New design USA flag coming?

[mgk920]

I, too, am thinking that Puerto Rico would likely be a swing state.  Donald Trump did particularly well in Latino areas in 2020, including places with a heavy Puerto Rican presence.  Also, many of the Island's recent governors and non-voting delegates to Congress have been Republicans.

Mike

[Avalanchez71]

I think the Democratic party do take for granted that Puerto Rico would be all democrat.  There is no doubt that DC would be all democrat.  The big push for this DC statehood is for one reason; solidify the Democratic voting block.

As well stated heretofore, there is a constitutional issue with DC statehood.  I read it that way as well.

[mgk920]

I think the Democratic party do take for granted that Puerto Rico would be all democrat.  There is no doubt that DC would be all democrat.  The big push for this DC statehood is for one reason; solidify the Democratic voting block.

As well stated heretofore, there is a constitutional issue with DC statehood.  I read it that way as well.

IIRC, back in 1978, a Constitution amendment that would have for all purposes declared DC a state cleared Congress and was submitted to the states for ratification.

The text:

"ARTICLE ____

"SECTION 1. For purposes of representation in the Congress, election of the President and Vice President, and article V of this Constitution, the District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall be treated as though it were a State.

"SEC. 2. The exercise of the rights and powers conferred under this article shall be by the people of the District constituting the seat of government, and as shall be provided by the Congress.

"SEC. 3. The twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

"SEC. 4. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission."

It failed to win the needed 38 state approval.

https://www.dcvote.org/1978-dc-voting-representation-constitutional-amendment-0

Mike

[kphoger]

Hard to imagine why 38 states didn't vote to give away a little slice of their power to Washington...

[triplemultiplex]

DC should just be reattached to Maryland.
That would add 0 Senators and just one Representative and keep down the whining by those who'd say it's unfair for a city of 700,000 people to have two Senators even though there are two states with fewer people than DC.

It's a little crazy that Puerto Rico isn't a state.  It's more populous than 20 other states and has more people than the four smallest states combined.  What was the threshold for statehood back in the day?  60,000?  These are US Citizens and that's too many of them not to have the full representation in the federal government.  Whatever shortcomings one can find with Puerto Rico's economy or whatever, that's a poor excuse for 3.1 million people living as second-class citizens in this supposed democracy.

[kphoger]

Whatever shortcomings one can find with Puerto Rico's economy or whatever, that's a poor excuse for 3.1 million people living as second-class citizens in this supposed democracy.

But all the Puerto Ricans who don't want statehood–now, that's a better excuse.

[hotdogPi]

Whatever shortcomings one can find with Puerto Rico's economy or whatever, that's a poor excuse for 3.1 million people living as second-class citizens in this supposed democracy.

But all the Puerto Ricans who don't want statehood–now, that's a better excuse.

They held a statehood referendum, and it passed.

[JayhawkCO]

I've brought this up in other threads, but if anyone is at all interested in the different territories that the U.S. owns and why they aren't states, I could not recommend How To Hide an Empire by Daniel Immerwahr more highly.  Talks about Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Guano Islands, etc.  Super, super interesting to realize the weird three tier system we have of what's considered "The United States".

Chris

[kkt]

IIRC, back in 1978, a Constitution amendment that would have for all purposes declared DC a state cleared Congress and was submitted to the states for ratification.

The text:
(omitted)
It failed to win the needed 38 state approval.

https://www.dcvote.org/1978-dc-voting-representation-constitutional-amendment-0

There might also have been a problem with the Constitution Article 5 provision that no state can be deprived of equal representation in the Senate.  That is the only provision of the constitution that amendment is not allowed to change.  The argument would be that DC is NOT a state, and granting Senate representation to it is dilluting the represenation of all the ACTUAL states.  I won't attempt to predict whether that argument would succeed before the Supreme Court, it would be interesting.

Another approach to DC represenation is defining the seat of government as a small enclave, roughly the Mall and a couple of blocks around it, and up to the White House and Lafayette Park.  No one really lives there (maybe some of the White House staff live on site?) so no one would be left unrepresented.  The rest of what is now DC could be admitted as a state by the normal admission process, that doesn't require a supermajority.

[hotdogPi]

Another approach to DC represenation is defining the seat of government as a small enclave, roughly the Mall and a couple of blocks around it, and up to the White House and Lafayette Park.  No one really lives there (maybe some of the White House staff live on site?) so no one would be left unrepresented.  The rest of what is now DC could be admitted as a state by the normal admission process, that doesn't require a supermajority.

And the small enclave would still get 3 electoral votes.

[Rothman]

...and has more people than a couple of states.

[hotdogPi]

...and has more people than a couple of states.

DC has more people than a couple of states. The federal district cut out from the state of DC, as you had described earlier, contains very few people living there, plus some homeless. This is nowhere near even 100,000. This would still get 3 electoral votes because of the 23rd Amendment.

[hbelkins]

The area of DC southwest of the Potomac was ceded back to Virginia. The area remaining should be absorbed back into Maryland. I've probably said that before but I will say it again.

