While there are conflicting laws, taking over isn't likely because both the states and the federal-nat'l-corporation-gov't are afforded sovereignty albeit slightly varied relative to the international recognition of the u.s.A. at the Treaty of Peace in 1783. Primarily the states were recognized as free, independent, and sovereign by King George III Brittania's Majesty among offer attendees to Paris t sign the compact. Then it was out of the state's sovereignty that the federal-nat'l-gov't corp. was created and The Constitution contemporaneously which limited the former's powers to do its job. The Bill of Rights is another contract and it is between the sovereign citizens who know and assert their individual positions and rights in the republic and the two governmental bodies confirmed in writing. Cooperative and/or duel federalism might be interesting to see as it has applied to present.
If you mean state in the United States sense ... it's actually not addressed directly by the US Constitution. Article IV, Section 3 of the provides in part that "[...] no new State shall be formed [...] by the junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
However, this is not really "one state taking over another state" so much as "two states deciding to combine". The law is there, but it's never happened. What HAS happened is that new states have been formed out of pieces of other states, which is covered in the ellipses in the quote above. I'm aware of two instances; Massachusetts giving up some of its territory to form the state of Maine, and West Virginia splitting off from Virginia ... this wasn't exactly with the consent of Virginia, but since Virginia was at war with the US proper at the time, nobody who mattered cared what Virginia's legislature thought.
Which might provide an object lesson and at least a partial answer to the question: a state that declared war on another state to take it over by force would probably be regarded as if it had declared war against the US itself. No state has the military power to take on the federal government, so any such attempt would likely be crushed in short order.
If you mean "state" in the sense that's pretty much synonymous with "nation" ... sure, that's happened plenty of times.
It is the federal governments responsibilty to "provide for the common defense" of the United States as a whole. No state has the authority to declare war on another nation.
No
No.
no.
To have a court order domesticated in another state, you typically need to obtain a certified copy of the original court order and file a petition to register the order in the new state's court. The new court will review the order and, if everything is in order, will issue an order recognizing and enforcing the original court order within that state. It is recommended to seek legal assistance to ensure all necessary steps are followed correctly.
the consent of the legislatures of the state and the concern of the congress
the consent of the legislatures of the state and the concern of the congress
the consent of the legislatures of the state and the concern of the congress
Congress and representatives in the house both have the power to favor one state over another. This is due to their representation of their individual state within the government.
Over take
buying it
Yes you can move to another state, but you can not take the children to another state till the divorce is given.
it would be neighboring countries who wanted to take over one of the Greek city state or to fight another city state
another word for state is Provence in a different place
Take your goldfish. They will travel.