Puerto Rico votes for statehood

[WillWeaverRVA]

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.

[kphoger]

We should give DC to Puerto Rico if PR becomes a state.

[cpzilliacus]

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

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

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.

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

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

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."

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

We should give DC to Puerto Rico if PR becomes a state.

Rather far from PR, don't you think?

[on_wisconsin]

^
Nice sextuple post! 

[kphoger]

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.

[Brandon]

We should give DC to Puerto Rico if PR becomes a state.

What do you have against the people of Puerto Rico? 

[SP Cook]

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.

[oscar]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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).

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[Desert Man]

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!

[cpzilliacus]

N.Y. Times op-ed: Will Puerto Rico Be America's 51st State?

ONE 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.

Ever 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.

[SP Cook]

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

[vdeane]

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.

[Alps]

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.)

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[SP Cook]

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". 

[cpzilliacus]

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 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.

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.

[bugo]

If DC were reliably Republican, SP Cook would have a different view on taxation without representation.

[mgk920]

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

[NE2]

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.

[SP Cook]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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., 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.

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."

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.

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.

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. 

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.

[Road Hog]

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.