(link is 404, so here's an AP article:)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hLsBqt8B2LWU_5fxdinssiagaZBg?docId=8ca22c65109b42bab34c1fc8e651519d (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hLsBqt8B2LWU_5fxdinssiagaZBg?docId=8ca22c65109b42bab34c1fc8e651519d)
I'd welcome a 51st state. The ambiguous status of some of America's territories strikes me as odd; American but not quite. A place like Puerto Rico certainly has enough people to be worthy of statehood. Might as well tack the US Virgin Islands on to PR, if that's cool, since they're in the vicinity.
I wonder how much of a fight Puerto Rican statehood would wind up being in Washington. I don't know anything about the island's politics, but I can imagine that it would probably slightly benefit one party more than the other currently and that's a recipe for gridlock. Democracy is better served when rights are extended to more people so I say go for it. There's no knowing for sure what the political leanings will be 20, 50 or 100 years down the road.
If nothing else, it'll be a boon to flag manufacturers.
[Road-related content split to https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8034 -S.]
I don't see PR statehood happening anytime soon--Congress has to pass enabling legislation and I don't see that getting past the House, which is in Republican hands, given that PR would get eight electoral votes which, in the short to medium term, can be expected to break entirely Democratic unless PR follows Nebraska's (isolated) example and splits its electoral votes.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 07, 2012, 06:17:25 PM
I don't see PR statehood happening anytime soon--Congress has to pass enabling legislation and I don't see that getting past the House, which is in Republican hands, given that PR would get eight electoral votes which, in the short to medium term, can be expected to break entirely Democratic unless PR follows Nebraska's (isolated) example and splits its electoral votes.
Puerto Rico statehood is on both parties' platforms. Both Repubs and Dems have said that it is up to Puerto Rico to decide. It looks like they have.
Here's the text from Wiki:
Quote2012 Platforms
Democratic Party 2012 Platform
We commit to moving resolution of the status issue forward with the goal of resolving it expeditiously. If local efforts in Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of clear status options, such as those recommended in the White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico, which the United States is politically committed to fulfilling.[158]
Republican Party 2012 Platform
We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.[159][160]
I'd say the enabling legislation will occur finally.
I'd better get my ass down there, so I can say I clinched all 51 states when there were still only 50. :pan:
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 07, 2012, 06:03:59 PM
(link is 404, so here's an AP article:)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hLsBqt8B2LWU_5fxdinssiagaZBg?docId=8ca22c65109b42bab34c1fc8e651519d (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hLsBqt8B2LWU_5fxdinssiagaZBg?docId=8ca22c65109b42bab34c1fc8e651519d)
I'd welcome a 51st state. The ambiguous status of some of America's territories strikes me as odd; American but not quite. A place like Puerto Rico certainly has enough people to be worthy of statehood. Might as well tack the US Virgin Islands on to PR, if that's cool, since they're in the vicinity.
I don't know how different the "culture" is in the USVI as compared to Puerto Rico. Including, but not limited to, language.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 07, 2012, 06:03:59 PM
I wonder how much of a fight Puerto Rican statehood would wind up being in Washington. I don't know anything about the island's politics, but I can imagine that it would probably slightly benefit one party more than the other currently and that's a recipe for gridlock. Democracy is better served when rights are extended to more people so I say go for it. There's no knowing for sure what the political leanings will be 20, 50 or 100 years down the road.
If nothing else, it'll be a boon to flag manufacturers.
As was suggested above, both parties seem to be in favor of it (though I suppose they can change their minds about it). I certainly think it's a good idea,
as long as it does not lead to statehood for the District of Columbia, which I oppose because the land on which D.C. sits was ceded to the federal government by my state of Maryland to create a seat of national government, not a new (and
very tiny) state.
[
sorry for the digression]
At the same time, I find the never-ending Congressional meddling in D.C. municipal affairs to be offensive and un-American, but the way to solve D.C.'s colonial status is to follow precedent from 1845, when the part of D.C. that was ceded to the federal government by Virginia (all of present-day Arlington County and most of the City of Alexandria) was retroceded back to Virginia by Congress after agreement between the two. Congress and Maryland could easily agree to retrocede nearly all of present-day D.C. (with possible exceptions for the U.S. Capitol complex, the White House, U.S. Supreme Court and the National Mall) back to Maryland, which would put a permanent end to Congressional involvement in most D.C. local affairs (with exceptions for things like diplomatic missions and federal buildings and installations that would be located in the "Maryland" part of D.C.).
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 07, 2012, 07:26:35 PM
I'd better get my ass down there, so I can say I clinched all 51 states when there were still only 50. :pan:
Then get your ass to Mars before it becomes the 52nd.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 07, 2012, 07:26:35 PM
I'd better get my ass down there, so I can say I clinched all 51 states when there were still only 50. :pan:
And of course Puerto Rico's eighty or so municipios would offer fertile new territory for county-counters, if it became a state. I've been to over half of the municipios, but since Puerto Rico isn't one of my favorite tropical destinations, I'm not anxious to go back and snag the rest.
In any case, I'm skeptical about Puerto Rico attaining statehood anytime soon. There is no local consensus in favor of a permanent association with the United States, and a not-insignificant minority favoring independence (or at least the right to later leave the U.S., which would no longer be an option if Puerto Rico became a state). On the U.S. side, there has to be a lot of reluctance to acquire not only an independence movement, but also a predominantly Spanish-speaking population, particularly among the "English-only" crowd on the fringes of the GOP.
I doubt that DC statehood would be considered, as that would require a Constitution amendment.
As for PR, yes, IMHO, it would, of course, add two seats to the USSenate and, due to its population, add or reapportion six seats in the USHouse.
As for the USVI, I'm of the mind that their culture is significantly different from PR, in addition to their curious custom of driving on the wrong side of the road.
With the party balances in Congress the way they are now, I doubt that PR's seats would affect politics and policy all that much. Also, keep in mind that when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted, AK was expected to be a Democrat bastion while HI was looked at as a Republican bedrock.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on November 07, 2012, 09:23:47 PM
With the party balances in Congress the way they are now, I doubt that PR's seats would affect politics and policy all that much. Also, keep in mind that when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted, AK was expected to be a Democrat bastion while HI was looked at as a Republican bedrock.
They still have those characteristics... it is the parties that switches places (due to the civil rights debates in the 60s and Nixon's Southern Strategy). At the same time, Oklahoma was considered a Democratic state.
I have heard conflicting things about Puerto Rico's predominant political alignment, to the point that I sort of suspect that were it admitted it might become one of the swing states. I have heard the outgoing governor, narrowly defeated, would have been considered a Tea Party member on the mainland, for instance.
Quote from: mgk920 on November 07, 2012, 09:23:47 PM
....
As for PR, yes, IMHO, it would, of course, add two seats to the USSenate and, due to its population, add or reapportion six seats in the USHouse.
....
It would be a reapportionment because there's a federal statute that caps the House at 435 members. The Electoral College would grow to 540 votes to reflect the two new senators, meaning you would now need 271 electoral votes (instead of 270) to be elected president due to the requirement that you have a majority. (The current total of 538 electoral votes reflects 435 House members, 100 senators, and 3 electoral votes for DC pursuant to the Twenty-Third Amendment.)
On further research it appears that TEMPORARILY there would be 437 members of the House based on the precedent from when Alaska and Hawaii became states. They each got a congressman without reducing the number of congressmen representing the already-existing states. After the 2020 Census the number would be adjusted back to 435.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 08, 2012, 10:21:19 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 07, 2012, 09:23:47 PM
....
As for PR, yes, IMHO, it would, of course, add two seats to the USSenate and, due to its population, add or reapportion six seats in the USHouse.
....
It would be a reapportionment because there's a federal statute that caps the House at 435 members. The Electoral College would grow to 540 votes to reflect the two new senators, meaning you would now need 271 electoral votes (instead of 270) to be elected president due to the requirement that you have a majority. (The current total of 538 electoral votes reflects 435 House members, 100 senators, and 3 electoral votes for DC pursuant to the Twenty-Third Amendment.)
On further research it appears that TEMPORARILY there would be 437 members of the House based on the precedent from when Alaska and Hawaii became states. They each got a congressman without reducing the number of congressmen representing the already-existing states. After the 2020 Census the number would be adjusted back to 435.
