# US Territory Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 30, 2006, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-territory-question/378418 "2006-10-30T07:57:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Ronaldo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f14d63/32.png) [@Ronaldo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ronaldo)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-territory-question/378418/1 "2006-10-30T07:57:33Z")
What is the difference between a Free Associated State, a commonwealth, a territory and any other terms there are concerning US claims to “foreign lands”? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-territory-question/378418/2 "2006-10-30T13:50:08Z")
[QUOTE=Ronaldo] What is the difference between a Free Associated State, a commonwealth, a territory and any other terms there are concerning US claims to “foreign lands”? [/QUOTE] A “Free Associated State” is what used to be called a Protectorate, but without the flavor of “we’ll tell you what to do for your own good” that used to be associated with that term. It’s a quasi-independent nation that depends on the US for defense and, usually, diplomatic representation. In addition, we (the US) may have some specialized treaty rights with them, and will often be giving them development aid. A “Commonwealth” is an autonomous state-like entity which is self-governing but which shares citizenship with the US proper. We’ve only ever had two, and their histories and political development diverged dramatically, so generalizing is impossible, but taking the current one, Puerto Rico: [ul][li]Congress may legislate regarding it.[/li][li]Our armed forces are free to enter into it for security reasons in much the same way as any state: go in, buy or use publicly owned land for a base, etc. This was the problem with the island of Viequez – we’d used it for a bombing site.[/li][li]It has the right to choose between statehood, independence, and continuing commonwealth status. [/li][li]It has democratic self government, electing its own governor, legislature, and judges.[/li][li]It does _not_ have Congressional representation, except that IIRC it sends someone to Washington who has the right to the floor but not to a vote.[/li][li]It does not choose electors, and hence has no real say in the Presidency.[/li][li]A Puertorriqueño is a U.S. citizen. An American needs no passport or visa to travel to PR.[/ul][/li] There are two kinds of territory, under law, though I believe since Hawaii became a state we have no longer got any “incorporated territories.” This is historically the more common sort, though; everything from Louisiana and the Old Northwest to Alaska and Hawaii was an incorporated territory. (The term does not imply the granting of municipal-corporation status, but rather to be brought into the U.S., as in “The Bundesrepublik, FKA ‘West Germany,’ incorporated the former DDR into itself in 1991.” An incorporated territory is similar to a state but without residual sovereignty, Congress having the right to legislate for it and to define how much self-government it has at any one given time, and representation in Congress only by a spokesperson, but otherwise is “completely inside” the U.S. The general idea is that it is progressing towards statehood when it is populous and economically stable enough for full self-government, though of course political details play a part. An unincorporated territory, in contrast, is a piece of land we own somewhere which is governed by a Governor appointed by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of the Navy (depending on which department has charge of it). Any locals who may exist have as much or as little say in their own government as Congress has seen fit to permit. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-territory-question/378418/3 "2006-10-30T14:37:59Z")
An excellent answer, **Polycarp**. [QUOTE=Polycarp] [li]It has the right to choose between statehood, independence, and continuing commonwealth status. [/li] [/QUOTE] I would just nitpick this point. It has the right to _request_ statehood. The final decision is up to the Congress, which has the power to admit new states to the Union. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-territory-question/378418/4 "2006-10-30T14:49:10Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] A “Commonwealth” is an autonomous state-like entity which is self-governing but which shares citizenship with the US proper. We’ve only ever had two, and their histories and political development diverged dramatically, so generalizing is impossible, but taking the current one, Puerto Rico: [/quote] Not entirely true: Massachusetts, Virginia, and Kentucky are all commonwealths. However, in their cases, there is no difference between being a commonwealth and being a state. ---
**Author:** ![HeyHomie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heyhomie/32/207_2.png) [@HeyHomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeyHomie)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-territory-question/378418/5 "2006-10-30T16:01:39Z")
Can a Puerto Rican be president of the US? ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-territory-question/378418/6 "2006-10-30T16:09:42Z")
[QUOTE=RealityChuck] Not entirely true: Massachusetts, Virginia, and Kentucky are all commonwealths. However, in their cases, there is no difference between being a commonwealth and being a state. [/QUOTE] They _style_ themselves commonwealths. This is entirely immaterial to their legal status, which is the same as the other 46 states. The term “commonwealth” has a specific legal meaning which is independant of this fanciful affectation. > [@](#): > > Can a Puerto Rican be president of the US? Yes, as long as he’s at least 35 years old. Of course, his Puerto Rican friends would not be able to vote for him. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-territory-question/378418/7 "2006-10-30T16:46:13Z")
