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

kkt

If DC were shrunken down to a small core, wouldn't the rest have to be given back to Maryland?


oscar

#26
Quote from: kkt on June 12, 2017, 04:56:57 PM
If DC were shrunken down to a small core, wouldn't the rest have to be given back to Maryland?

Good question whether Maryland would have the legal right to take back the part (or all) of D.C. that was no longer used as a Federal district. But better questions are (a) would MD even want to take back that territory and its large population, and (b) if not, would MD have the legal right, or raw political clout, to block the transfer of that territory to another state (including a new one) even if wished not to reclaim the territory for itself? I'm sure somebody has looked into that, but I don't have time to dig up the answers.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

1995hoo

Oscar is right about a shrunken DC not being required. The Constitution gives Congress plenary legislative authority over the District (not to exceed ten miles square) that "may," through cession by states AND acceptance by Congress, become the seat of government. "May," coupled with the part about "acceptance," would normally indicate it isn't mandatory because they'd have used "shall" instead if it were.
"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.

briantroutman

Quote from: SP Cook on June 12, 2017, 02:47:37 PM
I cannot imagine who would "rebel" against PR being a state, other than the small group in PR who advocate independence, who would not be supporting of any American flag.

Do you think that the type of people who today fly the Confederate (battle) flag would embrace statehood for Puerto Rico–or the new flag resulting from its admission to the Union? Personally, I doubt both.


Quote from: dvferyance on June 12, 2017, 02:49:18 PM
Our founding fathers set up it that the national capitol should not be in a particular state due to a state influencing the federal government.

I'm aware of that, and yet at the same time I think it begs the question: Why was the District of Columbia created as large as it is?

Particularly at the turn of the 19th century, when the entirety of the federal government could have been housed within a handful of modest office buildings, lawmakers couldn't possibly have expected that the entirety of the district's nearly 100 undeveloped square miles would be filled with nothing but capitol buildings, executive mansions, and federal offices. And indeed, it isn't, even 200+ years later.

In other words, due to its considerable size and the sale of much of its land to private owners, D.C. was destined from the start to house private residents and private businesses and be the setting of commerce that is only tangentially connected to federal government–if at all.

And simultaneously on the other hand, the sprawling footprint of the federal government includes countless sizable office complexes in Virginia and Maryland with thousands of employees living in those states having elected representatives able to influence the activities of the federal government. Numerous private enterprises in Virginia and Maryland profit from (and have a vested interest in) the existence of the federal offices in these bordering states.

Bottom line: I fail to see how the Residence Act creating D.C. 1.) adequately serves the District's private residents or 2.) insulates the federal government from states' influences.

kkt

I'm speculating, but they might have meant to leave a good deal of countryside around the built-up area where federal troops could maneuver, free of interference from state militias.

mgk920

#30
Quote from: GaryV on June 12, 2017, 04:54:39 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on June 12, 2017, 02:47:37 PMI'm not quite old enough to remember when Alaska and Hawaii became states, but I would assume that most people, and certainly most government offices, rushed right out and bought new flags. 

Nope, not hardly.  There were plenty of 48-star flags around well into the 60's.  (Anyone remember, were there any quantities of 49-star flags between the AK and HI admission dates?)

Federal installations probably got them sooner.  But local governments, schools, and private businesses would be slower to adopt.  Why spend money to replace an otherwise perfectly useful flag?

And in any event, an expected glut of new flag sales would be partially offset by a decrease in sales of old flags prior to the official statehood date.

I still occasionally see a 49 star flag in use in front of a private residence here in Appleton, WI.

BTW, tradition is that whenever a new state is admitted to the USA, the national flag with the resulting new star pattern is unveiled by the USDoD, Office of Heraldry, and the President on the first July 4 following the admission.  Thus, the 49 star flag was 'current' for one year.  It was unveiled on 1959-07-04 (Alaska was granted statehood on 1959-01-03), while the current 50 star flag was unveiled on 1960-07-04 (Hawaii was granted statehood on 1959-08-21).

An interesting 1959 article on the subject with an image of President Eisenhower examining a 49 star flag:
http://old.qmfound.com/us_flag_49th_and_50th_star.htm

Enjoy!

Mike

SP Cook

Quote from: kkt on June 12, 2017, 04:56:57 PM
If DC were shrunken down to a small core, wouldn't the rest have to be given back to Maryland?


Yes.  In fact DC used to include what is today Arlington and Alexandria, which was returned to Virginia because the governement did not need it.

It will never happen, of course, but the actual best solution for DC statehood is not to make the District smaller, but rather much larger.  Take the suburban counties around DC and make a "Columbia" or whatever you want to call it and make that a state, and let the rest of Virginia and Maryland be free.

hotdogPi

Quote from: SP Cook on June 13, 2017, 09:44:44 AM
It will never happen, of course, but the actual best solution for DC statehood is not to make the District smaller, but rather much larger.  Take the suburban counties around DC and make a "Columbia" or whatever you want to call it and make that a state, and let the rest of Virginia and Maryland be free.