If 435 seats is simply statutory limit (and it is, there is no limit in the Constitution), it can certainly be changed as part of the legislation that grants the statehood. But yes, PR would have six seats.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on November 08, 2012, 10:59:36 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 08, 2012, 10:21:19 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 07, 2012, 09:23:47 PM
....
As for PR, yes, IMHO, it would, of course, add two seats to the USSenate and, due to its population, add or reapportion six seats in the USHouse.
....
It would be a reapportionment because there's a federal statute that caps the House at 435 members. The Electoral College would grow to 540 votes to reflect the two new senators, meaning you would now need 271 electoral votes (instead of 270) to be elected president due to the requirement that you have a majority. (The current total of 538 electoral votes reflects 435 House members, 100 senators, and 3 electoral votes for DC pursuant to the Twenty-Third Amendment.)
On further research it appears that TEMPORARILY there would be 437 members of the House based on the precedent from when Alaska and Hawaii became states. They each got a congressman without reducing the number of congressmen representing the already-existing states. After the 2020 Census the number would be adjusted back to 435.
If 435 seats is simply statutory limit (and it is, there is no limit in the Constitution), it can certainly be changed as part of the legislation that grants the statehood. But yes, PR would have six seats.
Mike
Agreed, that statute could be amended. It was passed in 1929. It caps the House at 435 members but allows for a temporary increase upon admission of a new state until the next census, at which time the number is adjusted back to 435. That's what happened when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted in 1959.
I do think it's probably important to recognize that the situation with Alaska and Hawaii, which were admitted so soon before a census and which were also states with small populations, might not be considered fair if Puerto Rico were admitted, given that territory's population. In other words, suppose, for hypothetical purposes, Puerto Rico became a state in 2015. There would be two presidential elections, and three and a half Congresses, prior to the next apportionment of representatives (since apportionments take effect with the federal elections held in years ending in "2," e.g., 2002, 2012, 2022, etc.). I could certainly see how there would be major objections to the fairness of sticking a state that "should" have six congressmen, and eight electoral votes, with only one congressman and three electoral votes for almost seven years.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 08, 2012, 10:21:19 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 07, 2012, 09:23:47 PM
....
As for PR, yes, IMHO, it would, of course, add two seats to the USSenate and, due to its population, add or reapportion six seats in the USHouse.
....
It would be a reapportionment because there's a federal statute that caps the House at 435 members. The Electoral College would grow to 540 votes to reflect the two new senators, meaning you would now need 271 electoral votes (instead of 270) to be elected president due to the requirement that you have a majority. (The current total of 538 electoral votes reflects 435 House members, 100 senators, and 3 electoral votes for DC pursuant to the Twenty-Third Amendment.)
On further research it appears that TEMPORARILY there would be 437 members of the House based on the precedent from when Alaska and Hawaii became states. They each got a congressman without reducing the number of congressmen representing the already-existing states. After the 2020 Census the number would be adjusted back to 435.
The 435 cap is not found in the U.S. Constitution, and in my opinion it was an arbitrary limit imposed in the early part of the 20th Century, and should be removed. Congressional districts have become much too large (in terms of population) and they should be substantially reduced with more seats in the House.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 08, 2012, 11:32:33 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 08, 2012, 10:21:19 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on November 07, 2012, 09:23:47 PM
....
As for PR, yes, IMHO, it would, of course, add two seats to the USSenate and, due to its population, add or reapportion six seats in the USHouse.
....
It would be a reapportionment because there's a federal statute that caps the House at 435 members. The Electoral College would grow to 540 votes to reflect the two new senators, meaning you would now need 271 electoral votes (instead of 270) to be elected president due to the requirement that you have a majority. (The current total of 538 electoral votes reflects 435 House members, 100 senators, and 3 electoral votes for DC pursuant to the Twenty-Third Amendment.)
On further research it appears that TEMPORARILY there would be 437 members of the House based on the precedent from when Alaska and Hawaii became states. They each got a congressman without reducing the number of congressmen representing the already-existing states. After the 2020 Census the number would be adjusted back to 435.
The 435 cap is not found in the U.S. Constitution, and in my opinion it was an arbitrary limit imposed in the early part of the 20th Century, and should be removed. Congressional districts have become much too large (in terms of population) and they should be substantially reduced with more seats in the House.
True, but the cap is also not prohibited by the Constitution, which merely states that the number of representatives shall not exceed one per every thirty thousand people except that each state shall have at least one representative.
Plus the reason for the cap was because having a large congress is not good for business. It would be even harder to get anything done were there no cap.
PR statehood might cause the language issue to flare up again, though we'd finally have language arguments that aren't fueled by viewpoints on immigration. I don't see a language law of any kind passing at the federal level though; it's too controversial.
Why would PR get just one congressman until the 2020 census? I don't know of any provision in the 1929 law that limits new states to just one congressman until congress is re-apportioned. Alaska and Hawaii really are that small, and to this day Alaska still has only one congressman! Hawaii just has two, and that could easily have been the result of a population change in the 1960 census as well.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/2a
Rather than get rid of the cap on Representatives, we could just raise it a couple dozen or so. There's 100 million more people in the USA now compared to the 20's. Pick a nice round number like 500. (We like our base 10 numerical system.)
As for DC, I absolutely believe it should be tacked back onto Maryland. There's no good reason not to. It's bullcrap that the people living in the shadows of our monuments don't have a vote in the legislature. But a single city is waaay too small to be a state.
Quote from: deanej on November 08, 2012, 01:15:24 PM
....
Why would PR get just one congressman until the 2020 census? I don't know of any provision in the 1929 law that limits new states to just one congressman until congress is re-apportioned. Alaska and Hawaii really are that small, and to this day Alaska still has only one congressman! Hawaii just has two, and that could easily have been the result of a population change in the 1960 census as well.
....
Yeah, they COULD do it via another method. When Hawaii was admitted, for example, Section 8 of the Hawaii Statehood Admission Act (Pub. L. 86-3, 73 Stat. 4), provided as follows:
QuoteThe State of Hawaii upon its admission into the Union shall be entitled to one Representative until the taking effect of the next reapportionment, and such Representative shall be in addition to the membership of the House of Representatives as now prescribed by law: Provided, That such temporary increase in the membership shall not operate to either increase or decrease the permanent membership of the House of Representatives as prescribed in the Act of August 8, 1911 (37 Stat. 13), nor shall such temporary increase affect the basis of apportionment established by the Act of November 15, 1941 (55 Stat. 761; 2 U.S.C., §2a), for the Eighty-third Congress and each Congress thereafter.
I assume the
method of giving them representation would probably be the same, but perhaps a larger number of congressmen might be allowed.
In the 1960 presidential election, BTW, there were 537 electoral votes to reflect the single congressman and two senators (three electoral votes) each for Alaska and Hawaii; in 1964 the number was 538 because the two extra congressmen were deleted and the House was reapportioned to 435, but in the meantime DC was given three electoral votes. Presumably it would work that way in Puerto Rico's case as well regardless of the number of congressmen (so, in other words, if they got six congressmen, the Electoral College would go to 546 votes to account for six congressmen and two senators, such that you'd need 274 to win, and then in 2022 it would adjust back to 538 votes).
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 08, 2012, 03:05:56 PM
QuoteThe State of Hawaii upon its admission into the Union shall be entitled to one Representative until the taking effect of the next reapportionment, and such Representative shall be in addition to the membership of the House of Representatives as now prescribed by law
that is some
awful wording. why not say "one additional representative"; the way it is worded right now does have the ambiguity of "one representative" resolved in the second clause, but why leave it hanging like that? the average reader looks at that and says "so do they get one or two?"
Quote(so, in other words, if they got six congressmen, the Electoral College would go to 546 votes to account for six congressmen and two senators, such that you'd need 274 to win, and then in 2022 it would adjust back to 538 votes).
it would adjust to 540, if I am reading it correctly. 435 representatives, 102 senators, 3 for DC.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 08, 2012, 03:16:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 08, 2012, 03:05:56 PM
QuoteThe State of Hawaii upon its admission into the Union shall be entitled to one Representative until the taking effect of the next reapportionment, and such Representative shall be in addition to the membership of the House of Representatives as now prescribed by law
that is some awful wording. why not say "one additional representative"; the way it is worded right now does have the ambiguity of "one representative" resolved in the second clause, but why leave it hanging like that? the average reader looks at that and says "so do they get one or two?"