[QUOTE=RealityChuck] Not entirely true: Massachusetts, Virginia, and Kentucky are all commonwealths. However, in their cases, there is no difference between being a commonwealth and being a state. [/QUOTE] Pennsylvania, too. However, the point **friedo** made about “commonwealth” being a part of their _style_ (in the “what I call myself” meaning) rather than the distinct political status of the Philippines (1935-46) and Puerto Rico (1948 or so to present) is completely relevant. It was in response to a similar terminological nitpick that Abe Lincoln uttered one of my two favorite Lincolnisms? “How many legs does a dog have, if you call its tail a leg?” “Five, of course.” “No, only four. _Calling_ the tail a leg doesn’t **make** it one.” 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-territory-question/378418/8 "2006-10-30T17:05:21Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] It was in response to a similar terminological nitpick that Abe Lincoln uttered one of my two favorite Lincolnisms? “How many legs does a dog have, if you call its tail a leg?” “Five, of course.” “No, only four. _Calling_ the tail a leg doesn’t **make** it one.” 😉 [/QUOTE] Heh, my favorite Lincolnism is thus: “General Meade, if you are not using the Army, I’d like to borrow it for a while.” Presidential snarkyness FTW (And that really wasn’t relevant, but it looked like the OP’s question was well and answered). A random question, someone told me that California calls itself a “Republic” in a way similar to how Massachusetts calls itself a Commonwealth. Is this true, or just a fanciful Texan misunderstanding stemming from their nickname, the “Bear Republic”? ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-territory-question/378418/9 "2006-10-30T17:31:50Z")
California did exist briefly as the independent California Republic in 1846 after the locals revolted against Mexico. The US annexed the territory a month later and it was admitted as a state in 1850. It now styles itself as the State of California. Of course, Texas was also the Republic of Texas from 1836 to 1845. ---
**Author:** ![FormerMarineGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/65b543/32.png) [@FormerMarineGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FormerMarineGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-territory-question/378418/10 "2006-10-30T17:38:00Z")
[QUOTE=HeyHomie] Can a Puerto Rican be president of the US? [/QUOTE] Good question. Decide yourself. From the [Puerto-Rico-Herald](http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2003/vol7n38/Poll0738-en.shtml) > [@](#): > > The answer to this broad question is, “maybe yes and maybe no.” As “statutory citizens,” the nearly four million Americans born in Puerto Rico might not be considered “natural born,” a Constitutional requirement to become President of the United States. Let’s look at a few cases! The link includes a few examples that are pretty good. I am not sure how good of a source the Puerto Rico Herald is, though. ---
**Author:** ![HeyHomie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heyhomie/32/207_2.png) [@HeyHomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeyHomie)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-territory-question/378418/11 "2006-10-30T17:53:43Z")
I think we need a Puertoriqeño to give it a try, if for no other reason than to set precedent and clear up any Constitutional ambiguity. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-territory-question/378418/12 "2006-10-30T17:58:08Z")
**Polycarp** Excellent brief answer. A bit of elaboration: [QUOTE=Polycarp] the distinct political status of the Philippines (1935-46) and Puerto Rico (1948 or so to present) is completely relevant. [/QUOTE] **A: Commonwealths:** Puerto Rico, 1952-present AND the Northern Mariana Islands, 1978-present; unlike the rest of the Pacific Trust Territory which went for FAS status. In another example of “the name not making the thing”, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is styled _in Spanish_ as “The F.A.S. of Puerto Rico”, partly because at the particular time there had not yet been legally defined what _that_ meant, either, and partly for the purpose of “selling” it politically to local voters. The political party that supports the Commonwealth status in PR argues that their objective is to have it eventually evolve into something like the FAS, keeping US citizenship and economic union but no longer a Territory. \*\*B: Types of Territories: \*\* 1. The distinction incorporated/unincorporated is not set forth by any federal legislation: it arises out of a Judicial decision of SCOTUS (Downes v. Bidwell, 1902) by which it ruled that the territories recently acquired from Spain were of a different nature than those the nation had previously annexed. 2. There is another territorial distinction: organized v. unorganized. “Organized” means it has an Organic Law, an Act of Congress that sets forth the structure of government and the specifics of local v. metropolitan jurisdictions for that particular territory and its inhabitants. “Unorganized” means those aspects are ruled by regulation through whatever federal agencies are entrusted with managing it, or through separate Special Laws but no single all-inclusive stature. 