Last week in this space we looked at our Town, Village and City governments. Counties are a higher level of government – Steuben County, for instance, has two Cities and 32 Towns. Beginning in 1683 it was theoretically part of Albany County, except that white Europeans didn’t have any power out here at all. That was still true in 1772 when it became part of a new Tryon County, now called Montgomery. Whites were actually starting to rule with boots on the ground when it became part of the new Ontario County in 1790, and then Steuben County (larger than it is today) in 1796.
Counties entered the national news last year when Cliven Bundy, who if I understand aright refuses for decades to pay what amounts to rent for the land on which he (over)grazes cattle, announced that he would not pay the United States (that’s you and me), because he chooses not to acknowledge its legal existence. (Despite flying our flag all over the place.) He HAS, however, offered to pay money to Clark County, Nevada, as he considers County governments legal.
This is as hilarious as it is pathetic, but he didn’t invent the idea, which has been floating around the fringe for years, among groups which consider a sheriff the only legitimate official. (Why they’ve picked a law-enforcement officer is beyond me.)
But Clark County was CREATED BY the State of Nevada, which in turn was CREATED BY the government of the United States. The notion that Counties have some ontological nature that exceeds all others is bizarre. States create them, and states can alter or abolish them. And often have. Just as they can do (and have done) with Towns, Cities, and Villages.
As we said, the United States created the State of Nevada. But having done so (at least so far as I can tell) the U.S. could not simply extinguish Nevada by legislation. States, it seems to me, have a different sort of legal status.
Which leads us to the question of secession, recently bruited by several municipalities to our east in protest of New York’s fracking ban. Secession is not new, and has often been trotted out in various states by rural areas unhappy with the workings of democracy – that majority rule thing can be very annoying when you get outvoted.
The U.S. Constitution addresses admission of new states; addresses creating new states by carving them out of existing states; and addresses creating new states by joining existing states together. It does not address transferring territory from one state to another (frack-happy Pennsylvania, in this case).
So if you’re a states-righter you could argue that it can’t be done Constitutionally (since it’s not addressed), or you could argue that Congress could handle such an issue by statute (since it’s not forbidden).
Were I writing such a statute, I’d make it require consent of the voters of the affected municipalities; consent of the voters of the sending state; consent of the voters of the receiving state; consent of Congress; and, as with any federal legislation, approval by the President (or veto override by two-thirds majority of each house in Congress), all to take place within two years. If any of these failed, then the measure would be dead. That would be democracy in action – or at least it would keep us all busy!