Elizabeth Jo

So, Roman, you want to read that clause?

It's sort of interesting.

All right, that's a mouthful, but essentially it's how do new states become part of the United States?

So this part formally allows Congress to recognize new states to become part of the country with some limitations, as the text you just read points out.

So if a state is formed from a new state, you need the consent of the affected state, like when Kentucky became a state by taking a part of Virginia in 1792, right?

Mm-hmm.

So that part seems to make sense.

You don't want to chop off a part of the state without the state agreeing to do it.

And while it's not mentioned in Section 3 itself, the Supreme Court has interpreted the admissions clause to have what it calls an equal footing doctrine.

So the idea is a pretty simple one, that a new state, if it's going to be part of the United States and is admitted to the United States by Congress, it has to be admitted on equal terms as the existing ones.

You don't have like a secondary status state.

So, you know, the court has said it's not in there, but we assume that that's meant in the structure of the admissions clause.

I like it.

And the second part of Section 3 has what's called the property clause.

Congress has the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

Now, this part gives Congress broad authority to take all kinds of actions over the land the federal government possesses.

And the clause also mentions territories, which is interesting, too, because many of our states have become states after having been a territory first, like Alaska or Hawaii.

And even though the admissions clause doesn't require it, Congress has sometimes required a proposed state to meet some conditions before it's allowed to become a state.

Do you know about the condition that Utah had to agree to for becoming a state?

Well, no polygamy, right?