Bullshit.
An even today, Congress votes to allow a state to join the union, but cannot vote for ratification - the people of the state decide for themselves - UNILATERALLY. Nothing implicit about it.
More BS. The people of the state can vote all they want and ratify anything that they care to, but they are not a state until Congress votes to create them.
Would you please refrain from cursing on thread? There are young children that read this, and I hope and pray that a a former Commander in the US Navy, would have some sense of civility despite our differences. And despite our differences you are perhaps the only person taking your position that consistently conducts themselves as a gentleman - thank you.
But to return to the point in question which you dispute, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that each state is admitted on a equal footing with the orginal states, numerous decisions reflect this holding ['Alabama was admitted into the union, on an equal footing with the original states' - Justice McKinley, Pollard v. Hagan, 44 Howe 212 (1845)]
The people of the state can vote all they want and ratify anything that they care to, but they are not a state until Congress votes to create them.
Just as Congress voting to admit Cuba, Puerto Rico, or Qatar to the Union does not make them a state. Congress votes to allow admission, the state decides UNILATERALLY whether or not they wish to ratify the Constitution. Congress cannot ratify for a state - the people of that state ratify for themselves, just as each state did prior to them.
In the above case the court noted, '[t]he propositions submitted to the people of the Alabama territory, for their acceptance or rejection, by the act of Congress authorizing them to form a constitution and state government for themselves.' Congress passed "An act to enable the people of the Alabama Territory to form a Constitution and State government, and for the admission of such state into the Union on an equal footing with the original States" on 2 Mar 1819. The people of that state met in convention 2 Aug 1819 to ratify. August is after March.
Not true. Texas was an independent country. Hawaii was an independent kingdom.
You are arguing from an overly specific case of States created from United States Territory, to graft the subordinate position of Territories onto the status of States themselves. You are essentially denying Statehood to the States, and trying to substitute, conceptually at least, the provincial status Hitler thought they had -- on their knees, grovelling before Lincoln and the Congress, the People humiliated by their revolted servants. It's a bogus argument, an ambulance-chaser's argument.
You just like the sound of hobnailed boots, is your problem.