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.
LOL! Appreciated, but it wasn't you, it was me. I was (justifiably) rebuked yesterday for using my big bad brush, and I was trying not to repeat the error.
----
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.
Agreed.
-----
I see no Federal power to manage land within the States. Territories yes, States, no.
Good, then we are in agreement as to original intent. I respect your opinion, too, so now I'm REALLY glad I asked. :-)
------
As far as the 14th Amendment goes, they can pretend it was some kind of legalistic game changer, but that doesn't make it so.
First, because the purpose of an Amendment to a contract is to refine the previous meanings, not REdefine them. Secondly, because the pertinent restrictive clauses are still in place.