What a horrible and harsh thing to say. Further, I suspect your comment violates the rules for GD.
In any case, large changes ought not to be implemented unless there is a broad consensus of the people. A bare majority expressed once does not seem to be enough, especially in such an emotional issue.
You know, you’re probably right. I made it too personal to you and for that, I sincerely apologize.
But the attitude is my problem. We elect a new Congress every 2 years and a new President every 4. Those are major changes requiring only a simple majority (votes for individual races and electoral votes for President). Many states that have citizen votes on Constitutional Amendments do so a majority vote. A 5-4 USSC decision is as binding as a 9-0 decision. We use simple majority for most of our collective decisions. The major exceptions being a guilty verdict and conviction under impeachment. In other words, punishment requires clear super-majorities, but not generally other decisions.
Were any previous state admittances predicated on the requirement of super-majority plebiscites? Why is this suddenly different?
I would love to see Puerto Rico become a state. I do have some misgivings about statehood being the result of a narrow majority. My objection, I think, is that normal elections can (theoretically, at least) be overturned simply by another election: We elect the Republicrats this year; in a couple of years we can turn them out and put the Demopublicans in office. Statehood is kind of irreversible, or at least unusually difficult to reverse–there are no (successful) precedents for reversing statehood, and it’s far from clear what the procedure for such a thing would even be if the people of a new state changed their minds in the future.
The question of previous state admittances being predicated on a requirement of a super-majority is an interesting one. It’s been a long while since we’ve even had any new states (the longest such period in American history). My sense is that in previous admissions the people of the territory itself were generally pretty gung-ho for statehood, even in cases where the rest of the country was not so certain (as a result of the disputes about slavery, for example). While there has been some historical support for independence movements in both Hawaii and Alaska, 93% of Hawaiians approved statehood at the time of admission, while the vote for statehood in Alaska was six to one in favor. So, there was probably never any formal requirement for a super-majority in previous popular votes on statehood, but there may not ever have been any need to require a super-majority–previous statehood votes were overwhelmingly in favor.
The way I see it is that Puerto Rico has had a nice little-level insurgency going on for decades. Do we want to have our own IRA? If a whole bunch of Puerto Ricans want statehood, cool. A few malcontents do not get a veto. But if 52% want statehood, the extinction of a nation, should the other 48% be ignored?
What if 52% sorta want statehood and 48% are all wild-eyed in favor of commonwealth or independence?
All in all, a simple majority of 52% is a good first gate. But were I a congressman at this moment, as I understand the situation, I would not approve an application for statehood. I would be in favor of an closed relation than the two nations have now. Call me again in a few years when statehood has support that is both wide and deep.
Louisiana was admitted when French was the primary language of many of the inhabitants. The initial Constitution of the state required that laws be written in both languages and allowed both languages to be used in governmental debates.
Good info. Thank you. Overall I agree with your post.
Which raises an interesting question. What did the population of the 48 existing states think about adding AK & HI? Were they indifferent, anti, or gung ho as well?
Under our system as I understand it, those citizens weren’t asked directly; only their Congresscritters got to vote. But had there been widespread and deep seated popular opposition to admitting e.g. Hawaii, it’s plausible Congress would have voted against despite Hawaiians themselves voting for.
Clearly as to the 50 states’ popular opinion of admitting PR, @razordance’s points quoted just above me are the biggies.
Overall I think @Paul_was_in_Saudi is in a pretty good place here. Much as with Brexit and Quebecois’ separatism going the other way, large, difficult to implement, and difficult to reverse changes should require a lot more than a narrow majority achieved once on a likely badly worded referendum.
They are not a nation. Their island is currently property of the United States.
After one of the greatest disasters in the history of the island, they were ignored, then insulted, then used a campaign prop by a President they had no voice in electing.
The vote might have been so close because there are now twice as many Puerto Ricans living on the mainland as are left on the island. They had to move to make a living (oh, and now they get representation in Congress simply based on a change of address).
It’s past time that the US shit or get off the pot with regard to the US Territories. They are an embarrassment to a country that fought for liberty under the banner of “No taxation without representation” and now imposes that same condition on millions of its own citizens based on nothing more than where they were born and live.
Wow. I find that to be a very remarkable thing to say.
From Wikipedia (but the underlying cite is provided):
" The 2016 Supreme Court case Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle ruled that territories do not have their own sovereignty.[9]"
What would you call a piece of unincorporated land that is under the sovereignty of a nation except property? They are allowed no self-government without the express written consent of the US Government (which they have no say in) and what rights they do have - up to and including citizenship in the US - are by statute only and can be taken away at the whim of Congress with the President’s consent (or without if they can override the veto).