At least Republicans won't oppose that one just for political party reasons (because Virginia would switch from a blue state to a red state). However, what would the University of Maryland be called if it was no longer part of Maryland?
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.

Henry

Quote from: 1 on June 13, 2017, 09:48:57 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on June 13, 2017, 09:44:44 AM
It will never happen, of course, but the actual best solution for DC statehood is not to make the District smaller, but rather much larger.  Take the suburban counties around DC and make a "Columbia" or whatever you want to call it and make that a state, and let the rest of Virginia and Maryland be free.

At least Republicans won't oppose that one just for political party reasons (because Virginia would switch from a blue state to a red state). However, what would the University of Maryland be called if it was no longer part of Maryland?
University of Columbia?

At the very least, there would still be a University of Maryland, except in Baltimore, so there you go.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

formulanone

#34
While there have been many statehood proposals that failed to gain traction, and those which did not gather majority support, I can't find an example where admission into the Union was ever rejected by Congress.

Edit: Forgot about Deseret, which essentially became Utah.


briantroutman

#35
Quote from: formulanone on June 13, 2017, 01:02:02 PM
While there have been many statehood proposals that failed to gain traction, and those which did not gather majority support, I can't find an example where admission into the Union was ever rejected by Congress.

Perhaps a Tennesseean could provide more detail:

In one article I read regarding Puerto Rico's possible paths to statehood, the author suggested that PR could do "what Tennessee did" . The article suggested that Congress was at least reluctant to admit Tennessee to the Union. In response, the Governor of Tennessee appointed congressional representatives and two Senators and sent them to Washington–kind of like that episode of Seinfeld where George Costanza was turned down for a job but he simply showed up for work anyway.


Quote from: SP Cook on June 13, 2017, 09:44:44 AM
It will never happen, of course, but the actual best solution for DC statehood is not to make the District smaller, but rather much larger.  Take the suburban counties around DC and make a "Columbia" or whatever you want to call it and make that a state, and let the rest of Virginia and Maryland be free.

I don't see how this would be a better plan than shrinking the "federal district"  to a small core around the White House, U.S. Capitol, and National Mall and returning the rest of D.C. to Maryland.

Maryland might not want these outer reaches of D.C., but then again, it may be more palatable then losing its wealthiest county (Montgomery).

Rothman



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.

Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

TheArkansasRoadgeek

I love how we are a "Union" or group of states, but yet, we can't leave the group we have created; by law. Does anyone think differently?
Well, that's just like your opinion man...

formulanone

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

Who's ever received more than they asked? :D

Duke87

Quote from: formulanone on June 13, 2017, 05:44:50 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 13, 2017, 02:15:17 PM
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.

Who's ever received more than they asked? :D

Offhand, Nevada and Missouri are both larger than their originally proposed borders would have made them.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Roadgeekteen

Quote from: formulanone on June 12, 2017, 05:21:51 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 12, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
Any ideas of what this pattern would look like?    :hmmm:

Wikipedia has shown this proposed US Flag for a while:



I would imagine the union, stripe pattern, and proportions of the flag would be kept the same.

The shift in the star pattern would take a little getting used to, but prior generations have dealt with that before...9, 8, 9, 8, 9, 8 works nicely.
Maybe I am just stupid, but at first glance this looks exactly the same as the 50 state flag.
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

Scott5114

Note that just because PR became a state doesn't mean the PRI series would be signed (cf. the A series).

Quote from: oscar on June 12, 2017, 11:32:32 AM
Significant opposition to statehood (not shown in Sunday's referendum, since statehood opponents boycotted the vote)

I think it's dangerous to take the boycott into consideration when attempting to interpret the results. Otherwise, you go down the rabbit hole of questioning any election by claiming the losing side boycotted it, e.g. Trump only won because Clinton supporters were boycotting the election. Such an argument would be considered ludicrous in the mainland United States and not change the outcome of the election (since the natural counterargument is, well if they didn't want it to happen why didn't they vote against it?).

The boycott does serve as an effective fig leaf for mainland politicians opposed to PR statehood on partisan grounds, however.

I think the only realistic chance of PR statehood happening is if it is explained to Donald Trump that making PR statehood happen would be a true personal achievement for him, one that no president in a half-century had done, and which would be a permanent, irrevocable part of his legacy regardless of whatever else happens in his administration. If he internalized this on a basic level, he would likely move heaven and earth to make it possible.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 13, 2017, 11:15:44 PM
Quote from: formulanone on June 12, 2017, 05:21:51 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 12, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
Any ideas of what this pattern would look like?    :hmmm:

Wikipedia has shown this proposed US Flag for a while:



I would imagine the union, stripe pattern, and proportions of the flag would be kept the same.

The shift in the star pattern would take a little getting used to, but prior generations have dealt with that before...9, 8, 9, 8, 9, 8 works nicely.
Maybe I am just stupid, but at first glance this looks exactly the same as the 50 state flag.

Here's the key difference: It has 1 more star on it.

kkt

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 14, 2017, 04:51:52 AM
Note that just because PR became a state doesn't mean the PRI series would be signed (cf. the A series).

