NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
About 20-25 years ago I frustrated students by jokingly teaching that North Dakota was not a state. Some even laughed at me.
Who's laughing now?
Who's laughing now?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
North Dakota not technically a state?
- Thread starter NaasPreacher (C4K)
- Start date
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
mcdirector
Active Member
It always comes down to the little things - like someone checking the state constitution against federal requirements 
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
It always comes down to the little things - like someone checking the state constitution against federal requirements
My joy comes in being proved right a LONG time after my students laughed at me
. That'll teach 'em to doubt Mr P!
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
I'm sure I rember an American member of the BB correcting me by telling me that four of what are casually referred to as "States" are not - they are "Commonwealths". (I don't remember the context, though).
So now it seems there are five States that are not really states at all.
So now it seems there are five States that are not really states at all.
freeatlast
New Member
I'm sure I rember an American member of the BB correcting me by telling me that four of what are casually referred to as "States" are not - they are "Commonwealths". (I don't remember the context, though).
So now it seems there are five States that are not really states at all.
No David that would be incorrect.
There is no difference between a commonwealth and a state in the U.S. To Locke, Hobbes, and other 17th-century writers the term "commonwealth" meant an organized political community -- what we today call a "state." Officially Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia, and Massachusetts are all commonwealths. When Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia, and Massachusetts became part of the United States, they merely took the old form of state in their title.
Today, commonwealth also means a political unit having local autonomy but voluntarily united with the U.S. These are Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands.
As for North Dakota what is being proposed about the State is merely a clerical inconstancy. That does not mean it should not be corrected, but neither does it mean it is not a state. it would be like two people who were married for 50 years and found out that there marriage licenses were not properly signed. They are still married, but the paper work just needs to be corrected to correspond to what 50 years has proven. I have to agree with Cheryl Hanna on this and not only that but North Dakota has had all the privileges of a state for 122 years and that alone makes it a state even if some document is missing some sort of phrase.
Last edited by a moderator:
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Thanks, Freeatlast. I should explain that I was not saying that it was correct, just that at least one American - the one who first told me about it some years ago on the BB - seemed to believe it was, and because he was writing about his own country, I assumed he was correct. Thanks for putting me right.
freeatlast
New Member
No problem. I live in Texas and there are some here who refuse to accept that Texas is a state. Really! It has to do with how Texas became a state. They refuse to buy drivers licenses or register their vehicles and many other things. Usually they live apart from the rest of society and are left alone as long as they do not wonder into the populated areas.
There is one whole family who many years ago committed some crime and now live as a sort of commune family and the authorities will not go in after them even though they know where they are. There was a big right up with photos about this a few months ago and the sheriff of that county felt if they stay on their land and do not come out he would leave them alone as the gun battle would be to costly as they all carry guns and have vowed not to be taken alive.
Here is the story on that family if you are interested;
http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20110523/NEWS0107/105230388/
Last edited by a moderator:
FR7 Baptist
Active Member
There is no legal distinction between the four states which use the term "commonwealth" in their name and the other states.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Exactly - but it sure has been fun seeing my old students FB and tell me I was right after all these years
Ain't life fun?
freeatlast
New Member
Exactly - but it sure has been fun seeing my old students FB and tell me I was right after all these years
Ain't life fun?
That is the thing. You were not correct. If you were then everything that has ever happened under a guise of statehood in conjunction with the federal Government would have to be repealed and that would include the Federal Government giving back every tax dollar they ever collected and n one in that state having any SS. They have been a state for these 122 years. The error in question does not negate that fact. No court of law would even suggest such.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
One of them FBed me and called me King History - I love it
I am a little surprised that folks are taking this thread so seriously - it is a bit of fun. My students and I are having a great time with this
. These folks are in their 30s and 40s now and still remember the fun (and learning) we had with this all those years ago. I am not going to let a bunch of sourpusses spoil our fun
Last edited by a moderator:
