News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

New design USA flag coming?

Started by mgk920, June 12, 2017, 01:34:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

mgk920

Quote from: kkt on June 14, 2017, 12:31:38 PM
Sure, the president could either sign it or veto it.  My point was just that they might be able to convince Trump that his name would be in the history books by signing it, but that would not motivate Congress, who would be thinking of the balance of power rather than their own names in history. 

Though come to think of it, I don't think the admission of Hawaii and Alaska are the first things that come to mind when thinking about the Eisenhower presidency.

My read on Article. IV. Section. 3. (paragraph 1) of the Constitution of the United States of America says that the President has no say in the matter: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;".  (Note that the remainder of that paragraph deals with altering the borders of existing states.)

Mike


SP Cook

Quote from: wxfree on July 31, 2017, 02:51:19 PM

There's no such requirement for the president.  I remember this being discussed when George W. Bush remained a resident of Texas, which I seem to recall being described as unusual.


Regarding representation, in my reading, the Constitution does not allow non-proportional representation, so that just adding one representative wouldn't work.  Since the membership is statutory, my proposal would be that Congress increase House size enough to hold the new members.  Then, if they want to stick to 435, that number could be restored with the next apportionment.  Is that how it was done before?  I should probably look that up.

- The President and his family, the Vice-President (who was not provided a government owned house until the 1970s, BTW) and his family, members of Congress, the Justices of the Supreme Court and the other federal courts based in DC (DC circuit, federal circuit, military appeals, etc) retain their residency where elected from.  They do not vote in DC, nor do they pay DC income tax.   Remember that since the President and Vice-President have to be from different states, even if we overlook that DC is not a state at all, then no team could ever run for re-election.

- The USA has not ever admitted a new state that was not at the one represenative level.  The previous bills thus always provided for one represenative, in addition to the regular 435 until the next Census (i.e. the House had 437 members due to Alaska and Hawaii, until after the 1962 elections when it went back to 435).  It is an open question.  The Congress perhaps could provide that PR got one represenative until after the next Census, not that it would necessarially want to do that.  Clearly a case for the Supreme Court.

hotdogPi

What's wrong with giving Puerto Rico 5 representatives immediately?
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

wxfree

Quote from: 1 on July 31, 2017, 04:17:09 PM
What's wrong with giving Puerto Rico 5 representatives immediately?

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State..."

I think it would have to be that way, with whatever the appropriate number is.  The Constitution doesn't seem to allow non-proportional representation.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

wxfree

Quote from: SP Cook on July 31, 2017, 03:59:32 PM
- The President and his family, the Vice-President (who was not provided a government owned house until the 1970s, BTW) and his family, members of Congress, the Justices of the Supreme Court and the other federal courts based in DC (DC circuit, federal circuit, military appeals, etc) retain their residency where elected from.  They do not vote in DC, nor do they pay DC income tax.   Remember that since the President and Vice-President have to be from different states, even if we overlook that DC is not a state at all, then no team could ever run for re-election.

That makes sense.  Thanks for clarifying that.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

1995hoo

Quote from: wxfree on July 31, 2017, 04:43:14 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 31, 2017, 03:59:32 PM
- The President and his family, the Vice-President (who was not provided a government owned house until the 1970s, BTW) and his family, members of Congress, the Justices of the Supreme Court and the other federal courts based in DC (DC circuit, federal circuit, military appeals, etc) retain their residency where elected from.  They do not vote in DC, nor do they pay DC income tax.   Remember that since the President and Vice-President have to be from different states, even if we overlook that DC is not a state at all, then no team could ever run for re-election.

That makes sense.  Thanks for clarifying that.

SP Cook has one thing wrong. The president and vice president  don't have to be from different states. The Twelfth Amendment instead provides that the electors must vote for one person for president and one for vice president and one of those two people must be from a different state from the electors. Practically speaking, what that means is that if both candidates on one ticket were from the same state, that ticket would forfeit that state's electoral votes for vice president because presumably the party would instruct the electors to vote for the presidential candidate and then vote for someone else for VP (because the presidency is the higher priority) in order to avoid having the votes invalidated by Congress.

Practically speaking, this hasn't mattered because the parties are careful about it. But also practically speaking, it's not hard to think of situations where it wouldn't matter. Last year, for example, suppose Trump had chosen Ivanka as his running mate. It wouldn't have mattered much for electoral vote reasons since it was pretty clear New York wasn't going for him anyway. Similarly, suppose the president and VP did become legal DC residents. For electoral vote purposes, that would only matter if the two were Democrats because a lot of DC voters are automatons who vote strictly on party lines regardless of who the candidates are.

