Okay, sorry, but between the 'That's Orwell-speak' statement and the use of the unfamiliar anacronym (IOW), I have to admit my ignorance as to what you opinion is on the subject.
Do you believe the Constitution allows for new States to be admitted on an unequal footing with the Original States?
I really not trying to be obtuse, it's just that FR has taught me it's better to ask than assume.
IOW means "in other words."
I really not trying to be obtuse, it's just that FR has taught me it's better to ask than assume.
I respect you greatly MT, so if I was hasty or obtuse I apologize. I meant that to regard a State in control of virtually 100% of its land as on "equal footing" with a State with control of less than 10% is Orwellian.
Do you believe the Constitution allows for new States to be admitted on an unequal footing with the Original States?
Certainly not after the Fourteenth Amendment 'equal protection' clause, particularly when one realizes that the Constitution was (supposedly) designed for the purpose of protecting the people and the States FROM the government. The national government was to regard ceding the land to the States as in the interest of the people (that "We" thingy in the preamble) it is supposed to serve as a matter of their liberty, general welfare, republican form of government, etc. and therefore in the national interest. From the perspective of everything from the Tenth Amendment to enumerated powers, I see no Federal power to manage land within the States. Territories yes, States, no.