3. There is NO single statute of the USA that explicitly defines all these categories in one place, or that creates uniformity. These descriptions and those stated earlier by **Polycarp** are the product of a combination of separate jurisprudence, precedent, tradition, common usage, and in the case of the FAS (Micronesia, Marshall Is., Pelau), treaties and UN Resolutions the US adhered to; and there is leeway in interpretations and applications. Thus, the Commonwealths of the Phillippines, Puerto Rico and the NMI; and the Territories of Guam, Samoa and the Virgin Islands; are NOT identical in powers, rights, jurisdiction, etc. – the Phillippines had a separate citizenship and a quasi-independent military; the NMI are outside US immigration and labor laws; the USVI are outside the US customs zone; Samoans are not born US Citizens. **FormermarineGuy** : _Puerto Rico Herald_ is known to be a pro-Statehood-aligned site and there **are** factions on the pro-statehood side who make a point of, shall we say, making the audience worry about whether their US citizenship can be abridged or revoked under the statu-quo. In any case, my read on this is as follows: 1. As of Jan 1, 1942, people born in PR have been legally “citizens by birth” of the USA (between 2 March 1917 and that date, we were sort of citizens by decree). 2. “Natural-born citizen” means “citizen by birth”, NOT “born in a State”. Otherwise McCain would be ineligible (born in an overseas base). 3. The constitutional provisions on the Electoral College imply that the candidates for President and VP must be residents of one of the States participating in the College; and I must assume that nowadays that includes DC. 4. Thus, a Puerto Rican born after Jan 1 1942, would be eligible to be President of the US **if** he met the requirements of age and residency \*\*in a State or the D.C. \*\*. This would have to wait to get tested when and if at some point a _Boricua_ born in the island, but who was raised and educated and made a political career stateside is nominated or is next in line of succession. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-territory-question/378418/13 "2006-10-30T19:03:55Z")
[QUOTE=Raguleader] A random question, someone told me that California calls itself a “Republic” in a way similar to how Massachusetts calls itself a Commonwealth. Is this true, or just a fanciful Texan misunderstanding stemming from their nickname, the “Bear Republic”? [/QUOTE] Well, there is the whole [flag](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_California) thing. ---
**Author:** ![Spiff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiff/32/9852_2.png) [@Spiff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiff)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-territory-question/378418/14 "2006-10-30T19:06:13Z")
[QUOTE=RealityChuck] Not entirely true: Massachusetts, Virginia, and Kentucky are all commonwealths. However, in their cases, there is no difference between being a commonwealth and being a state. [/QUOTE] Which is essentialy how Cecil answered the question when [I posed it to him](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_307.html) in 1990. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-territory-question/378418/15 "2006-10-30T20:31:33Z")
[QUOTE=JRDelirious] [3. The constitutional provisions on the Electoral College imply that the candidates for President and VP must be residents of one of the States participating in the College; and I must assume that nowadays that includes DC. [/QUOTE] I don’t see this. The Constitution provdes that the Electors shall (II.1.3) **vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.** Amendment 12 changes the Electoral Colleg procedure but keeps the same language: \*\* one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves.\*\* This would indicate not that the potential President and VP need be residents of any states only that they both can’t be from the same one. In fact a strict interpretation might indicate that both could be residents of Puerto Rico since it’s not a state. The Consitution does also state as a qualification (II.1.5) that the person voted for musr have \*\* been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.\*\* This might prohibit a resident of Puerto Rico from being elected, but then they might also be considered residents of the U.S. And it’s certainly possible to be a legal resident someplavce and not spend all your time there. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-territory-question/378418/16 "2006-10-30T20:35:59Z")
[QUOTE=OldGuy] The Consitution does also state as a qualification (II.1.5) that the person voted for musr have \*\* been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.\*\* [/QUOTE] I’ll further note this doesn’t say the candidate must have been a resident within the U.S. for the last fourteen years. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2006, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-territory-question/378418/17 "2006-10-31T01:31:01Z")
Hmm… y 'think so… Excuse me, I gotta go I gotta start me an exploratory committee and see if I can raise some funds, then… (I strongly suspect that _politically_ it would be unsustainable to run someone who is not a resident within the 50+DC anyway) Anyway, back to the OP, as a Helpful Hint from JRD: _Q: “I’m going to Puerto Rico and must make a public address; which is it more or less PC for me to say: ‘I am happy to be in your lovely Territory’, ‘in your lovely country’, or ‘in your lovely commonwealth’?” A: Geography helps you. Avoid annoying ultranationalists, ultraloyalists, hardcore commonwealthers and sundry legalist nitpickers, by saying you’re happy to be in our lovely **Islands**. 😉_