Quote from: oscar on June 12, 2017, 11:32:32 AM
Significant opposition to statehood (not shown in Sunday's referendum, since statehood opponents boycotted the vote)

I think it's dangerous to take the boycott into consideration when attempting to interpret the results. Otherwise, you go down the rabbit hole of questioning any election by claiming the losing side boycotted it, e.g. Trump only won because Clinton supporters were boycotting the election. Such an argument would be considered ludicrous in the mainland United States and not change the outcome of the election (since the natural counterargument is, well if they didn't want it to happen why didn't they vote against it?).

The boycott does serve as an effective fig leaf for mainland politicians opposed to PR statehood on partisan grounds, however.

I think the only realistic chance of PR statehood happening is if it is explained to Donald Trump that making PR statehood happen would be a true personal achievement for him, one that no president in a half-century had done, and which would be a permanent, irrevocable part of his legacy regardless of whatever else happens in his administration. If he internalized this on a basic level, he would likely move heaven and earth to make it possible.

But it's Congress that has to vote on it, not Trump.

PHLBOS

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 14, 2017, 06:05:59 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 13, 2017, 11:15:44 PM
Quote from: formulanone on June 12, 2017, 05:21:51 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 12, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
Any ideas of what this pattern would look like?    :hmmm:

Wikipedia has shown this proposed US Flag for a while:



I would imagine the union, stripe pattern, and proportions of the flag would be kept the same.

The shift in the star pattern would take a little getting used to, but prior generations have dealt with that before...9, 8, 9, 8, 9, 8 works nicely.
Maybe I am just stupid, but at first glance this looks exactly the same as the 50 state flag.

Here's the key difference: It has 1 more star on it.
Additionally, the above-posted 51-star flag has a 6-row 9-8-9-8-9-8 arrangement compared to the 50-state flag having a 9-row 6-5-6-5-6-5-6-5-6 arrangement.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

SP Cook

The "boycott" in the last two referendums should be considered.  This is not like (most American) political elections where it is "this person" or "that person", and somebody has to win; nor something like Brexit where there are only 2 posibliites.  The people that boycotted did so because, in their opinions, the choice they wanted was not offered on the ballot.

In 2012, the election was 2 questions.  They had a 78% turnout, but 28% refused to vote on the second question, which was the recomendation of their party.   The 2017 election was one question and they got a turnout of only 22%, because all of the other viewpoints' parties boycotted.  This contrasts to normal 55-60% turnouts in ordinary elections there.

The actual process of statehood is just regular lawmaking, so both Congress and the President have a say.  The modern method they have used (if you consider something they have not done for over 50 years "modern" ) is that they pass a law to provide for a straight "yes" or "no" vote on statehood, then, assuming yes wins, another law providing for statehood, and then a special election for house and senate.  Oddly the two senators elected are just "A" and "B", and only after the election does the Senate decide into which class each goes.  As to the House, it is at least arguable that the law could provide for ONE seat (and thus 3 Electors) until the next reapportionment, as no entity with this large of a %age has ever become a state.

kkt

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.

SidS1045

Quote from: dvferyance on June 12, 2017, 11:11:10 AMIn the first place Puerto Rico is bilingual. Second of all Florida Senator Marco Rubio said we should respect the will of the people of Puerto Rico. So there are Republicans that support this including myself.

And in the third place, the United States does not have an official language...not that legislating one hasn't been tried, but such proposals have never succeeded.
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." - Edward R. Murrow

Brandon

Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on June 13, 2017, 03:40:18 PM
I love how we are a "Union" or group of states, but yet, we can't leave the group we have created; by law. Does anyone think differently?

Actually, there's no law stating as such.  It's a precedent that they cannot leave.  For more information, please see War, Civil.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

wxfree

Personally, I'm in favor of statehood for Puerto Rico.  I have no vested interest, but I think the nation should keep expanding.  It won't be as rapidly as in the past, of course, but I think 60 years between additions is more than enough.  My interest is general (in slow expansion), not specific (in PR).  If there's a good candidate for statehood I'd like to see it considered.  As an exception, I recall hearing words about Kuwait becoming a state after it was liberated from Iraq.  I don't recall where I heard that, it may have just been other kids talking in school, but I remember thinking it was a bad idea because of its location in an area where it would be difficult to provide security.

I also favor shrinking DC to federal land and state-izing the rest, either in a new state or in Maryland.  This is partly because of the representation issue, and partly because I don't like the idea of direct federal citizenship.  The White House being a residence brings up an interesting question.  The Texas constitution requires that the governor reside in Austin.  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.  The president and other transient occupants could just retain their state residency.  Do any of the staff live in the White House, and possibly not have a home elsewhere that would be in a state?  If so, they may be the only remaining DC residents who don't have representation.  Or possibly during their employment they could be assigned a government-sponsored apartment outside the district to, if nothing else, have a place to claim state residency.  This is too small an issue to be important, but it's interesting to me.  (It would get really interesting if the 23rd Amendment weren't repealed and a few White House staffers controlled 3 electoral votes.  Even more interesting would be if the president and his family became the only DC residents and controlled those three votes.)

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.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?



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.