Quote(so, in other words, if they got six congressmen, the Electoral College would go to 546 votes to account for six congressmen and two senators, such that you'd need 274 to win, and then in 2022 it would adjust back to 538 votes).
it would adjust to 540, if I am reading it correctly. 435 representatives, 102 senators, 3 for DC.
Yeah, you're right. I overlooked the two new senators when I wrote that sentence. Good catch. So you would still need 271 electoral votes.
Another reason for a cap on representative count could be the physical size of the chamber. You can only fit so many people in there. As it is, they've already once had to put additions onto the Capitol for the current chambers (which are considerably larger than the original chambers).
And if Chris Christie becomes a rep they'll have to [insert fat joke].
Quote from: Duke87 on November 08, 2012, 06:46:15 PM
Another reason for a cap on representative count could be the physical size of the chamber. You can only fit so many people in there. As it is, they've already once had to put additions onto the Capitol for the current chambers (which are considerably larger than the original chambers).
[semi sarcastic] Or they could build a fancy modern capital building with bigger chambers to allow for Puerto Rico and any other new additions caused by states breaking up. The old one can be left as a tourist attraction[/semi sarcastic]
[sarcasm] Or how about moving the capital altogether to a place not vulnerable to hurricanes? Have various cities bid on becoming the new capital like they do with sports teams, as well as pay for any new buildings.[/sarcasm]
Economics:
No matter what measure you use, PR is about 60% as wealthy as the poorest state, Mississippi. PR's economy is based on a "cafeteria" relationship (pick and choose) with the USA. With laws that help PR applying laws that help it (duty free imports and exports, passport free travel, etc) , not applying those that do not (safety, EPA, labor laws, Jones Act, etc) and getting special based on the relative level of income modifications to others (Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, banking, etc).
Certain manufacturers love this, including seafood processing, pharmacutical makers, and alcohol distileries, love this, able to make things at a lower cost than on the mainland, but not pay import duty.
The Constitution says that new states will be admitted on "an equal basis with the original States". Most scholars think that this means that every federal law would have to apply to PR, which would devistate the economy.
Further, PR is considered a seperate "country" for things like copyrights, trademarks, rights to TV shows and sports, etc. This would have to be normalized.
Politics:
PR would get 5 congressmen, and thus 7 electorial votes, probably down to 4 after the next census (PR has been bleeding population for a very long time). This would have changed the ballance of congress, assuming all democrats, in many past historical periods, and on can assume this would happen again.
PR statehood would also bring up the "national language" debate.
Also one would assume that there would be presure to "resolve" the rest of the US territories status as well. The rest are far smaller than the smallest state, and undeserving of two senators each. One could simply make a "Greater Hawaii" (although the same "cafeteria" economic relationships applies to their Pacific possessions as well) but the USVI is very problematical.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 08, 2012, 08:19:54 PM
Economics:
No matter what measure you use, PR is about 60% as wealthy as the poorest state, Mississippi. PR's economy is based on a "cafeteria" relationship (pick and choose) with the USA. With laws that help PR applying laws that help it (duty free imports and exports, passport free travel, etc) , not applying those that do not (safety, EPA, labor laws, Jones Act, etc) and getting special based on the relative level of income modifications to others (Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, banking, etc).
Certain manufacturers love this, including seafood processing, pharmacutical makers, and alcohol distileries, love this, able to make things at a lower cost than on the mainland, but not pay import duty.
The Constitution says that new states will be admitted on "an equal basis with the original States". Most scholars think that this means that every federal law would have to apply to PR, which would devistate the economy.
Forget "most scholars." Once it's a state, PR will be the same as everywhere else. I presume it would resolve to a similar status as Hawai`i - tourism is its main draw, plus a variety of tropical crops, but most people live in the shadows of poverty while the money flows into the tourist areas and the wealthy entrepreneurs there. I don't see the economy being devastated, but it will shift toward industries most suited to the island climate/location rather than the cheapness of being there.
Quote
Further, PR is considered a seperate "country" for things like copyrights, trademarks, rights to TV shows and sports, etc. This would have to be normalized.
Small potatoes. Transfer rights where they don't conflict, have a grace period for arbitration on the others. That's not something to wring hands over.
Quote
Politics:
PR would get 5 congressmen, and thus 7 electorial votes, probably down to 4 after the next census (PR has been bleeding population for a very long time). This would have changed the ballance of congress, assuming all democrats, in many past historical periods, and on can assume this would happen again.
I saw "6 congressmen" below. So let's say it's down to 5 after the next census. Besides the fact that five states will end up minus one representative they'd otherwise have had, there's no significant shift in the balance of power. Right now, there are a lot more than 6 votes separating Democrats and Republicans. I'll also throw out there that the two parties have a way of shifting over time to both be close to, but about equally far from, the exact political center of the nation. Otherwise, whoever's closer would win far too often.
QuotePR statehood would also bring up the "national language" debate.
No, if anything, quite the opposite. The only reason that's a debate right now is that except for Hawai`i, all of the states were established by English speakers. (Never mind who lived there first.) Adding another non-English state means that we have that much less footing to argue that there should be a national language. (OT: I actually support a national language.)
Quote
Also one would assume that there would be presure to "resolve" the rest of the US territories status as well. The rest are far smaller than the smallest state, and undeserving of two senators each. One could simply make a "Greater Hawaii" (although the same "cafeteria" economic relationships applies to their Pacific possessions as well) but the USVI is very problematical.
I wouldn't assume that. They haven't been putting out any pressure so far. Not everyone HAS to be a state just because one territory wants to be.
Quote from: Steve on November 08, 2012, 09:04:14 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on November 08, 2012, 08:19:54 PM
PR statehood would also bring up the "national language" debate.
No, if anything, quite the opposite. The only reason that's a debate right now is that except for Hawai`i, all of the states were established by English speakers. (Never mind who lived there first.) Adding another non-English state means that we have that much less footing to argue that there should be a national language. (OT: I actually support a national language.)
All of the states? Louisiana was originally settled by French speakers, and was mainly French until after statehood. Then you have New Mexico which was originally settled by Spanish speakers and continues to have both English and Spanish as official state languages. (OT: I don't support a national language - we have quite a few within our boundaries, English, French, Spanish, Navajo, etc.)
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2012, 02:23:30 PM
As for DC, I absolutely believe it should be tacked back onto Maryland. There's no good reason not to. It's bullcrap that the people living in the shadows of our monuments don't have a vote in the legislature. But a single city is waaay too small to be a state.
Agree with all of the above.
D.C. is highly dependent on warehouse and distribution centers located in Maryland (since there are effectively none in D.C. itself, and no intermodal facilities either). The only intermodal facilities in Virginia that serve D.C. are the two airports (Dulles and National), and three large pipeline terminals for petroleum products.
But other goods generally come in to D.C. from Maryland now. And a large part of D.C. depends on a trauma center in Prince George's County, Maryland (Prince George's General Hospital), because it is closer to much of D.C. than the trauma center at George Washington University Hospital (that was the place that saved Ronald Reagan's life in 1981).
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2012, 02:23:30 PM
As for DC, I absolutely believe it should be tacked back onto Maryland. There's no good reason not to. It's bullcrap that the people living in the shadows of our monuments don't have a vote in the legislature. But a single city is waaay too small to be a state.
You sure about that? I just looked it up. DC only has 100,000 people less than Alaska.
Quote from: Brandon on November 09, 2012, 06:37:43 AM
(OT: I don't support a national language - we have quite a few within our boundaries, English, French, Spanish, Navajo, etc.)
Selecting one as a national language doesn't mean we have to exclude others - we could just set a baseline. It's not like the US is Quebec.
Quote from: deanej on November 09, 2012, 11:41:54 AM
Selecting one as a national language doesn't mean we have to exclude others - we could just set a baseline. It's not like the US is Quebec.
