It is hard to assess this, since much else in US history would be different if RI and NC had never ratified the COnstitution to this day. However, the PR example is relevant because we could have evolved into a looser nation/confederation with multiple tiers of membership, much as some currently envision the future of the EU (some members have the Euro, others don't, some will subscribe to a possible common foreign/defense policy, others don't, and so on). We only have a similar system with respect to territories (historically important, but very few left today), PR, and certain other island possessions in the Carribean and Pacific.
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Sanford Levinson wrote: > At 12:16 PM 8/8/2003, you wrote: > >There are probably lots of possibilities. However, I would argue that they > >were members of the union, but not subject to the Constitution (yet). > > > >Ilya Somin > > > What if Rhode Island and North Carolina had never ratified? Would they > still be "members of the union, but not subject to the Constitution," > perhaps like Puerto Rico? > > sandy >