See also the Insular Cases:
" With the establishment of the legality of unincorporated territories, the Court also found that in these said territories, the Constitution “did not apply in full”.[11] This means the Constitution does not extend “ex proprio vigore” or by its own force to unincorporated territories.[11] Instead, it could be extended at Congress’ discretion."
You seem to be confusing “nation” with “country.” Puerto Rico is not a nation. It is not fully sovereign over a territory. It is a country. In the same way the Kurds, Catalonians, or (in the United States) the Indian nations are. They have a distinct national identity and culture. They are a country because they think they are a nation.
Further, you are confusing the idea of a nation (the United States) having sovereignty over a territory with that territory being the “property” of the sovereign. The United States government does not own Puerto Rico just as it does not own New Jersey. Property laws confer ownership to … well to those who own the property.
As George Carlin said, you have the have a beer and a football team to be a country. Puerto Rico has both.
I was responding to you. You’re the one that used the word “nation”. It’s even quoted in my post.
I agree that Puerto Rico certainly has a distinct identity and culture. I’m not sure I would call it a country. And, as you noted, it’s not a nation, it has no sovereignty.
Okay, if you don’t like property, can we agree on “possession”? Puerto Rico is a possession of the United States?
Back to the original post that started all of this. In 2012, the Puerto Rican people, in a series of votes, concluded with 61% of the vote for statehood*. This most recent vote was actually the second to present a majority for statehood. How many more do you require? Why do the majority of the PR people have to continue to wait?
*I will readily acknowledge that only 44% of the ballots returned were for statehood. There were a huge number of blank protest ballots cast.
The ultimate take-away for me from these votes is that in the last 20 years, every vote held on the status of the island has rejected the status quo by a majority (often split between statehood or independence). Hence my “shit or get off the pot” comment. I’m tired of the US kicking this can down the road.
It is not at all clear that “nation” must be tied to sovereignty. There are competing meanings to the concept of a nation:
Yeah, I see I too confused "nation"and "country."It is not lacking in amusement value.
I have no idea how many I would require. I do not think it is an issue of math. I would discount the votes you mentioned as the pro-independence people boycotted.
How about a simple majority in a ballot with a majority of the eligible voters doing so? Also, a referendum where independence, statehood and the current relationship are options?
Presidential elections are only binding for (at most) 4 years.
The concepts of “precedent” and “court integrity” notwithstanding, a A 5-4 Supreme court decision is only binding until one justice changes their mind and the case gets relitigated.
There are zero constitutional provisions for backing out of statehood once it is done. I think it makes sense that it requires a super-majority in order to enter.
What if 52% voted for independence? Or 61% with a number of abstentions?
And what’s a super-majority? 65%? 75%? 95%? How long does the minority keep the majority hostage?
That’s how the 2012 referendum was run, but in two steps.
So the minority “won” by taking their ball and going home. Should we put guns to their head and make them choose? Why should NOT voting carry as much or more weight than voting?
3x the size of Rhode Island, 5x the population of Wyoming? I say let 'em in.
The current relationship is - at best - cumbersome and confusing - and plenty expensive as it is.
If the constitution had provisions for “interim/probationary statehood”, I’d be fine with 51% required to enter.
As far as a super-majority is concerned, I’d start with 2/3 majority, since it mimics the amount to get a constitutional amendment through congress. Must be a referendum with a simple “statehood: Yes/No”, with a certain minimum threshold of voter participation required.
I’d love to see Puerto Rico added as a state, but really, if they can’t muster up much more than 51% of their citizens to be lukewarm about the concept, I’m really hesitant to think that it’s a good idea to enter in to a non-revocable marriage.
I would like to see broad and deep support for such a big change. If the people of Puerto Rico clearly want statehood, I am all in favor of it too.
But what do terms like “broad and deep” and “clearly” mean? I am not sure.
Puerto Rico is not a country or a nation. It’s a commonwealth and a U.S. territory. Alaska and Hawaii were also U.S. Territories at one time. Their ‘country’, if you will, is the United States, and the people there are U.S. citizens by birth, just as I am as someone who was born in Alaska when it was a territory.
So the vote showed that if forced to choose, 61% would choose statehood but only 54% want to be forced to choose. And you think that’s good enough mandate for such a massive change? That doesn’t look like a majority want statehood.