« Coates on Mergers and Acquisitions | Main | New Crowd-Funding Article »
July 13, 2011
Do North Dakota's Corporations Exist if the State Doesn't Exist?
Interesting news today that North Dakota may not actually be a proper state. It seems that the state's constitution lacks a requirement that the state's executive officers uphold the U.S. Constitution, thus violating Article VI.
If the state is not really a state, then would that mean that corporations under "state" law are not really formed either? Would the fictional corporate person suddenly become a fictional, fictional person? Heady stuff.
Add to this the fact that most of the state is violating North Dakota law by reporting that the flooding in Minot (the western part of the state) is caused by the Souris River, using the French (and Canadian) name, rather than the English (and state-mandated) name, the Mouse River.
Even if most people are getting name of the river that is causing the flooding wrong, the flooding is very, very real. Please help if you can. Here are a couple places: http://minotfloodshirts.myminto.com/ and http://minotredcross.org/.
--JPF
July 13, 2011 in Corporate Governance, Current Affairs, Musings | Permalink
Comments
NDCC 44-01-05. Oath of civil officers.
Each civil officer in this state before entering upon the duties of that individual's office shall take and subscribe the oath prescribed in section 4 of article XI of the Constitution of North Dakota. The oath must be endorsed upon the back of, or attached to, the commission, appointment, or certificate of election. The term civil officer includes every elected official and any individual appointed by such elected official; any individual appointed by the governor and required by section 16.1-09-02 to file a statement of interests with the secretary of state; appointed member of any state authority, board, bureau, commission, and council; and the appointed head of any state agency and agency division, whether the individual serves with or without compensation. Except for an individual appointed to fill a vacancy existing in the legislative assembly, the term does not include any individual receiving a legislative appointment. For purposes of this chapter and chapter 44-05, the term civil officer has the same meaning as public officer.
The amendment is not necessary. It actually doesn't matter if the amendment passes or not due to the above law. Only crackpots and Democratic senators from Fargo who need to get re-elected think it's an issue.
Posted by: NDCC | Jul 15, 2011 6:53:41 AM
To preserve North Dakota's status, I inclined to agree that the amendment is not needed. I have no problem with making the change, though, because there is little reason to have an even arguably non-compliant Constitution. It wouldn't be my top priority, but this is not the first time my state's politicians have had different priorities than me.
Thanks for the comment.
Posted by: Josh Fershee | Jul 15, 2011 7:26:51 AM
