Replies

First, if you're going to go accusing me of knowing nothing about what I'm talking about, at least have the sense to GET A CLUE FIRST. Don't say "read all my other inane posts". I DID read them, and, surprising as this may seem to a fanatic like yourself, I just didn't find them convincing. If you're going to talk to me about serious study of the Constitution, TRY DOING SOME FIRST! Don't you get snotty with me, because I can and will thrash anyone over any Constitutional issue you can name.

Now, with that little matter out of the way, would you care to tell me which of the original 13 states had clauses in their constitutions requiring the executive to swear to uphold the Constitution when they ratified the Constitution?

And, tell me exactly which provision of the federal Constitution requires state constitutions to require an oath to uphold the federal Constitution. Not directly requiring the officials to swear the oath, requiring the state constitutions to require it.

We are NOT talking here about the state constitutions of the original 13 colonies, later states; we are talking about the terms set down by Congress at the particular time that four proposed states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington) were to be considered for admission into the Union, as per the Enabling Act of Feb. 22, 1889, as passed by the U.S. Congress. Congress, you’ll note, in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution has the EXCLUSIVE power to “admit states” and can therefore pose terms for admission according to the exigencies of the period. Section 4 of the above-mentioned Enabling Act sets down the requirement for these specific four proposed states that their consitutional convention delegates meet and write a “state constitution that is not repugnant to the Constitution and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” The terms of Congress were specific and before admission, each state had to show Congress that it had met the terms as found in this Section 4. As it happened, the people of North Dakota approved of the drafted ND constitution, for no one noticed the “flaw” in the oath of office article. Thereafter, the ND state constitution was submitted to Congress for review and approval. There, too, the “flaw” was not noticed by staff members advising Congress and President Benjamin Harrison as to whether the terms for admission had been met. That’s pretty sloppy isn’t it, when Congress sets down terms and then no one in Congress checks to see if they were met? So, President Benjamin Harrison was erroneously advised that North Dakota’s constitution was in order according to the terms of Congress. Statehood was erroneously proclaimed. The error still exists in the ND Constitution 112 years later.

Now, if you want to get technical, Alaska did not have to submit its state constitution to Congress as per the terms of an Enabling Act. Instead, its people drafted the state constitution and it was submitted to Congress and Congress accepted it. Fine. Congress can do that, according to the exigencies of the time. So the terms of Congress can vary. Understood? But the terms to be followed by North Dakota were not met; therefore North Dakota is not a STATE, it is still a TERRITORY. The people of the previous Dakota Territory, were citizens of the United States. They are still citizens of the United States today, whether the area is distinguished as a territory or state, but according to the terms of Congress itself, North Dakota’s constitution did not meet the terms of Section 4 of the Enabling Act of Feb. 22, 1889.

But, in 1890, during the very first ND legislative session, the “flaw” was discovered! Chapter 105 (House Bill 234) was passed in March, 1890, but it was only a state law.

The bill said, “Emergency. We have failed to provide for an oath for civil officers, therefore this bill will go into force immediately upon its approval.” Sure, but it was but a state law; the U.S. Congress was NOT advised that the state constitution’s text still read wrong by only giving directions for state officers of the legislative and judicial departments to take the oath of office there stated. They failed to mention that “executive “ officers of state government also had to take the very same oath. The word executive is still, after 112 years omitted from the text of the ND constitution in Article IX, Section 4. What should have been done was to notify Congress of the flaw and, if allowed, draft an amendment to the ND constitution that would have IMMEDIATELY allowed the ND electorate to approve the state constitution amendment so that the ND constitution would be in compliance, and not repugnant, to the U.S. Constitution. ND Century Code 44-01-05 is the state law that provides that civil officers will take the said oath, but it is a state law; the ND constitution text has not been corrected. It must have been embarrassing to have been admitted on Nov. 2, 1889 and to find in only weeks after that the state constitution had a flaw in it. Silence reigned and “a statute of the U.S.”, and Enabling Act providing for admission of a state, was being prevented from its proper enforcement by a conspiracy of silence. For the past 112 years ND officials have been acting without authority. If there is no state, then there can be no state offices; and if there are no state offices, then there can be no state officers. A court ruling states: “there can be no state officers de facto if there are no state offices de jure.”

This covers the basic problem. As it now stands, all ND officials take an oath to “support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of North Dakota...” The oath, taken by even judges and attorneys, is contradictory. One cannot support the Constitution of the United States if in the same breath he states that he will also support a “flawed” Constitution of North Dakota, the latter violating the Constitution of the United States.

Why haven’t any number of public officials of North Dakota not come forward and publicly called attention to the flaw? My guess is that they like their cushy jobs; they also don’t want to be the party “blowing the whistel” of an unconstitutional situation that would make them all impostors under the law.

This is in answer to your first question; I can answer the second question as well, but I think this is already getting quite lengthy. If anything, my facts show that there is, as this thread tried to provide, evidence here of great seriousness showing that the U.S. Constitution is not being followed, mainly because of ignorance or neglect or both, all to the detriment of citizens who put their faith in the acts of public officials whom they trusted with the reins of government.

I offer to send you a summary also, if you will provide me with your mailing address in a private reply to me.