Which would have to also mean that they were not out of the United States, right? Their political relationship may have been somewhat ambiguous but there was no complete severing of ties or explusion as Galt would have us believe. It that had been the case, if there was a complete severing of all bonds, then Article IV must apply.
By the way, the 14th state (Vermont) also ratified the Constitution.
Maybe. But they became a state through act of Congress.
The fact still stands, as my post above shows, that prior to their ratification the US Congress considered North Carolina and Rhode Island not to be part of the United States, i.e., goods from those two states "... were imported or brought into the United States ..." How can that be if they never were outside of the United States?
And if they were outside of the United States then how could they become states without consent of Congress per Article IV? Vermont was outside of the U.S. and they required Congressional approval. Why not Rhode Island and North Carolina? Or for that matter Virgina and New York which also ratified after the Constitution was adopted by the 9th state?
North Carolina and Rhode Island were founding members of the United States. The fact that the government changed to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation didn't alter that. And their delay in ratifying the Constitution, while creating a political limbo, did not expel them from the United States. Now had they continued to refuse to ratify then I imagine that a final resolution would have had to have been identified. At that point then secession or expulsion might have resulted. But that point was never reached. And Rhode Island and North Carolina never ceased to be states.
The states that were sent the Constitution to ratify (or not) had all been members of the old union under the Articles of Confederation. If they ratified, they were in the new Union; if not, they weren't. There were no other conditions that I'm aware of.
As George Washington said of North Carolina in my quote above, "that State is not a member of the present Union." I figure since George Washington was the person who sent the states the Constitution to ratify in the first place, he would know what he was talking about. But I forget, you know better than Washington.
And if they were outside of the United States then how could they become states without consent of Congress per Article IV?
Bigun in post 560 answered you about that.
I figure the first Congress under the new Constitution knew what they were doing when they said products from North Carolina and Rhode Island imported INTO the United States were subject to duties as the goods of "any foreign state, kingdom, or country are made subject to." But obviously you know better than that first Congress did.
History according to non-seq beats the Jay Leno monologue every time.