It's also not hard to think of situations where this rule would have been very important. If Bush and Cheney had both hailed from Texas, for example, they would have had to forfeit Texas's electoral votes for VP. That would have meant no VP candidate would have gotten a majority and the new Senate sworn in in January 2001 would have chosen the VP from the top two electoral vote recipients (Cheney and Lieberman, that year). The Senate was initially split 50—50. I don't know whether Gore, as incumbent VP, would have been allowed a tiebreaking vote to make Lieberman the VP with Bush as president.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

SP Cook

You are correct.  If you remember, Cheney's Wyoming residency was highly questionable.  Like most DC lifers, he had a home in northern Virginia, and another in income tax-free Texas, where he got a property tax break for being "owner-occupied".  He moved his voter's registration back to Wyoming four days before the 2000 GOP convention.  A few people squwaked about it, but nothing came of it. 

Lots of congressmen for life eventually give up everything but a nominal connection to their home states.  Here in WV, Robert Byrd never owned a home, claiming to live at a PO Box his staff checked once a week, while (eventually disgraced) second generation congressman Alan Molohan, born and raised in northern Virginia, claimes to live at his elderly mother's home.  Same was true over in Kentucky for its second generation congressan (and eventual federal prisioner) Chris Perkins.

nexus73

51...pfft.  Let's go for the Obama 57 state flag.  PR, DC, Guam, Northern Marianas, Samoa, Virgin Islands and then annex one random country...LOL!  Heinz USA so to speak.  Let everyone "state" their business!

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

US 89

Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2017, 02:15:17 PM


Quote from: formulanone on June 13, 2017, 01:02:02 PM
Edit: Forgot about Deseret, which essentially became Utah.

Actually, Deseret was to be a much larger area, taking in not only Utah's territory, but also a lot of Nevada, Arizona...even California.  This is because of the aggressive settlement program of the Mormons.

In actuality, the reduction of the state's size to just Utah was actually taken as a slight to the Mormons that had proposed Deseret.

Deseret included Utah, Nevada, southeast Oregon, Southern California, most of Arizona, western New Mexico, western Colorado, southwest Wyoming, and southeast Idaho. Who knows if the Mormons who proposed Deseret actually thought it was going to be accepted.

Anyway, the Utah Territory was created in 1850, including Utah, most of Nevada, western CO, and southwest WY. In 1862 the Colorado part was moved to the Colorado Territory, most of the Nevada part was split to create a new territory, and part of the Wyoming part was removed. More land was given to Nevada in 1862 and 1866. Then, the rest of the Wyoming part was transferred to Wyoming.

Generally, the states and territories around Utah grew while Utah shrank. The primary reason was that the Feds weren't too keen on the Mormon practice of polygamy, and wanted as little land as possible influenced by Mormonism.

Desert Man

Mathematicians can rearrange the stars on the US flag to fit just perfectly...imagine 51 or 52 states in like 2026 - the 250th anniversary of the USA. Puerto Rico? SI. District of Columbia? maybe. even Guam (or merged with the Northern Marianas)? or Jefferson north of the 40N latitude in California? Hold on, this makes 54. I would believe Eastern Oklahoma forms a state to represent the Indian Nations jurisdictional area (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muskogee and Seminole) plus Osage county - 55 states then - 5 rows of 5 stars and 5 rows of 6 stars. what about Lakotah (Sioux Nations of the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming and Nebraska)? 56, unless the Navajo nation appears as a new state (covers the four corner states region of Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico). "57 states" predicted by president Barack Obama unless he included American Samoa, US Virgin Islands and Palmyra Atoll in his definition of the "United States of America's extended family tree".   
Get your kicks...on Route 99! Like to turn 66 upside down. The other historic Main street of America.

hotdogPi

Quote from: Desert Man on August 10, 2017, 12:00:51 AM"57 states" predicted by president Barack Obama unless he included American Samoa, US Virgin Islands and Palmyra Atoll in his definition of the "United States of America's extended family tree".   

He implied there were 60, not 57. Here is the actual quote:

Quote from: Wikiquote, on Barack ObamaOver the last fifteen months we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in fifty...seven states... I think one left to go. One left to go – Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to, even though I really wanted to visit – but my staff would not justify it.