We need a single language that everybody understands for practicality's sake. If a cop says something to you and you don't understand what he's saying, you could get shot in the back. It's just a good idea. The government shouldn't subsidize every language out there, because it's too costly.
Quote from: bugo on November 09, 2012, 12:07:34 PMIf a cop says something to you and you don't understand what he's saying, you could get shot in the back.
if you think that a cop yelling at you excitedly means "turn and flee", then you're just an idiot.
The dubiousness of the wording of PR ballot questions aside, I welcome PR as a new state. If nothing else they have fantastic food, and I'm looking forward to the heads of the racist faction of the anti-immigration lobby exploding when we have a primarily Spanish speaking state.
Quote from: Brandon on November 09, 2012, 06:37:43 AM
Quote from: Steve on November 08, 2012, 09:04:14 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on November 08, 2012, 08:19:54 PM
PR statehood would also bring up the "national language" debate.
No, if anything, quite the opposite. The only reason that's a debate right now is that except for Hawai`i, all of the states were established by English speakers. (Never mind who lived there first.) Adding another non-English state means that we have that much less footing to argue that there should be a national language. (OT: I actually support a national language.)
All of the states? Louisiana was originally settled by French speakers, and was mainly French until after statehood. Then you have New Mexico which was originally settled by Spanish speakers and continues to have both English and Spanish as official state languages. (OT: I don't support a national language - we have quite a few within our boundaries, English, French, Spanish, Navajo, etc.)
If the facts don't conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.....
Quote from: bugo on November 09, 2012, 12:07:34 PM
Quote from: deanej on November 09, 2012, 11:41:54 AM
Selecting one as a national language doesn't mean we have to exclude others - we could just set a baseline. It's not like the US is Quebec.
We need a single language that everybody understands for practicality's sake. If a cop says something to you and you don't understand what he's saying, you could get shot in the back. It's just a good idea. The government shouldn't subsidize every language out there, because it's too costly.
Choosing a national/official language does not mean that everybody would be require to learn that language, any more than people in Hawaii are required to learn Hawaiian or people in New Zealand are required to learn Maori. These places have more than one official language, yet I don't believe police officers are required to know both languages. It might also be a bad idea to have non-Spanish-speaking police officers in parts of the country where, say, 75% of the population speaks Spanish.
Québec is mostly French-speaking, Puerto Rico is mostly Spanish-speaking. I assume the police in Québec speakk French; one would assume the police in Puerto Rico would speak Spanish, whether or not it's a state.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 09, 2012, 12:28:00 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 09, 2012, 12:07:34 PMIf a cop says something to you and you don't understand what he's saying, you could get shot in the back.
if you think that a cop yelling at you excitedly means "turn and flee", then you're just an idiot.
A friend of mine had the police tell him one time, 'Desist!' He didn't know what the word 'desist' meant, and ended up getting beaten up by the cops. Then again, he is an idiot. (Actually, he has a learning disability; while he uses that to his advantage sometimes, it certainly worked to his disadvantage on that day).
Quote from: kphoger on November 09, 2012, 01:49:41 PM
A friend of mine had the police tell him one time, 'Desist!' He didn't know what the word 'desist' meant, and ended up getting beaten up by the cops. Then again, he is an idiot. (Actually, he has a learning disability; while he uses that to his advantage sometimes, it certainly worked to his disadvantage on that day).
I've learned, from crossing borders in foreign countries, that if a uniformed authority says
anything at all whatsoever in a commanding tone of voice, you should - at the very least - pause what you're doing and look at him.
he might just be telling you that he likes the flowers growing just outside the guard shack, but why take the chance?
(I did once accidentally run a border from Switzerland to Italy because their hand gestures were ambiguous and I had not been sure of Switzerland's status vis a vis Schengen - but when they started waving frantically, I certainly backed up and apologized in about four languages!)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 09, 2012, 01:52:46 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 09, 2012, 01:49:41 PM
A friend of mine had the police tell him one time, 'Desist!' He didn't know what the word 'desist' meant, and ended up getting beaten up by the cops. Then again, he is an idiot. (Actually, he has a learning disability; while he uses that to his advantage sometimes, it certainly worked to his disadvantage on that day).
I've learned, from crossing borders in foreign countries, that if a uniformed authority says anything at all whatsoever in a commanding tone of voice, you should - at the very least - pause what you're doing and look at him.
he might just be telling you that he likes the flowers growing just outside the guard shack, but why take the chance?
(I did once accidentally run a border from Switzerland to Italy because their hand gestures were ambiguous and I had not been sure of Switzerland's status vis a vis Schengen - but when they started waving frantically, I certainly backed up and apologized in about four languages!)
My fun one was when we drove up to a police officer on our honeymoon in México. He asked where we were going, and then proceeded to say a couple of long sentences in Spanish; I only understood that we should be careful of.....some sort of danger. Plus the English word 'buggies' that he threw into the mix. Exactly what that danger was, I wasn't sure; I wasn't even sure if it was OK to drive there at all. Eventually I gathered that it was OK to proceed. So we were tootling up this dirt road, enjoying the mountainous scenery, and then these dune buggies go flying past us, spraying dirt all over our car! Then some more, then some more. Now I know: 'carrera' means 'race'.
But now we've gone over the line into Driving where you don't speak the native language (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7397.msg165831#msg165831).
Quote from: Steve on November 08, 2012, 09:04:14 PM
Once it's a state, PR will be the same as everywhere else. I presume it would resolve to a similar status as Hawai`i - tourism is its main draw, plus a variety of tropical crops, but most people live in the shadows of poverty while the money flows into the tourist areas and the wealthy entrepreneurs there. I don't see the economy being devastated, but it will shift toward industries most suited to the island climate/location rather than the cheapness of being there.
Umm, Puerto Rico, which offers passport free travel form the mainland USA, already has a highly developed tourist economy. Making it a state would not change that. (At least not for the better, even now PR suffers relative to other Caribbean destinations, because labor costs are far higher, even with exceptions from most US labor laws. It is also exempt from the US casino tax now. As a state all US laws would apply, further pushing up costs there relative to nearby islands.) It would, however, destroy the remainder of the island's economy, which is based on its unique relationship with the USA.
And this leaves out the effects of the Jones Act.
Quote
I saw "6 congressmen" below. So let's say it's down to 5 after the next census. Besides the fact that five states will end up minus one representative they'd otherwise have had, there's no significant shift in the balance of power. Right now, there are a lot more than 6 votes separating Democrats and Republicans.
Puerto Rico has a population of 3,725,789, placing it between Oklahoma and Connecticuit, both of which have 5 congress seats. Any way the key word in your post is "right now". If you project back in history, and assume PR is always going to elect democrats (PR has elected a single non-voting member to a 4 year term since the 1920s, who has only been a Republican once in all that time), the ballance of power in the House, Senate, and Electoral College would have been changed by 2, 5, and 7 additional democrats several times, and it seems safe to assume that would happen in the future.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 09, 2012, 04:50:38 PM
Puerto Rico has a population of 3,725,789, placing it between Oklahoma and Connecticuit, both of which have 5 congress seats. Any way the key word in your post is "right now". If you project back in history, and assume PR is always going to elect democrats (PR has elected a single non-voting member to a 4 year term since the 1920s, who has only been a Republican once in all that time), the ballance of power in the House, Senate, and Electoral College would have been changed by 2, 5, and 7 additional democrats several times, and it seems safe to assume that would happen in the future.
The
composition of those bodies would change, but the
balance of power is a defined term based on who is in the majority. I again offer that both parties tend to adjust to align approximately equidistant from the center of the political spectrum, with just enough different to attract 30% of the voters each way, give or take per election. So adding more Democrat votes would probably shift the Democratic and Republican parties both slightly left over a few years. Look at this nation in a world context, and you'll realize how minimal this effect actually is. Both parties agree on the type of government and on maintaining the framework of the Constitution. That's actually really conservative compared to most developed nations.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 08, 2012, 06:46:15 PM
Another reason for a cap on representative count could be the physical size of the chamber. You can only fit so many people in there. As it is, they've already once had to put additions onto the Capitol for the current chambers (which are considerably larger than the original chambers).
