Talk:Constitution of North Dakota

Untitled
From WP:RfD:

Note: This discussion refers to the redirect.


 * North Dakota Constitution → North Dakota: The constitution of North Dakota is a separate topic from North Dakota. This also creates a misleading blue link on State constitution (United States). Mateo SA | talk 22:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why should State constitution (United States) have a red link instead? Instead of nominating to delete, I suggest you start writing it.  It only takes a few sentences and a stub mark to get people interested. SchmuckyTheCat 03:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * State constitution (United States) contains a list of the individual state constitutions, linked to the corresponding Wikipedia articles. Currently, articles have been written for only a few of those constitutions, so most of the links on the page State constitution (United States) are red. Having a blue link on that page suggests that the article North Dakota Constitution exists, when it doesn't. Contributors will assume the article has been written, and so won't go there to start it. Mateo SA | talk 17:43, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mateo. The link should be deleted that way maybe somebody knowledgable will create the page. Falphin 13:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from the history of the now-deleted redirect:

The North Dakota Constitution contains a flaw that makes it repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires that officers of the several states shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States. North Dakota was to be considered for admission into the Union according to the terms of the Enabling Act of February 22, 1889, an Act of the United States Congress. Section 4 of said Enabling Act required that delegates of a Constitutional Convention meet on July 4, 1889, and thereafter draft a state constituton that was not to be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. After being drafted, the said state constitution was approved by the electorate found in the area to comprise the newly proposed state of North Dakota; so, it was submitted to Congress for its final review, a basic requirement for admission into the Union. Upon this final review, even Congressional staffers failed to catch the flaw. Congress therefore erroneously approved the North Dakota Constitution and the State of North Dakota was admitted into the Union on November 2, 1889. Where is the flaw that was overlooked? It is found in Article XI, Section 4 of the North Dakota Constitution, a section dealing with the oath of office. Its initial, instructional language reads that "members of the legislative assembly and the judicial department" shall, before assuming the duties of their office,swear or affirm under penalty of perjury to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of North Dakota. This instructional phrasing should have read: "members of the legislative assembly and the executive and judicial departments...." Thus the word "executive" has been omitted in this phrasing of the North Dakota constitution from the time of the state's admission into the Union to this present day without correction! Officers of all three branches of state government must take such an oath of office, a requirement set forth not only in Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution but also in Statute 1 of the First Congress, the very first Act of Congress passed on June 1, 1789. The current North Dakota Constitution is indeed repugnant to the language of the Constitution of the United States. A correction of this major flaw is in order.

Contributed by User:206.9.80.3, 08:37, 29 Apr 2005

North Dakota has never met the requirements for statehood. The reason is that its state constitution has a flaw in it, a flaw that makes it repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. The flaw was overlooked when it was voted on by the North Dakota electorate and again during its final review by Congressional staffers. Thus North Dakota was erroneously admitted into the Union on November 2, 1889. The flaw in the North Dakota Constitution can be found in Article XI, Section 4, a section dealing with the oath of office that must be taken by North Dakota public officials. There are three branches of state government, and only the legislative and judicial officers are directed to take the oath found in this section; the executive officers have erroneously been omitted. This omission has been overlooked since admission to statehood, that means some 115 years to this date of April, 2005. Federal and state officials have been made aware of this matter, and they are thus preventing the enforcement of a Federal law, to say nothing of the U.S. Constitution, which is defined as treason in Note 16 of Title 2381 of the U.S. Code. Technically speaking, North Dakota has been operating unconstitutionally and its state officers have been operating under color of state law without authority, for which they can be sued for denial of civil rights of U.S. citizens in the so-called State of North Dakota. The flaw was publicly made known to the 2003 ND Legislative session, but they ignored the whole matter and North Dakota officials have failed to notify higher authorities at the Federal level, including the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States. The writer of this Talk note testified before the Constitutional Revision Committee of the North Dakota Legislature on February 26, 2003, so this is a matter of official record. This is the first time in United States history that such a grave error has gone uncorrected, contrary to the terms of the United States Constitution. (See cross-reference article entitled "The Enabling Act of February 22, 1889).


 * The U.S. Constitution and the N.D. Constitution operate independently. Article VI, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires that state officers take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. This provision operates directly on state officers, and no state law is needed to implement it. That is, the U.S. Constitution's provision is binding on state officers regardless of whether a particular state's law requires the same thing. A state law that requires the same oath is redundant and unnecessary, but most states have such a law anyway. The fact that the N.D. Constitution does not itself direct state executive branch officers to take an oath is irrelevant. So get a life, nutjob. Mateo SA | talk 04:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Source list
(moved from Source list where it was added by Mediapower at 19:02, Apr 29, 2005 with the edit summary "Both citations are legal references of common knowledge.")

North Dakota Constitution, Art. XI, Section 4. North Dakota Century Code, Volume 13A.

Constitution of the United States, Art. VI, Clause 3.

is the constitution definitionally a document?
For scholarship, I have difficulty calling the constitution a document. If, for example, the document is destroyed (or even all extant textual copies destroyed), is the constitution destroyed or invalidated? I think not. The constitution is a body of law which may be written down on paper, or recorded in some other way. The original constitution was written on paper; today, it's recorded electronically, and may be published in various forms, like books. Nor is it quite proper to call the constitution the "most basic" law - the most basic law, in a vernacular sense, is laws that protect us against assault, for example. Constitutional law isn't "basic" so much as a codification of high principles - it's the highest (state) law in the state. The wording of the entire article is unusually poor for scholarly text.Sbalfour (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)