Can a US State Reduce Its Borders?

Because the Constitution is not the sum total of the Supreme Law of the Land.

 

You've said that a new government formed within land abandoned by one of the US states would be, based on treaty, a US territory. Yet you don't say with whom the US has made such a treaty or provide any text of such treaty.

So I'm going to dismiss your assertion pending further substantiation.

 

Then please quote the pertinent law.

 

It doesn’t matter who the treaties are with. All people within they US are bound by the US side of those Constitutionally ratified treaties.

That means the state government of Pennsylvania has to abide by US treaties defining the US border. They can’t unilaterally change US borders without a new treaty ratified by Congress.

 

You understand there are several dozen treaties that define the US’s borders, right?

 

There’s a lot of things the constitution doesn’t cover. That’s why if some state tries to do this the attempt will be brought to the Supreme Court and rejected. A state doing this unilaterally would never fly and everyone here knows it.

 

What language in what treaty with what country?

 

There's no constitutional prohibition on a state pulling in its borders. If you'd like to prove me wrong, then please show me the language.

 

You’re just being stubborn. Aside from the obvious lawsuit that would come from the federal
Government over the attempt, there would be a class action lawsuit encompassing everyone in the new area that would be created. There are people living on that land, you know. Suddenly removing their state citizenship from them like pulling a rug out from under someone is not going to go unchallenged.

If you think there’s no laws that can be interpreted to apply to this situation you’re out of your mind. The Supreme Court would deliberate this for about 45 seconds before rejecting the attempt.

You’ll have to find some other way to fulfill your secession wet dreams. Sorry.

 

One beneficial side-effect of this thread is that it has flushed out those with the libido dominandi, the lust to dominate their fellow man. It's never surprising but always shocking how some people feel that they are the owners of their neighbhor. It's the most anti-progressive, anti-liberal attitude one could have. I guess it goes all the way back to Cain and Abel. It looks like the Cains are winning.

 

There’s more than a dozen treaties defining the US border. It would depend on which state and what territory it is wanting to abandon to pick a specific one. The UN protocols defining territorial water borders would be a start if you are talking about Pennsylvania.

The state of Pennsylvania would not be able to modify the US border defined in that treaty without the consent of Congress.

 

A state pulling in its border would create either a new US territory, which would require the consent of Congress, or it would create a new US state, which would require the consent of Congress, or it would try to create a new sovereign nation, which would change US borders as defined by Constitutionally ratified treaties, which would require the consent of Congress.

 

I doubt it, though I imagine as soon as one tries, FedGov will conjure a regulation that fines it.

Now... why would a state do that?

 

First of all, as @TedintheShed said, your example is ludicrous to the point that it brings up further complications. It seems as if you want to create a loophole to secede from the union by slicing off a small part of the state and leaving the state capitol in an unincorporated territory. And that is just the beginning.

If you want to consider the very basic requirements, it would require at the minimum:
1) A Constitutional Convention in Pennsylvania to redefine its borders. I am not even sure that Pennsylvania's Constitution would allow it.
2) Passage of an Act by the US Congress approving the new borders and addressing what happens to the rest of the state.
3) Numerous court cases reaching the Supreme Court as this is uncharted waters.

Frankly a President like Trump is the only type to even consider such a thing, so you better hurry up.

 

What about if the state donated the land to the federal government, like they do with national parks?

 

National Parks are created through an act of Congress. (Also by Executive Order? IIRC Congress passed a law that gives the President some power to designate national parks)

 

I was thinking more along the lines of simple donations. Whether Trump would rename San Francisco "San Trump" and turn it into a national amusement park is irrelevant to the idea that land can be donated to the federal government by states.

 

The Antiquities Act defines the kind of lands that can be designated as national parks. The city of San Francisco would not meet the definition.

 

Well, I think that's more a matter of definition, rather than law. San Francisco certainly does have a lot of historical significance, and maybe the tenderloin does deserve to be preserved as a national monument of some sort.

Does the donation of land require it being turned into a national park or monument?

 

National parks require more than historical significance and an entire city cannot be designated a monument.

 

I wouldn't think that a state could abandon it's citizens. Now, if a neighboring state was willing to take them in, I don't have a problem with it. I doubt there is a law against it, but I don't see it happening. Most states don't want to give up seats in Congress or tax dollars. Some states might enjoy giving up a big expensive city full of crime and welfare abuse, but I doubt it.

 

States have residents, whereas the country has citizens. Those citizens are free to move to any state they want.

 

Can you back that up?

A citizen of the United States is simply a citizen of any of the 50 states.

[U.S. v. Cruikshank
From the majority opinion:

There is in our political system a government of each of the several States, and a Government of the United States. Each is distinct from the others, and has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of those governments will be different from those he has under the other.[8]

We may have federal citizens in Washington DC or a US territory, but states have citizens also.

 

It's 100% constitutional. There's nothing in the constitution prohibiting a state from shrinking its borders.

 

The decision to call participants of a political society "citizens" is fine, except that's not going to get you very far when it comes to getting a passport, nor a social security number, nor a way around obtaining a visa to stay in the country legally.

So yes, it is a cute definition, but it's not the definition of a citizen of the united states.