Can a US State Reduce Its Borders?

Nope. US borders extend beyond that point already as established by international treaty.

 

Which is fine when discussing a border w/ Canada. But that's not what we have here.

 

It would be better for the people living there to be in a something rather than a nothing.

 

Likely so.

 

The state borders that were established by the Mississippi river do not fluctuate. There's parts of Louisiana on the east side of the river now.

But I don't know how meanderings of the Red river are handled, or how the nightmare of many old claims are handled.

 

Unsubstantiated.

Unsubstantiated.

 

Right, it would not be a state in the union. It would just be a plain old state, like france or monaco.

 

Who said anything about a new state being admitted to the union?

 

There are international treaties that recognize the US eastern border as extending several miles into the Atlantic.

As Philadelphia would be within that border, it would continue to be within US territory even if Pennsylvania sought to pull back its borders.

 

You can't just leave people in a vacuum.

 

It would not be a state of the union, unless admitted.

 

There's no reason why the people in the abandoned region could not establish their own government.

 

Agreed.

 

I doubt there is language that says the adjoining state has to increase the size of their border to accommodate your desire to make the move.

 

So Canada is within US territory?

 

Indeed. They could vote Putin president if they wanted to.

 

I agree. I doubt that as well.

 

Nope. The US has a treaty with Canada that defines the borders between the two countries.

 

But the states wouldn't have any treaty with this new independent state. They might choose to make such a treaty, however.

 

No one has suggested any other state need do so.

 

State boundaries and borders were determined upon statehood, changing them would require agreement by the state and federal government if it was to be abandoned. There are already numerous border disputes between states, being handled in the courts...

 

It wouldn’t be an independent state. It would be within treaty-defined US borders and thus a territory.

But the creation of a US territory requires the consent of Congress, so the state couldn’t make this move unilaterally anyways.

 

Where does the constitution say that a state may not pull in its borders?

 

It wouldn't be a US territory because it would not be on US property. It would be on independent property.

 

It would be within US borders. Everything within US borders as defined by international treaties (which the Constitution says are part of the Supreme Law of the Land) is US territory. Some of that US territory is made up of states.