They don't really
need a seat on the floor for each member. 99% of the time, the chamber is very empty. It only fills up for things like the State of the Union Address, and if they absolutely had to find seats for everybody they could just use a section of the gallery for things like that. The British House of Commons chamber can only seat around two thirds of MPs.
Quote from: deanej on November 09, 2012, 11:41:54 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2012, 02:23:30 PM
As for DC, I absolutely believe it should be tacked back onto Maryland. There's no good reason not to. It's bullcrap that the people living in the shadows of our monuments don't have a vote in the legislature. But a single city is waaay too small to be a state.
You sure about that? I just looked it up. DC only has 100,000 people less than Alaska.
The land area of the District of Columbia is tiny, and aside from lands owned by the National Park Service and the Department of Defense, is 100% urbanized. It generates essentially none of its own electric power, and all of its intakes for drinking water are located in Maryland.
And as I suggested above, Maryland ceded what is now D.C. to the federal government to become the seat of the national government, not to create a new State of New Columbia.
Quote from: deanej on November 09, 2012, 11:41:54 AM
Quote from: Brandon on November 09, 2012, 06:37:43 AM
(OT: I don't support a national language - we have quite a few within our boundaries, English, French, Spanish, Navajo, etc.)
Selecting one as a national language doesn't mean we have to exclude others - we could just set a baseline. It's not like the US is Quebec.
The national language of the U.S. is English. But I don't have a problem with Puerto Rico having Spanish as a primary language and English as a secondary language.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 10, 2012, 11:17:46 AM
The national language of the U.S. is English. But I don't have a problem with Puerto Rico having Spanish as a primary language and English as a secondary language.
English is the
de facto national language in
most of the US. However...
* Its status is not official on the federal level, as the US has no official langage;
* 22 states plus our nation's capital have no official language; and
* The prevalence of English as the common spoken language is not ubiquitous nationwide, especially in the Southwest.
Quote from: kphoger on November 10, 2012, 12:56:40 PM
English is the de facto national language in most of the US. However...
* Its status is not official on the federal level, as the US has no official langage;
Our statutes and most of our other laws (with exceptions such as for treaties, including those with domestic Indian nations) are written only in English, and there's no official translation into other languages let alone any provision for which version prevails, as is sometimes seen in officially bilingual countries. That seems to me enough to make English the official language of the Federal Government, even though there's no law saying so in so many words.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2012, 02:23:30 PM
Pick a nice round number like 500. (We like our base 10 numerical system.)
Not all of us. Calling 500 "a nice round number", and especially favoring it for that reason, is blatantly radixist.
Quote from: oscar on November 10, 2012, 01:07:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 10, 2012, 12:56:40 PM
English is the de facto national language in most of the US. However...
* Its status is not official on the federal level, as the US has no official langage;
Our statutes and most of our other laws (with exceptions such as for treaties, including those with domestic Indian nations) are written only in English, and there's no official translation into other languages let alone any provision for which version prevails, as is sometimes seen in officially bilingual countries. That seems to me enough to make English the official language of the Federal Government, even though there's no law saying so in so many words.
Note, however, that if you are accused of breaking one of those laws and go to federal court (either civil or criminal), an interpreter must be provided if a party or witness doesn't speak English (ref. 28 USC §2461 (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t26t28+3478+0++()%20%20AND%20((28)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w%2F10%20(1827))%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20)).
Quote from: kphoger on November 10, 2012, 01:25:12 PM
Quote from: oscar on November 10, 2012, 01:07:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 10, 2012, 12:56:40 PM
English is the de facto national language in most of the US. However...
* Its status is not official on the federal level, as the US has no official langage;
Our statutes and most of our other laws (with exceptions such as for treaties, including those with domestic Indian nations) are written only in English, and there's no official translation into other languages let alone any provision for which version prevails, as is sometimes seen in officially bilingual countries. That seems to me enough to make English the official language of the Federal Government, even though there's no law saying so in so many words.
Note, however, that if you are accused of breaking one of those laws and go to federal court (either civil or criminal), an interpreter must be provided if a party or witness doesn't speak English (ref. 28 USC §2461 (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t26t28+3478+0++()%20%20AND%20((28)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w%2F10%20(1827))%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20)).
Yeah, even if one speaks only a language like Norwegian, Russian, Korean, or Arabic that isn't even close to being a semi-official language.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2012, 02:23:30 PM
As for DC, I absolutely believe it should be tacked back onto Maryland. There's no good reason not to. It's bullcrap that the people living in the shadows of our monuments don't have a vote in the legislature. But a single city is waaay too small to be a state.
DC should be left the way it is now. Did the people not know when they moved there that they weren't eligible to vote in Congress? The law was written when DC was being planned. It's not like it was enacted two years ago. If the residents don't like it, tough. It's like moving next to an airport, then bitching about the noise when you're trying to sleep!
That law is also very outdated. When it was passed, DC was to be a ceremonial city. DC turned into a real city and should be treated as such.
Quote from: lamsalfl on November 19, 2012, 07:41:33 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2012, 02:23:30 PM
As for DC, I absolutely believe it should be tacked back onto Maryland. There's no good reason not to. It's bullcrap that the people living in the shadows of our monuments don't have a vote in the legislature. But a single city is waaay too small to be a state.
DC should be left the way it is now. Did the people not know when they moved there that they weren't eligible to vote in Congress? The law was written when DC was being planned. It's not like it was enacted two years ago. If the residents don't like it, tough. It's like moving next to an airport, then bitching about the noise when you're trying to sleep!
At this point, most of the residents have been there several generations. Many, if not most, of them cannot afford to move, let alone leave DC. Those who know about the situation and are able to leave it are the minority, so take that into account. (In the airport situation, again, oftentimes that's where poor families end up - it's that, a dangerous slum, or no house.)
Quote from: vtk on November 10, 2012, 01:15:44 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2012, 02:23:30 PM
Pick a nice round number like 500. (We like our base 10 numerical system.)
Not all of us. Calling 500 "a nice round number", and especially favoring it for that reason, is blatantly radixist.
We're talking about Puerto Rico, not Alanland.
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 19, 2012, 10:42:55 PM
Quote from: vtk on November 10, 2012, 01:15:44 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2012, 02:23:30 PM
Pick a nice round number like 500. (We like our base 10 numerical system.)
Not all of us. Calling 500 "a nice round number", and especially favoring it for that reason, is blatantly radixist.
We're talking about Puerto Rico, not Alanland.
I'm serious. Sort of. More serious than a joke among mathematicians, less serious than a cause worth marching on Birmingham. Alanland is utter nonsense, and I resent the comparison.
Quote from: deanej on November 19, 2012, 07:52:49 PM
That law is also very outdated. When it was passed, DC was to be a ceremonial city. DC turned into a real city and should be treated as such.
Then give it back to Maryland, at least everything except the about 1/2 square mile of federal district.
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2012, 11:04:34 PM
Then give it back to Maryland, at least everything except the about 1/2 square mile of federal district.
I'd have to agree with this. Either leave it like it has been, or have it absorb into Maryland.
Quote from: Steve on November 19, 2012, 08:18:41 PM
At this point, most of the residents have been there several generations. Many, if not most, of them cannot afford to move, let alone leave DC. Those who know about the situation and are able to leave it are the minority, so take that into account. (In the airport situation, again, oftentimes that's where poor families end up - it's that, a dangerous slum, or no house.)
How many current D.C. residents have not only lived there their entire adult lives (except maybe with short breaks such as for college or military service), but also have never moved within D.C.? I'd venture a guess that most of the people who have moved within D.C. could have about as easily moved instead to more or less comparable communities just a few miles away in Virginia or Maryland, if they really cared about living in a state rather than D.C. It's not as if D.C. is an oasis of affordable housing in a sea of wealthy suburbs -- many of D.C.'s close-in suburbs, especially to the east and south, are not real pricey either, and indeed many former D.C. residents now live there. Arlington and Bethesda also have lively, densely populated urban corridors (especially for Arlington, within a few subway stops from downtown D.C.), for those with more money who like that aspect of D.C.'s environment.
My preference, too, would be to return most or all of D.C. to Maryland. Good luck getting Maryland to go along with that, though.