I'd be OK with Puerto Rico statehood, but under certain conditions.

[Rothman]

...and has more people than a couple of states.

DC has more people than a couple of states. The federal district cut out from the state of DC, as you had described earlier, contains very few people living there, plus some homeless. This is nowhere near even 100,000. This would still get 3 electoral votes because of the 23rd Amendment.

Wut.

[Scott5114]

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

If you carve off the populated portion of the District to either form a new state (let's call it Douglass, since that's what I hear the current proposed name is) or add it to Maryland, this amendment doesn't go away. The area containing the White House, Capitol, etc. that you do not put in either Douglass or Maryland remains "the district constituting the seat of Government of the United States", and thus retains the right to appoint electors.

This is not an impossible situation to resolve (simply pass a 28th amendment that repeals the 23rd), but doing so can be lengthy. In the meantime, Congress could pass legislation specifying "in such manner as Congress may direct" to be something like always having the electors be people pledged to vote for George Washington, or who conveniently forget to submit votes to the Electoral College, or something like that. Or to flat out say no electors can be appointed at all, and just hope that nobody has any standing to sue over it.

[mgk920]

...and has more people than a couple of states.

DC has more people than a couple of states. The federal district cut out from the state of DC, as you had described earlier, contains very few people living there, plus some homeless. This is nowhere near even 100,000. This would still get 3 electoral votes because of the 23rd Amendment.

Wut.

Constitution of the United States of America - Amendment XXIII:

"Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

It was ratified on 1961-03-29.

Mike

[kkt]

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

If you carve off the populated portion of the District to either form a new state (let's call it Douglass, since that's what I hear the current proposed name is) or add it to Maryland, this amendment doesn't go away. The area containing the White House, Capitol, etc. that you do not put in either Douglass or Maryland remains "the district constituting the seat of Government of the United States", and thus retains the right to appoint electors.

This is not an impossible situation to resolve (simply pass a 28th amendment that repeals the 23rd), but doing so can be lengthy. In the meantime, Congress could pass legislation specifying "in such manner as Congress may direct" to be something like always having the electors be people pledged to vote for George Washington, or who conveniently forget to submit votes to the Electoral College, or something like that. Or to flat out say no electors can be appointed at all, and just hope that nobody has any standing to sue over it.

Passing constitutional amendments can be lengthy if they are controversial, but when they're uncontroversial they can sail through in a year.

[Scott5114]

Sure, theoretically. But the last time the Constitution was amended was in the 1990s, before the concept of "red states" and "blue states" had really gained hold. More bluntly, I don't trust the people of the United States to allow anything to not be controversial anymore. (Hell, "covid is bad and we should take steps to keep people from catching it" somehow managed to become a controversial statement here.)

In any event, I would imagine a theoretical election where both the rump DC and the state of Douglass sent electors to the Electoral College would make this last election look like a walk in the park. The rump DC could, unless stripped of its electors, easily be compared to the old rotten boroughs in British Parliament.

[Rothman]

...and has more people than a couple of states.

DC has more people than a couple of states. The federal district cut out from the state of DC, as you had described earlier, contains very few people living there, plus some homeless. This is nowhere near even 100,000. This would still get 3 electoral votes because of the 23rd Amendment.

Wut.

Constitution of the United States of America - Amendment XXIII:

"Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

It was ratified on 1961-03-29.

Mike

I wasn't talking to you.  "1" thought he was responding to someone else.

[kphoger]

More bluntly, I don't trust the people of the United States to allow anything to not be controversial anymore. (Hell, "covid is bad and we should take steps to keep people from catching it" somehow managed to become a controversial statement here.)

Yeah, unlike other countries, where people thought the coronavirus was a fictional thing made up by American politicians.

[kkt]

But the last time the Constitution was amended was in the 1990s, before the concept of "red states" and "blue states" had really gained hold.

There was plenty of vicious partisanship in all eras.  Just because someone decided to associate colors with the parties in the aftermath of the 2000 election doesn't mean there was an increase in partisanship then.

[hotdogPi]

But the last time the Constitution was amended was in the 1990s, before the concept of "red states" and "blue states" had really gained hold.

There was plenty of vicious partisanship in all eras.  Just because someone decided to associate colors with the parties in the aftermath of the 2000 election doesn't mean there was an increase in partisanship then.

Partisanship was at a minimum in the 1950s to 1970s. There has been a continuous increase in partisanship from then to the present.

For example, in the 1972 and 1984 Republican landslides for the presidential race, Democrats kept the House, and in both cases, it was more of a majority than what Democrats had after the 2018 midterms.

[NWI_Irish96]

Cable news/the internet are largely responsible for the drastic increase in polarization. The attitudes of the voters became more homogonized.

[SP Cook]

The mythology that some unnamed past time had a more gentle politics is unsupported by history.

[Avalanchez71]

Cable news/the internet are largely responsible for the drastic increase in polarization. The attitudes of the voters became more homogonized.

I am not sure if it is news that making folks think that way, I think it is the news portraying that is the way it is.