators by an order of magnitude plus.  How overworked is the single Representative from low population states?  How overworked are Senators from states with large populations?  Having never served in either office or being involved in the legislative process of DC, I always did wonder about this.

Rick
Since every state is guaranteed one Representative regardless of population, I think it's more that the single Rep from low-population states is underworked compared to a Rep from a state with multiple Reps, particularly if the state with multiple Reps is on the border of needing one more due to population.

Workload really has more to do with tenure, since the longer you've been in office, the likelier you are to be a committee chair.  Reps are pretty much constantly campaigning since they're up for election every 2 years.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10202
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: June 21, 2019, 04:53:28 PM
Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
« Reply #36 on: February 25, 2019, 03:01:10 PM »

But these are just pieces of paper. If the other 49 really wanted to kick Montana out they could.

If you're talking about an armed revolution, then what are we really arguing about?
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4822
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: June 25, 2019, 11:48:11 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
« Reply #37 on: February 27, 2019, 01:44:20 PM »

Is this really happening, or is it just a joke? If it is, then they really jumped the gun on this one!
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6894
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 06:52:48 AM
    • Flickr account
Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
« Reply #38 on: February 27, 2019, 01:46:41 PM »

Is this really happening, or is it just a joke? If it is, then they really jumped the gun on this one!

There's an actual petition. Obviously, a petition passing does not automatically mean that the event happens.
Logged
Clinched, plus NH 111A (central)

Traveled, plus:
US ⒉⒔50
MA ⒐2⒉40.9⒐10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚12⒎14⒈159
NH 27,111A(central,eastern),128; NY 366; GA 42,140; FL A1A; CT 32

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.