Quote from: vtk on November 19, 2012, 11:00:56 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 19, 2012, 10:42:55 PM
Quote from: vtk on November 10, 2012, 01:15:44 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2012, 02:23:30 PM
Pick a nice round number like 500. (We like our base 10 numerical system.)
Not all of us. Calling 500 "a nice round number", and especially favoring it for that reason, is blatantly radixist.
We're talking about Puerto Rico, not Alanland.
I'm serious. Sort of. More serious than a joke among mathematicians, less serious than a cause worth marching on Birmingham. Alanland is utter nonsense, and I resent the comparison.
My apologies.
We should give DC to Puerto Rico if PR becomes a state.
Quote from: lamsalfl on November 19, 2012, 07:41:33 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2012, 02:23:30 PM
As for DC, I absolutely believe it should be tacked back onto Maryland. There's no good reason not to. It's bullcrap that the people living in the shadows of our monuments don't have a vote in the legislature. But a single city is waaay too small to be a state.
DC should be left the way it is now. Did the people not know when they moved there that they weren't eligible to vote in Congress? The law was written when DC was being planned. It's not like it was enacted two years ago. If the residents don't like it, tough. It's like moving next to an airport, then bitching about the noise when you're trying to sleep!
It's not just about lack of representation in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.
Would
you want to live in a jurisdiction where all decisions made by your elected officials were subject to second-guessing by Congresspeople that know little about your municipal affairs, but meddle in those matters in order to grandstand for the folks back home?
Post Merge: November 21, 2012, 01:46:57 AM
Quote from: kphoger on November 10, 2012, 12:56:40 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 10, 2012, 11:17:46 AM
The national language of the U.S. is English. But I don't have a problem with Puerto Rico having Spanish as a primary language and English as a secondary language.
English is the de facto national language in most of the US. However...
* Its status is not official on the federal level, as the US has no official langage;
* 22 states plus our nation's capital have no official language; and
* The prevalence of English as the common spoken language is not ubiquitous nationwide, especially in the Southwest.
And in some of the U.S. Pacific possessions (Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands), the "other" language is Chamorro.
Post Merge: November 21, 2012, 01:46:59 AM
Quote from: Steve on November 19, 2012, 08:18:41 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on November 19, 2012, 07:41:33 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2012, 02:23:30 PM
As for DC, I absolutely believe it should be tacked back onto Maryland. There's no good reason not to. It's bullcrap that the people living in the shadows of our monuments don't have a vote in the legislature. But a single city is waaay too small to be a state.
DC should be left the way it is now. Did the people not know when they moved there that they weren't eligible to vote in Congress? The law was written when DC was being planned. It's not like it was enacted two years ago. If the residents don't like it, tough. It's like moving next to an airport, then bitching about the noise when you're trying to sleep!
At this point, most of the residents have been there several generations. Many, if not most, of them cannot afford to move, let alone leave DC.
Not so sure about that. A large number of D.C. families engaged in "black flight" from the District of Columbia to Maryland in the 1980's and 1990's while Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr. was mayor, the public schools were really falling apart, the crack cocaine wars were raging and the murder rate was very high.
Quote from: Steve on November 19, 2012, 08:18:41 PM
Those who know about the situation and are able to leave it are the minority, so take that into account. (In the airport situation, again, oftentimes that's where poor families end up - it's that, a dangerous slum, or no house.)
There are plenty of people that want to live in
very high-priced areas of D.C. And those high-priced areas are not just to the west of Rock Creek Park any longer.
But that is beside the point. The colonial status of D.C. should be offensive to every U.S. citizen.
Post Merge: November 21, 2012, 01:47:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2012, 11:04:34 PM
Quote from: deanej on November 19, 2012, 07:52:49 PM
That law is also very outdated. When it was passed, DC was to be a ceremonial city. DC turned into a real city and should be treated as such.
Then give it back to Maryland, at least everything except the about 1/2 square mile of federal district.
That is the right solution. It would probably give Maryland one more seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, but would not give D.C. two U.S. Senators.
Post Merge: November 21, 2012, 01:47:07 AM
Quote from: oscar on November 20, 2012, 01:58:35 PM
How many current D.C. residents have not only lived there their entire adult lives (except maybe with short breaks such as for college or military service), but also have never moved within D.C.? I'd venture a guess that most of the people who have moved within D.C. could have about as easily moved instead to more or less comparable communities just a few miles away in Virginia or Maryland, if they really cared about living in a state rather than D.C. It's not as if D.C. is an oasis of affordable housing in a sea of wealthy suburbs -- many of D.C.'s close-in suburbs, especially to the east and south, are not real pricey either, and indeed many former D.C. residents now live there. Arlington and Bethesda also have lively, densely populated urban corridors (especially for Arlington, within a few subway stops from downtown D.C.), for those with more money who like that aspect of D.C.'s environment.
I think of Arlington County as "D.C. minus the D.C. Government" and "D.C. minus the antics of Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr."
Quote from: oscar on November 20, 2012, 01:58:35 PM
My preference, too, would be to return most or all of D.C. to Maryland. Good luck getting Maryland to go along with that, though.
There are plenty of folks in Maryland that would be happy to have D.C. back. I think much of the hesitation comes from Baltimore City, for they fear another relatively large and old city that would "compete" with them for state dollars in Annapolis.
There are probably some Maryland Republicans that are not so enthused about D.C. (over 75% of the population self-identifies as Democratic) as part of Maryland, but I don't know that a D.C. retrocession could possibly make matters worse for them than they already are.
Post Merge: November 21, 2012, 01:47:11 AM
Quote from: kphoger on November 20, 2012, 09:10:34 PM
We should give DC to Puerto Rico if PR becomes a state.
Rather far from PR, don't you think?
^
Nice sextuple post! :spin:
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 20, 2012, 11:25:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 20, 2012, 09:10:34 PM
We should give DC to Puerto Rico if PR becomes a state.
Rather far from PR, don't you think?
No biggie. Most government agencies will still have offices in San Juan.
Quote from: kphoger on November 20, 2012, 09:10:34 PM
We should give DC to Puerto Rico if PR becomes a state.
What do you have against the people of Puerto Rico? :pan:
While, Constitutionally, DC cannot become a state, nor have "state-like" representation in either house, without a 50-state approved Constitutional amendment, IMHO, if we were to make DC a state, the place should actually be a lot larger. Include what the phone company used to call "Suburban Maryland" and "Northern Virginia", or simply use "inside the beltway" (or, better yet, a circle about 10 mile further out than the beltway).
A single state with the artificial subsidy economy and populated by those fascinated by government (and their victims downtown), leaving a rump Virginia and Maryland with normal economies and people.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 22, 2012, 11:12:54 AM
While, Constitutionally, DC cannot become a state, nor have "state-like" representation in either house, without a 50-state approved Constitutional amendment,
Are you saying that the amendment would require ratification by all 50 states, rather than the usual three-fourths?
I'm also not sure any amendment would be needed at all, considering that the seat of the U.S. government was originally within a state, and Article I, section 8 seems to have made its relocation to a district (not part of any state) optional, rather than mandatory. (Though if Maryland has any rights to reclaim D.C. if its district status were eliminated, those rights might need to be either waived or overridden by amendment.) If there be any obstacles to D.C. statehood, would they apply equally to retrocession of D.C. to Maryland?
The trickiest scenario might be statehood, or retrocession, for only part of D.C. Something might then have to be done with the 23rd Amendment, to prevent a very small number of residents remaining in D.C. (and there will probably be some, no matter how the new boundaries are drawn) from controlling three electoral votes.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 22, 2012, 11:12:54 AM
A single state with the artificial subsidy economy and populated by those fascinated by government (and their victims downtown), leaving a rump Virginia and Maryland with normal economies and people.
Would Virginia be okay with this? With the current setup, NoVA and the rest of VA are balanced politically, making VA a swing state. If you split NoVA off to join a new state of Columbia, you would have one state that is always blue and one state that is always red. Virginia would go back to being pretty much non-influential in terms of national politics, same as it was prior to 2008.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 22, 2012, 11:12:54 AM
While, Constitutionally, DC cannot become a state, nor have "state-like" representation in either house, without a 50-state approved Constitutional amendment, IMHO, if we were to make DC a state, the place should actually be a lot larger. Include what the phone company used to call "Suburban Maryland" and "Northern Virginia", or simply use "inside the beltway" (or, better yet, a circle about 10 mile further out than the beltway).