57 + one left + Alaska + Hawaii = 60.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

GaryV

Quote from: Desert Man on August 10, 2017, 12:00:51 AM
Mathematicians can rearrange the stars on the US flag to fit just perfectly...imagine 51 or 52 states in like 2026 - the 250th anniversary of the USA. Puerto Rico? SI. District of Columbia? maybe. even Guam (or merged with the Northern Marianas)? or Jefferson north of the 40N latitude in California? Hold on, this makes 54. I would believe Eastern Oklahoma forms a state to represent the Indian Nations jurisdictional area (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muskogee and Seminole) plus Osage county - 55 states then - 5 rows of 5 stars and 5 rows of 6 stars. what about Lakotah (Sioux Nations of the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming and Nebraska)? 56, unless the Navajo nation appears as a new state (covers the four corner states region of Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico). "57 states" predicted by president Barack Obama unless he included American Samoa, US Virgin Islands and Palmyra Atoll in his definition of the "United States of America's extended family tree".   
Don't forget Superior.

Pink Jazz

#62
I remember there was once an online app on Slate that generates U.S. flags up to 100 stars based on historical patterns - Short, Long, Alternate, Equal, Wyoming, and Oregon.  A 51 star flag worked either in the Alternate pattern, which alternated between rows of even and odd number of stars with the same amount of even and odd rows, or in the Wyoming pattern, which had had all rows with the same number of stars except the top and bottom which had an extra star each.

The current 50-star U.S. flag is a Long pattern, which has more long rows than short rows.

LM117

Thought I'd bump this thread instead of making a new one. Looks there will be a full House vote on DC statehood soon, though Mitch McConnell has already said that any statehood bill for DC and Puerto Rico is DOA as long as he controls the Senate...

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/482656-house-panel-approves-bill-to-grant-dc-statehood
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

formulanone

Quote from: LM117 on February 25, 2020, 02:24:14 PM
Thought I'd bump this thread instead of making a new one. Looks there will be a full House vote on DC statehood soon, though Mitch McConnell has already said that any statehood bill for DC and Puerto Rico is DOA as long as he controls the Senate...

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/482656-house-panel-approves-bill-to-grant-dc-statehood

QuoteThey also pointed to the District's long history of political scandal, most recently with Jack Evans resigning from the city council last month on the eve of an expulsion vote over a string of ethics violations. Evans filed to run for his old seat just days later.

So it's just like every other state: it has scandals.

jakeroot

#65
Quote from: formulanone on February 25, 2020, 02:56:00 PM
So it's just like every other state: it has scandals.

Right, but those other states have been grandfathered into scandals. DC has to be squeaky clean to get in.

roadman

Keep the same pattern, but add one more star in the blue field.  The majority of people wouldn't even notice the change.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

SP Cook

DC cannot be "granted statehood"  (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17th clause), nor be granted votes in the House (US Constitution, Article I, Section 2),  nor the Senate (US Constitution, Article I, Section 1)

jakeroot

Quote from: SP Cook on February 25, 2020, 03:46:58 PM
DC cannot be "granted statehood"  (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17th clause), nor be granted votes in the House (US Constitution, Article I, Section 2),  nor the Senate (US Constitution, Article I, Section 1)

But you can change the constitution, no?

PHLBOS

#69
Quote from: roadman on February 25, 2020, 03:18:24 PMKeep the same pattern, but add one more star in the blue field.  The majority of people wouldn't even notice the change.
See the first reply of this thread that shows the Wiki design of a 51-state flag.

Chances are that particular design was conceived long ago, maybe even shortly after Hawaii became a state.  Should a 51st state ever become reality, be it PR, DC or even a split within an existing state; a proposed 52-star flag will likely be designed shortly thereafter.

Quote from: jakeroot on February 25, 2020, 04:15:40 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on February 25, 2020, 03:46:58 PM
DC cannot be "granted statehood"  (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17th clause), nor be granted votes in the House (US Constitution, Article I, Section 2),  nor the Senate (US Constitution, Article I, Section 1)

But you can change the constitution, no?
Yes, via the Amendment process; which is not done quickly.  A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of the US Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states
GPS does NOT equal GOD

US 89

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 25, 2020, 04:19:44 PM
Quote from: roadman on February 25, 2020, 03:18:24 PMKeep the same pattern, but add one more star in the blue field.  The majority of people wouldn't even notice the change.
See the first reply of this thread that shows the Wiki design of a 51-state flag.

