Could Congress unilaterally change the status of Puerto Rico? I can’t think of anything in the US Constitution that would prevent Congress from putting it under direct rule or even forcing it’s independence like Malaysia did with Singapore. Could Congress even do the opposite and unilaterally make Puerto Rico a state?
In a world where laws on paper and historical precedent mean nothing, they can do anything you can imagine.
So the first question you need answered is: “Are we living in a post-law country … yet?”
My own personal magic 8 ball says “Answer unclear”.
As far as I can tell, statehood can be as easy as one act of Congress (an admission bill) approved by both houses and signed by the President. Of course, that puts the shiv into “unilaterally”, but it’s not much of a bar if the President favors it. Note that nothing requires the population of the prospective state itself consent, although it would be impractical if statehood were thrust onto a territory with no plan or preparation for a functional state government.
(Most states were admitted partly by the use of a Congressional “enabling act” which directed the state to form a constitutional convention and draft its own state constitution for Congress to approve, but that hasn’t always been needed. The only Congressional action explicitly required by the Constitution is a admitting act.)
@JRDelirious is our resident Puerto Rican and may have relevant thoughts.
Moderator Note
If this were in P&E or IMHO this would be a perfectly acceptable answer. However, since we are in FQ, let’s stick to established facts, and leave the political commentary and speculation out of it.
Let’s keep all answers appropriate for FQ, please.
As always in FQ, once the facts have been established, then we can engage in a bit of speculation. But we’re too early in the thread for that yet. Let’s get a factual answer first.
FWIW, the precedent for a US Commonwealth becoming a sovereign and independent nation wasn’t that bad.
The Philippines were a territory absorbed into United States sovereignty at the same time and for the same reason as Puerto Rico: taken from the Empire of Spain as a consequence of the Spanish-American War.
The Philippines were, from the American perspective, a territory from that point to 1934, when an act of Congress created The Commonwealth of the Philippines, with an explicit intent to transition to an independent Republic which happened in 1946.
But the people of the Philippines were overwhelmingly in favor of independence going back into the Spanish colonial era, with numerous insurgencies and even a hard-fought multi-year war of independence against the United States at the turn of the 20th Century (which they didn’t win). So the social background is different than Puerto Rico; the people of the Philippines very much wanted their sovereignty. PR, as I understand it, feels less strongly or unanimously that way.
Every Puerto Rican alive today is a US citizen. They will remain beneficiaries of that status even if Puerto Rico is granted independence, whether or not they stay on the island.
Not necessarily. An act (or joint resolution) of Congress admitting a new state requires the President’s assent, or two thirds assent in both houses. For example, President Taft vetoed the admission of Arizona.
~Max
So presumably so would their first-generation offspring if Puerto R-r-r-r-i-i-i-i-co became independent?
The children of US citizens are also US citizens, no matter where they’re born.
Which would be true of the grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc.
At most, they’d wind up with dual citizenship: United States, and Puerto Rico. Unless something compels them to renounce one or the other.
Is that true, or would the citizenship at some point stop being automatically inherited? Would the parents of children born abroad have to be always filing the right paperwork to make sure their kids are citizens too?
Under existing law. That can be changed. And remember John McCain’s natural born citizen status had to be clarified because he was born in the Canal Zone.
It’s not true under current law. To transmit citizenship to someone born abroad, a U.S. Citizen must have resided in the United States for a certain number of years (five, I think).
A U.S, citizen born abroad who never lives in the U.S. does not transmit citizenship to children at birth.
True, I overlooked that provision. Which isn’t very hard, but still not the same as perpetual multigenerational citizenship via jus sanguinis.
Back to the OP, the Constitution states:
Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
It appears that Congress can create a State unilaterally, as long as its not part of an existing State.
To be “admitted”, don’t you have to ask to become a state? Otherwise it would say “created”.
A nitpicky point not aimed at anyone, but it’s a pet subject. “Dispose” here does not mean “get rid of”. Nor is it the modern legal sense of “closed”. It’s an older sense of “determine the course of events.” A positive rather than a negative. One of many words in the Constitution whose meaning is not immediately apparent to modern speakers.
History is cluttered. The Congressional Research Service had a short history in the pdf Statehood Process and Political Status of U.S. Territories: Brief Policy Background
In historical practice, at least six paths to territorial statehood are commonly recognized:
• the union of the first 13 colonies;
• presentation to Congress of a territory that is already organized like a state (commonly known as the Tennessee Plan);
• annexation of an independent republic;
• creation of a new state from existing states;
• development of a state constitution without first obtaining explicit congressional support; and
• congressional enactment of legislation to enable statehood.
Unless I missed it, that Brief does not say explicitly that a territory must apply to Congress, although historically it has. It does note that bills about Puerto Rican statehood already have been introduced in the House, although it doesn’t elaborate on their contents. Jumping from there to Senate approval and a Presidential signature is an unknown. But Congress couldn’t “unilaterally” do anything.
Yes, I find it easier to think ‘determine or settle a disposition’ than our current conversational use to mean discard.
Every generation right? Everybody there is a US citizen, and their children will be also, and their children’s children…
Hey there, been quite sick since last night so I was not in a mindset to get to this.
Basically what has been mentioned is correct, constitutionally Congress can act on its own. But it would rather not.
“Admission” as a state is something that may only happen by Act of Congress, and it’s something that just can be approved by regular order – majority of both houses + presidential signature or supermajority of both houses to override a veto. And the Congress has the faculty to write in said act the dispositions for that to happen. But the constitution and the US Code themselves do not provide any requirement of supermajorities or prior requests or even popular votes.
Independence of a territory is not addressed in the constitution. In this case of course there is also a noncongressional path, where the subject polity takes the initiative to declare independence, and the metropolitan polity may recognize that independence, by an Executive decision.
What prevents imposing statehood (or independence) “unilaterally” is not a legal/constitutional provision but political and administrative logistics considerations. Starting with the latter, you can’t very well really expect to have everything switched to a new system by tomorrow morning; you are going to have to provide for transition measures for things such as taxation, obligations, congressional apportionment in the case of statehood, citizenship in the case of independence, etc. and that would require some level of collaboration/coordination with those on the ground.
That just imposing either path arbitrarily whether the affected people want it or not would create political uproar should not be necessary to elaborate. There’s 3.2 million US citizens in-island who would damn right have an opinion about that, 6 million ethnic Puerto Ricans in the states who can vote for Prez and Congress and are not unified in what they want for their home island; there’s American business interests with hundreds of billions sunk into PR under the system as-is or at least under a system under US protective aegis, and from the left to the right there are millions of US voters who just have no real idea what’s up with PR and would be writing irate letters to their congressman complaining about what they imagine it all means.