The Illegal States of Maine, West Virginia, and Texas

Maine was once part of Massachusetts and West Virginia was once part of Virginia. However, we have a violation of the Plain English of the Constitution which says:

"New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."

The 15 words I boldfaced above mean, in plain English (which I’m really into, by the way), that no new state can be created from part of any state already in existence.

And now we come to Texas which was constitutionally created and admitted to the union by an act of Congress but (quite unconstitutionally) was allowed (by that same act of Congress) this novel distinction: "New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof."

That means the State of Texas may morph into a total of four additional states, with the blessing of Congress having been given in advance. Again, blatantly unconstitutional.

The doctrine of “reasonable expectation”

First of all, there is no such thing as the doctrine of reasonable expectation; it is entirely my own invention. But it can most certainly be implied from the language of the Ninth Amendment:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

To my knowledge, not one of “the people” – either then or now – has raised a legal objection to the constitutional violations I’ve cited above. And it’s been a long time that these illegalities have gone unchallenged. So I suppose it could be claimed that “We-the-People” – especially those who live in Maine and West Virginia – have a reasonable expectation that these states will not be rejoined with Massachusetts and Virginia, respectively.

I would keep an eye on Texas, though. For suppose one day, Texas decides to morph into five states – which would give “Texans” eight additional senators. That would introduce a radical shift in the balance of power. And the Supreme Court could not weigh in on this, since creation of new states is the sole province of Congress – and not of SCOTUS or even the President [UPDATE: This is something I have to correct, since I was in error when I first wrote this piece: The President is indeed part of the process of admitting new states - Steve, May 9, 2012]. And, as I said before, Congress had already given Texas permission – in advance – to do this.

It would be interesting, however, if Congress rescinded that permission. Could Texas then say: “Oh no you don’t! That permission was a condition upon which Texas was admitted to the union. So if you rescind that much, the whole deal is off. We can reclaim our original status as an independent republic, which we were for the ten years prior to statehood.”

I still insist, though, that reasonable expectation should rule the day. Two problems, though: Whose expectations and by what set of reasons?

Make way for a new Constitution

The United States has some very ambiguous (nay, inconsistent) aspects to its legal system. Dealing with these is not a matter of simply “reading the Constitution,” a claim made often by Tea Party simpletons.

What we really need is a willingness to discard the Constitution and replace it entirely with something better. We no longer need to be ruled by the dead. We deserve better than that – or will deserve better if we can be man enough to force this vital change. Did I say “force?” Yes, but I’ll quickly add: Non-violently and most effectively by means of economic boycott of the nation’s largest banks.

There are fools out there who will claim the current Constitution does not have a mechanism for replacing that document; it can only be amended (Article V) which is brief in its entirety:

QUOTE:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 and shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

:UNQUOTE.

SIDE NOTE: Regarding the yellowed portion above: This would imply that, if such a prohibited amendment had been passed (prior to 1808, of course), objecting states would then have the right to secede from the union – since the terms of union had been violated. Perhaps this is the reason why the Constitution omitted this condition: “…and that the union shall be perpetual.” This was found in the preceding constitution known as the Articles of Confederation.

Congress is too conservative and bound by tradition to ever do anything more than “propose amendments.” And Congress will NEVER “call a convention for proposing amendments,” since (again) these traditionalistic sticks-in-the-mud are afraid of a runaway Convention that they couldn’t control which might propose replacing the entire Constitution.

The only other option is for “We-the-People” to invoke the right implied in the Constitution’s Preamble, which reads:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

If We-the-People in the 1700’s had the right to do this, can We-the-People of the 2000’s have any less of a right? During the Revolution, there was a phrase bandied about: “The shot heard round the world.” For this new Revolution I’m proposing, there’s a more elegant update: “Against all odds and without firing a shot, we overthrew the shackles of the Tyranny of the Dead.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Yes We Can – and should – do this!”