Chances are that particular design was conceived long ago, maybe even shortly after Hawaii became a state.  Should a 51st state ever become reality, be it PR, DC or even a split within an existing state; a proposed 52-star flag will likely be designed shortly thereafter.

Quote from: jakeroot on February 25, 2020, 04:15:40 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on February 25, 2020, 03:46:58 PM
DC cannot be "granted statehood"  (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17th clause), nor be granted votes in the House (US Constitution, Article I, Section 2),  nor the Senate (US Constitution, Article I, Section 1)

But you can change the constitution, no?
Yes, via the Amendment process; which is not done quickly.  A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of the US Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states

Which seems unlikely to happen at any point in the near future given today's political climate.

Instead, I'd propose giving most of DC back to Maryland, keeping only the southwestern part of the District where most of the federal buildings are - you could use something like K and 4th as the new DC eastern and northern boundaries. That would only require an act of Congress and approval from the Maryland legislature.

kphoger

Quote from: US 89 on February 25, 2020, 04:47:52 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 25, 2020, 04:19:44 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on February 25, 2020, 04:15:40 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on February 25, 2020, 03:46:58 PM
DC cannot be "granted statehood"  (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17th clause), nor be granted votes in the House (US Constitution, Article I, Section 2),  nor the Senate (US Constitution, Article I, Section 1)

But you can change the constitution, no?

Yes, via the Amendment process; which is not done quickly.  A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of the US Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states

Which seems unlikely to happen at any point in the near future ever given today's political climate.

FTFY
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Duke87

Quote from: SP Cook on February 25, 2020, 03:46:58 PM
DC cannot be "granted statehood"  (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17th clause)

That clause reads:
Quote{The Congress shall have Power} To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings

I don't see how this precludes DC from being made a state. Sure, this clause gives congress legislative power over DC, but it's already been established by precedent that congress can delegate that power to a city government. Logically congress would also be able to delegate that power to a state government.

The way this clause makes things interesting is that in a scenario where DC is a state, congress would retain the power to override any laws the state passes in ways they cannot for other states, and potentially even to revoke DC's statehood.

Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2020, 05:00:39 PM
Quote from: US 89 on February 25, 2020, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 25, 2020, 04:19:44 PM
Yes, via the Amendment process; which is not done quickly.  A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of the US Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states
Which seems unlikely to happen at any point in the near future ever given today's political climate.

FTFY

That thing that's unlikely to happen ever has happened 27 times already.



If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

oscar

Quote from: Duke87 on February 25, 2020, 07:02:41 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on February 25, 2020, 03:46:58 PM
DC cannot be "granted statehood"  (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17th clause)

That clause reads:
Quote{The Congress shall have Power} To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings

I don't see how this precludes DC from being made a state. Sure, this clause gives congress legislative power over DC, but it's already been established by precedent that congress can delegate that power to a city government. Logically congress would also be able to delegate that power to a state government.

The way this clause makes things interesting is that in a scenario where DC is a state, congress would retain the power to override any laws the state passes in ways they cannot for other states, and potentially even to revoke DC's statehood.

Complicating factor is the "equal footing doctrine", which at least presumptively gives new states all the rights of the old ones (I don't understand that doctrine, and don't feel like researching the issue in depth). That might nullify any special powers Congress might have over the District that it would not have over any other state. OTOH, if that argument doesn't work, then Virginia and Maryland might not be worried about D.C. taxing the incomes of Virginia and Maryland residents who work in D.C., as D.C. really wants to do, if Congress can thwart that ambition.

Congress could carve out a small area within D.C. to remain subject to Congressional control, and grant statehood to the rest, much like Congress ceded much of the original DIstrict back to Virginia in the 1840s. But unless the 23rd amendment were repealed, that would give any residents of the shrunken District -- including the homeless people who sleep on steam grates next to Federal buildings in downtown D.C. -- control over the three electoral votes now cast by D.C. 
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

vdeane

Quote from: oscar on February 25, 2020, 08:13:59 PM
Congress could carve out a small area within D.C. to remain subject to Congressional control, and grant statehood to the rest, much like Congress ceded much of the original DIstrict back to Virginia in the 1840s. But unless the 23rd amendment were repealed, that would give any residents of the shrunken District -- including the homeless people who sleep on steam grates next to Federal buildings in downtown D.C. -- control over the three electoral votes now cast by D.C. 
My understanding is that the bill does just that; the new state would exclude all existing federal buildings and monuments.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.