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.
On the contrary, Congress could vote tomorrow to make Puerto Rico a state, because it is United States territory. Your tossing in Cuba and Qatar into the mix is ridiculous because the U.S. has no claim on those territories.
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.
Nonsense. Constitutionally the people of the territory in question have no say in the matter. They can vote to ratify whatever they want and it makes no difference, they are not a state. They can adopt a constitution, petition the government till the cows come home, and until Congress votes to admit them then they are not a state.
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.
Was Alabama a state as of August 2nd? No. It was not a state until Congess passed a resolution for the admission of Alabama as a state on December 14, 1819. The fact that the people of Alabama ratified a constitution in August meant nothing until Congress acted. The people of Kansas actually adopted four different constitutions before Congress voted to admit them. The actions of the people meant nothing in hastening that process.