There are many residents of Maryland and Virginia that want nothing to do with the District of Columbia's politicians. Including me. Not just because of the never-ending antics of former Mayor-for-Life and current Councilmember-for-Life Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr. either. There are two members of the Council of the District of Columbia that were recently convicted of serious crimes (one is in federal prison, one serving a term under house arrest).
Quote from: SP Cook on November 22, 2012, 11:12:54 AM
A single state with the artificial subsidy economy and populated by those fascinated by government (and their victims downtown), leaving a rump Virginia and Maryland with normal economies and people.
I think the idea that any state be so profoundly dependent on the federal government is a very bad idea. In terms of total federal spending
now, I think that title belongs to Virginia.
Quote from: oscar on November 22, 2012, 11:57:36 AM
The trickiest scenario might be statehood, or retrocession, for only part of D.C. Something might then have to be done with the 23rd Amendment, to prevent a very small number of residents remaining in D.C. (and there will probably be some, no matter how the new boundaries are drawn) from controlling three electoral votes.
Under retrocession, I think the 23rd Amendment would have to be repealed.
Despite Puerto Rico's in favor of joining the union, I just hope Texas and any one of the current 50 states does not secede to become new countries having to leave on their own without federal help. States as sovereign political units should be voluntary members of a larger federal political unit said the US and state constitutions. Puerto Rico wants to preserve its' law and sovereignity while they're admitted to the union if US congress approves the action next year. Anyways, bienvenidos Puerto Rico!
N.Y. Times op-ed: Will Puerto Rico Be America's 51st State? (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/will-puerto-rico-be-americas-51st-state.html)
QuoteONE of the little-noticed results of the Nov. 6 elections was a plebiscite held in Puerto Rico on the island's relationship with the United States. The outcome was murky, much like the last century's worth of political history between Washington and San Juan, and the mainland's confused or disinterested attitude toward Puerto Rico that abetted it.
QuoteEver since the United States invaded Puerto Rico in 1898 and then was handed the island by Spain as part of the settlement for the Spanish-American War, the island's people – American citizens since the passage of the Jones Act in 1917 – have been continuously put in situations where they are simultaneously auditioning for statehood, agitating for independence, and making the very best of living in limbo.
Quote from: oscar on November 22, 2012, 11:57:36 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on November 22, 2012, 11:12:54 AM
While, Constitutionally, DC cannot become a state, nor have "state-like" representation in either house, without a 50-state approved Constitutional amendment,
Are you saying that the amendment would require ratification by all 50 states, rather than the usual three-fourths?
I'm also not sure any amendment would be needed at all, considering that the seat of the U.S. government was originally within a state, and Article I, section 8 seems to have made its relocation to a district (not part of any state) optional, rather than mandatory.
Three issues here:
First, as to the Senate, the 5th Article states in part "...and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Thus, if you chage the Senate from "two for each state" to "two for each state, plus two more from a non-state", you have changed the Senate, which requires a 50 state approved amendment.
Second, as to the House, the 3rd Clause of the 1st Article states, in part, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers..." (Represenatives as being from "States" is mentioned five more times in the Article and four more times elsewhere in the Constitution).
Thus the House cannot give votes to Represenatives not from states. It is Unconstitutional to give a vote to a non-state. The democrats tried to give the non-voting delegates a vote back in the 90s, and the Supreme Court over-ruled this.
Third, as to DC, the 8th Section of the 1st Articles empowers Congress to:
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District ..."
Congress cannot admit DC as a state, since it must "exercise exclusive jurisdiction" over it.
Thus, the District's political life comes not from the consent of the governed, as in a state, but from a gift of Congress. Congress could abolish the DC government (which was only established in the 1960s) and rule the place by decree, if it wanted. You will note if you do your own taxes, that Congress has established a special tax break for investing in DC, something it could not do for a state, as all states are equal.
Thus, there never can be a vote for DC, or any territory, in either house, w/o amendments, and none in the Senate w/o a 50 state admendment
You could do the Senate without a 50 state amendment. You just first need an amendment saying that you don't need a 50 state amendment to do it.
I don't see why it needs a 50 state amendment. The Constitution says each state cannot be deprived of its equal representation - they will still have equal representation. That doesn't deny the ability for other entities to also have representation. A regular amendment should suffice. DC could absolutely be admitted as a state - but in order to do so, the District must be abolished. (There's nothing in the Constitution defining what the District must be.)
To correct the colonial status of the District of Columbia:
(0) There is a "federal service area" that has been defined in D.C. law for many years - everything inside that becomes the new federal District of Columbia (it might be called the federal enclave), which remains under direct control of Congress.
(1) The federal government (Congress and the Executive Branch) and Maryland agree on what roles each will have in a retroceded District of Columbia (one example probably being a provision allowing federal law enforcement officers in D.C. to enforce all state and municipal laws).
(2) Congress and Maryland pass laws codifying the agreement, and make its date of effectiveness contingent on the ratification of repeal of the 23rd Amendment. It should probably be effective as of the end of the next even year not divisible by 4, so that D.C. citizens have the ability to have their elections synced with Maryland.
(3) When the 23rd Amendment is repealed, D.C. holds elections to elect their own new City Council, Mayor, States' Attorney, Board of Education, Registrar of Wills (yes, that is an elected office in Maryland) and Sheriff (currently, the U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia is the de facto city sheriff). They also get to vote for their own representatives in Annapolis as Maryland citizens, and, of course, a U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator (if there is one up that year).
(3) The part of D.C. that is to be retroceded becomes the new Maryland independent city of Washington, D.C. (yes, it should still be Washington, D.C. - Maryland already has a Washington County), with a municipal government structured like that of Baltimore (also an independent city, not part of any Maryland county).
Problem solved.
Quote from: Steve on November 26, 2012, 04:36:50 PM
I don't see why it needs a 50 state amendment. The Constitution says each state cannot be deprived of its equal representation - they will still have equal representation. That doesn't deny the ability for other entities to also have representation. A regular amendment should suffice. DC could absolutely be admitted as a state - but in order to do so, the District must be abolished. (There's nothing in the Constitution defining what the District must be.)
Ahh, but no they would not.
The 1st Clause of the 1st Article states:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State."
The 17th Admendment states;
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."
Note the word "state" in each.
The Senate can thus be made up only of people from states, two from each, by virute of the 5th Article.
To illistrate, say they tried to pass an Constitutional amendment saying:
"The Senate shall be made up of two senators per state, plus 1000 for people that post on aaroads.com".
Cannot do it. ONLY states can elect Senators, two per state. The only part of the Constitution that requires a 50 state approved amendment.
BTW, DC is not a "colony" nor does it suffer "taxation w/o representation".
Quote from: SP Cook on November 26, 2012, 07:42:38 PM
Cannot do it. ONLY states can elect Senators, two per state. The only part of the Constitution that requires a 50 state approved amendment.
In 1978, Congress passed a proposed amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Voting_Rights_Amendment) to the Constitution that would have awarded the District of Columbia two U.S. Senators and a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Unfortunately, later that year, D.C. voters elected a "flamboyant" member of the D.C. Council by the name of Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr. to be D.C. Mayor, and like it or not, I think that election doomed the idea of any more rights for D.C. citizens. It didn't help that Barry and his entourage were not interested in this proposal, and spent virtually
no effort lobbying the various state legislatures to pass it, and it died in the 1980's, not having come close to the required number of states needed for ratification.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 26, 2012, 07:42:38 PM
BTW, DC is not a "colony" nor does it suffer "taxation w/o representation".
I respectfully disagree.
Congress has repeatedly involved itself in municipal matters of the District of Columbia that would not be tolerated by any other local government in the U.S. D.C. residents also have no representation in the U.S. House or U.S. Senate, which is where such decisions are made for the United States.
If DC were reliably Republican, SP Cook would have a different view on taxation without representation.
Quote from: Steve on November 26, 2012, 04:36:50 PM
I don't see why it needs a 50 state amendment. The Constitution says each state cannot be deprived of its equal representation - they will still have equal representation. That doesn't deny the ability for other entities to also have representation. A regular amendment should suffice. DC could absolutely be admitted as a state - but in order to do so, the District must be abolished. (There's nothing in the Constitution defining what the District must be.)
