Talk:Enabling Act of 1889

Untitled
The Enabling Act of February 22, 1889 of the United States Congress provided the requirements for the admission into the Union of four new states. North Dakota was one of these proposed states, but it was erroneously admitted to the Union by the fact that it never met the requirements for admission. Section 4 of said Enabling Act required that each of the four new states had to form a Constitutional Convention to draft a new state constitution, a constitution that was not to be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. The North Dakota Constitution (see article under this title) contains a flaw that was overlooked and that never has been corrected to this day! Therefore North Dakota is not a state, it is still a territory of the United States. This means that North Dakota has been operating as a state for over 115 years, to date, without proper authority; its state officials are operating under color of state law, thus violating the rights of United States citizens within its area of jurisdiction. This is the first time in United States history that such a grave error has been made in granting statehood. The Revisor of the North Dakota Century Code has indicated that action must be taken to correct this constitutional problem; but, as yet, no correction has been made. The writer of this Talk note testified on this matter before the North Dakota Constitutional Revision Committee of the North Dakota Legislature on February 26, 2003.


 * I stumbled upon this page while looking at pages needing wikification. While an interesting tidbit, this article is more on the lines of North Dakota trivia than a free-standing article about the Enabling Act.  The other 3 states admitted by this act aren't even mentioned.  qitaana 08:49, May 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * This should not be MOVED because there happens to be an existing article at North Dakota. Perhaps the content could be merged with either the N.D. article or perhaps with Dakota Territory or History of North Dakota (which also is in desperate need of attention). older &ne; wiser 14:34, May 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, yes, merge is appropriate. I'm a noob and didn't realize that move replaces the previous page rather than just adding to it.


 * Not a problem--the various administrative pages and policies can be a confusing and sometimes seemingly contradictory maze. Anyhow, you don't need any special permission to merge content. You can Be bold and do it yourself, or if you'd prefer, you can see Duplicate articles for some instructions about adding templates indicating where you think content should be merged into. older &ne; wiser 15:35, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

What's up with Wyoming?
[ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56914 ] Says that according to the enabling act, that individual gun ownership was guaranteed. I guess becuase US accepted Wyoming's constitution as part of the cotnract? ~ender 2008-03-23 20:45:PM MST


 * That link is now dead, but it's archived: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56914. I think you meant Montana (Wyoming is not a significant part of this Enabling Act). Also, the basic argument presented isn't specific to this Enabling Act. It's the general idea of how the territory became a state by agreeing to the Constitution as it was understood at the time. They argue that if the understanding changes, then the agreement becomes void, and Montana would no longer be a state. The article seems quite alarmist, to be frank. —Mrwojo (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)