Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Could the western states challenge the US ownership of their land?
When most of the western states in the USA were admitted to the union they apparently had to agree to include a clause in their state constitutions giving the US government ownership of the unclaimed land inside their state borders. States admitted before the US government began requiring this clause did not have to abide by this requirement. In your opinion could the attorneys general of the western states say that this clause was coercive, not equally applied as states were admitted to the union, cite the 10th amendment and and further say that henceforth the Feds no longer own the land? Could the governors do something similar? This assumes that their legislatures would go along with the notion. Just posing the question for discussion.
Ah, JustMe, but was the requirement coercive? If every new state beginning at some point was required to agree to the US land ownership clause why could it not be considered coercive? A good argument could be posited. "Your territory doesn't become a state if you don't agree to this clause, and go away if you don't agree to it." seems quite coercive to me.
3 Answers
- Pepper, PhDLv 67 years ago
No. There is nothing in the Constitution or anywhere else saying all states have to be admitted under the same condidtions. The people of all the western states voted to join the U.S. under certain conditions*. It was their choice.
*Except for Texas; because it was an independant nation it negotiated its own terms.
- wendy cLv 77 years ago
"could they"??
Well, sure they could, in theory. Would they GET ANYWHERE?? Probably not.
Is there any LEGITIMATE reason for them to do so? Not really. The only dispute I know of is right wingers who have opposition to what they consider "oppressive" Federal govt.
edit
to do so, would require VALID LEGAL PROCESS, meaning, a showing of reason. I get it that many Americans have animosities or disagreements. That does not necessarily mean that those disagreements have any legal or factual basis.
"Coercive" is simply your own perception with no factual grounds. There is nothing to prove that any state either disputed the terms, or that such terms were HARMFUL.
- 7 years ago
-No. Because They wouldn't have a Leg to STAND On, since They already GET so many Subsidies from the Federal Government- as it IS !! :o
Source(s): The BIG Picture.