Constitution of the United State of America - Article. V.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and
that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
(Emphasis added)
The highlighted part is a limiting clause in the amending process. No state can be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent. Period.
Allowing a non-state to have voting power in the Senate dilutes the 'suffrage' of the states, sort of like how the '0' and '00' are the house edge on a roulette wheel. All of the other spaces on the wheel have equal 'suffrage' with each other, but their payoffs, which would otherwise be even-money, are diluted by the '0' and '00'.
Mike
His point is that a normal amendment can simply change Article V, since there's no 'higher level' of unamendable Constitution.
But I'm not convinced that this clause prevents adding Senators that don't represent states, only that it prevents some states having more than others.
Quote from: bugo on November 26, 2012, 09:20:38 PM
If DC were reliably Republican, SP Cook would have a different view on taxation without representation.
This is incorrect.
If you are interested in DC history, David Brinkley's (a democrat, BTW) "Washington Goes To War" covers the development of the place quite well.
Pretty much, prior to WWII, DC was a sleepy southern town. Northern Virginia and Suburban Maryland was farmland. Even vast areas of DC were "undivided parkland", meaning they were just undeveloped pasture land belonging to the government, because nobody else wanted it. Government was small, and most of the population were people drawn to work for government.
Most people, even if they lived in DC for life, kept their voting registration "back home". Even into the 60s, this was common. DC's governement was operated by civil servants nominally under the control of a House committee, but actually just trying to do a good job, politics asside.
Three things happened. First the size, scope, and role of government exploded, filling up DC and over into MD and VA. Then the "urban sprawl" (hate that term) or "white flight" made vast suburbs of people living outside the District, but dependent on government. And, lastly, the failed welfarist programs of the 60s trapped the, mostly black, poor inside DC, followed in DC by a "black flight" to Prince George's County, MD, a majority black county with one of the highest incomes in the nation.
The situation there is different than any previous era. But the fact remains that there is no wall around the place and the Constitution is simple and stict on its status.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 27, 2012, 07:34:19 AM
Quote from: bugo on November 26, 2012, 09:20:38 PM
If DC were reliably Republican, SP Cook would have a different view on taxation without representation.
This is incorrect.
If you are interested in DC history, David Brinkley's (a democrat, BTW) "Washington Goes To War" covers the development of the place quite well.
Better is Sherwood and Jaffe's Dream City: Race, Power, and the Decline of Washington, D.C. (http://www.amazon.com/Dream-City-Power-Decline-Washington/dp/0671768468), which describes what happened in D.C. from the 1960's to the early 1990's in pretty good and accurate detail, including the 1968 riots after the assassination of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Memphis and the rise of Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr. as D.C. activist and then elected official.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 27, 2012, 07:34:19 AM
Pretty much, prior to WWII, DC was a sleepy southern town. Northern Virginia and Suburban Maryland was farmland. Even vast areas of DC were "undivided parkland", meaning they were just undeveloped pasture land belonging to the government, because nobody else wanted it. Government was small, and most of the population were people drawn to work for government.
President Kennedy referred to D.C. as having the "efficiency of a southern town and the charm of a northern town."
But suburban "sprawl" around D.C. got its start in the
19th century with the rise of passenger service on lines run by the B&O Railroad (CSX today), serving suburbs like Riverdale Park, College Park, Takoma Park, Silver Spring, Kensington, Garrett Park, Rockville, Washington Grove and Gaithersburg. Streetcar lines built out from D.C. helped that sprawl in places like Chevy Chase, Mount Rainier, Hyattsville and College Park. Yes,
rail transit helped to encourage "sprawl."
Quote from: SP Cook on November 27, 2012, 07:34:19 AM
Most people, even if they lived in DC for life, kept their voting registration "back home". Even into the 60s, this was common.
Or they just never voted. Until the 1964 presidential elections, there had not been an election (of any kind) in D.C. in the 20th Century.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 27, 2012, 07:34:19 AM
DC's governement was operated by civil servants nominally under the control of a House committee, but actually just trying to do a good job, politics asside.
There was plenty of ineptitude in the D.C. Government before so-called Home Rule was enacted in 1974 by Congress. The municipal police department of D.C. was known as a brutal and racist operation.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 27, 2012, 07:34:19 AM
Three things happened. First the size, scope, and role of government exploded, filling up DC and over into MD and VA. Then the "urban sprawl" (hate that term) or "white flight" made vast suburbs of people living outside the District, but dependent on government. And, lastly, the failed welfarist programs of the 60s trapped the, mostly black, poor inside DC, followed in DC by a "black flight" to Prince George's County, MD, a majority black county with one of the highest incomes in the nation.
"Sprawl" of government got its start when the War Department moved from D.C. to a new building called the Pentagon in Arlington County, Va. in the early 1940's. Even though the Pentagon is now considered close-in to D.C., it was considered very far away at the time.
After World War II was over, the federal government deliberately chose to decentralize and move many agencies further out so they would be less threatened by nuclear attack. Examples include the CIA moving to Langley, Va., the National Security Agency to Fort George G. Meade, Md., the Social Security Administration to Woodlawn, Md. (a suburb of Baltimore), the Census Bureau to Suitland, Md. and the Atomic Energy Commission to Germantown, Md. In spite of me mentioning Maryland more than Virginia, Virginia has been the clear overall winner in terms of government and government-contracted functions moving away from D.C. to Arlington County and then especially Fairfax County.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 27, 2012, 07:34:19 AM
The situation there is different than any previous era. But the fact remains that there is no wall around the place and the Constitution is simple and stict on its status.
Still, the present status of D.C. should be offensive to any U.S. citizen who claims to be in favor of democratic (lower-case "d") ideals.
With the polarized politics we have today, I think the only way PR becomes a state is if Guam also becomes a state.
PR's politics may lean Democratic (I've read it's more ambivalent than that), but Guam is staunchly Republican with its large military population. Republicans skittish about PR could allow Guam to be admitted to balance it out. That would be 2 Senators and 1 Representative from each side until the next reapportionment, which wouldn't go in effect until 2022 (until 2024 with the presidential election). PR would then gain 3 or 4 Representatives, but the seats would probably be taken from northern blue states, so that too would be a wash.
Guam and the Northern Marianas could be admitted as one state. They are a separate territory and commonwealth today and there are still hard feelings between the two dating back to WWII, when Guam was pillaged by the Japanese while the Northern Marianas, already under Japanese rule, received lighter treatment. Maybe a chance at statehood together would allow them to bury the hatchet once and for all.
Just a thought.
Quote from: NE2 on November 27, 2012, 12:24:20 AM
His point is that a normal amendment can simply change Article V, since there's no 'higher level' of unamendable Constitution.
But I'm not convinced that this clause prevents adding Senators that don't represent states, only that it prevents some states having more than others.
Correct. If you need to amend something that can't be amended, you just amend the part that says you can't amend it. You could probably even do it in the same amendment.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2012, 11:21:10 PM
N.Y. Times op-ed: Will Puerto Rico Be America's 51st State? (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/will-puerto-rico-be-americas-51st-state.html)
The conclusion of the article was that the vote was not presented in a straightforward way. First it asked whether Puerto Rico should continue as a commonwealth, and the second question was three choices of non-commonwealth options: independence, sovereign free associated state, or statehood. The author of the article thought it quite likely that even though continued commonwealth status got less than a majority vote, any of the non-commonwealth options would get even smaller votes. He advocates voting again with the four futures presented as equal possibilities.
I don't expect Congress to work quickly admitting PR even if there were an unambiguous vote in favor of statehood. PR would be reliably Democratic on national issues and the Republicans don't want that. So expect delay, and if there's one thing they know how to do it's delay.
About Guam and the Northern Marianas, my experience is that putting areas that don't like each other much under one government tends to make them dislike each other more rather than less. Every policy gets seen as benefiting one area at the expense of another. I'm don't think the Northern Marianas are interested in becoming a state even if they were allowed. And I'm not sure the U.S. would welcome Guam as a state; it's very convenient for the military not to have to consult a state government every time they want to do something at their bases on Guam.