Right – from the landmass that was* claimed *by the Republic of Texas (neither Texas nor Mexico really controlled all of it), as many as 5 total states could be drawn upt. And some time after that, in a debt-swap deal, Texas gave up half its claimed territory to the US government anyway. It’s not that the State of Texas itself could multiply by 5 at will.
States are sovereign constituent members of the Union. Territories “belong” to the United States and are subordinate to Congress. Back in the Bad Old Days this meant that in a Territory you were a subject of Congress, who had full authority to dissolve the territory, split it, merge it, redraw its borders, etc., and any home rule you had existed at the sufferance of the Congress and the Department of the Interior (or the War or Navy Department, depending on who had made the land grab) who made law and ruled over you at their will through a Washington-appointed governor. All this, with no voting representation. The acme of territoriality was achieved with the post-1898 territories (PR, Phillippines, Guam, Samoa) for which the Supreme Court pulled out of their robes (it’s nowhere in the Constitution or the US Code) the notion of the “Unincorporated Territory” which they defined as “belonging, but not a part of, the United States”.
Ever since, and specially post-WW2, the territories have been granted a much higher degree of internal autonomy, including freely-elected local executives and in the case of the “commonwealths” (PR and the Marianas) locally-drafted constitutions.
BUT the Territories all are still limited insofar as political enfranchisement to a nonvoting delegate to the House of Representatives Congress, and NO electoral votes, only participation in the presidential primaries if the parties so grant it. By the usual standards of other colonial powers we’re doing great, but nothing beats having an actual full-rank Senator out there bcking up your interests – we have to hand over a sackful of cash to paid lobbyists for the kind of access Al Franken’s office manager can get.
Congress remains fully empowered to make law over the territories (limiting itself only insofar as what authority it devolved into the local constitutions) including tax law. Contrary to popular myth the territories are NOT tax paradises of full federal funding with no federal taxing, or at least not for Joe the Beachbum – depending where you are you may take a lesser hit; in most of the territories we still have to pay SSA, MediCare, Self Employment and Customs Excise taxes (yet some of the benefits collected are lesser); in some you file the exact same Form 1040 every April and the IRS just lets the territorial treasury keep it; in PR instead of paying Federal Personal Income Taxes to the IRS we pay a HIGHER rate of income taxes to the Commonwealth Treasury; the Virgin Islands get a break on Customs as a Free Port; etc…
Actually, we haven’t stopped. Just taking a breather before we annex Canada.
Whoops! I wasn’t suppose to let that slip out…
There’s been proposal for D.C. statehood and Puerto Rico votes every five to ten years whether they want to become independent, become a state, or remain a commonwealth. So far, they’ve always chosen the latter.
I think Article IV, Section 3 speaks on this matter:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States 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.
So, a state can’t form two states without first the state itself approving it, and of course, Congress must also vote for it.
For example, if Northern New Jersey decided to kick out Southern New Jersey, both Northern New Jersey and Southern New Jersey would have to agree with it. Plus, both Houses of Congress would have to approve it before that could happen.
Any large organization will have lots of tasks to accomplish. Some of those are clearly related to the bottom line (primary mission in the military case). Some of those are indirectly related by influencing image and attitude, both inside the organization and from the perspective of outsiders.
To the extent we want reasonably intelligent people to occasionally to put their life at risk, the direct and indirect effects of the military’s traditions, history and customs are important.
So no, the Army dosn’t have something “just a little more important to do”.
1967, 1993, 1998. With the Commonwealth having been instituted (with no multiple choice, it was take it or take it) in 1952 the intervals have been 15, 26, 5, and 11-and-counting, it averages out to 14. The three times it has happened it was a matter of the local government-du-jour feeling lucky and hoping for a mandate to strengthen their position and move forward their proposal (67: improve the commonwealth, 93-98: pitch statehood). Repeatedly failed to achieve those ends.
And regarding Army Heraldry, look, The Big Red One may be a fine outfit, but it would get pretty boring to have everyione else be the Big Blue Three, the Big Grey Twenty Nine, the Big White Sixty Five, the Big Black One Hundred and One, etc.
There are many who argue-- as a D.C. guy I would be among them-- that the advantages of being a territory/district far, FAR outweigh the disadvantages.
The amount of money that goes into D.C. and Puerto Rico is almost certainly much larger than the amount of money either area could get relying on the usual 2 Senator/X Representatives lobbying dynamic. PARTICULARLY in Washington-- today, it’s the responsibility of every member of Congress to look after the ol’ Federal City; give them a vote in Congress, and then suddenly it’s not their problem anymore.
If you don’t like not having the vote, there’s a simple solution-- move.
Good answer, but I don’t think that’s what he was asking about. He was wondering if the NJ state government could say that, for example, everyone north of Trenton elects what is currently the Class 1 Senator and everyone south of Trenton electswhat is currently the Class 2 Senator. Arguably, there is nothing explicit in the Constitution that prevents this, but I would hazard that the division of the vote geographically would cause problems, particularly because of the classes of senator.
Article I, Section 3 says:
Currently, New Jersey’s senators are in the first 2 classes, meaning one’s term expires in January 2013 and the other’s in January, 2015. Every 2 to 4 years, the entire voting population of the state has a chance to pick a new one. If New Jersey says that the senators are to be elected by district, then the population gets to vote on their senator every six years, effectively depriving half the state of representation in that cycle.
At least, that’s the argument I’m sure that would be made.
What is important here, IMHO, is why places are not battering down the door wanting statehood. The fact that they are not, when the did in the past, shows a ‘decline’ in the vibrancy of the U.S. What can the U.S. do to get it back?
As someone said above, ‘culturally american’ is probably a main reason. If so, that saddens me. I really hope that the U.S. in the future…with new generations coming up that this will be overcome. Have PR in the U.S. would be a GOOD THING, IMO if that means that we embrace what being ‘American’ is.
I can see the U.S. going through another voluntary expansion in the future. I can also see it breaking up. What is needed is for the U.S. to become more Hispanic in flavor given that most of the Americas are Hispanic and a goodly and rising proportion of our population is Hispanic. I can see the current ‘Americans’ and the new Hispanic flavor being a huge win-win for both peoples if it can be done.
If it can’t, I see more division than unification in the future.
I always wonder what would have happened if the (Western) Roman empire would have truely embraced this thing…if they would have truely incorporated the ‘barbarians’ into the empire giving them real voice and real power within it…making them feel a true part of it. Maybe it would have invigorated the empire and it could have stood.
I’m under the impression that if California split into two states, it would do so along North/South lines, but that the political split tends to be inland/coastal. Northern California would still have Sacramento and San Francisco, and Southern California: LA. You’d probably end up with a very Democratic state and a Democratic-leaning state, something Republicans wouldn’t be willing to go along with.
Probably was more true several decades ago, when being physically isolated was a more real issue. Nowadays, I’ve found the Western Canadians or Quebecois seem to be more open to the idea of US annexation of the US than any other Canadians, usually after a long gripe-fest about Ontario’s domination of the country.
And an inland/coastal split would instead leave you with a very populous (and Democratic) coastal state, and a much smaller (and Republican) inland state. The Bay Area, LA and San Diego metro areas currently have about 23 million of CA’s 37 million, and it’s not entirely clear that Sacramento would be in the inland piece. If it wasn’t, the biggest metro area inland would be Fresno, at about 1 million. The state’s Democrats would never approve of creating two new Republican senators this way, and you’d never get approval within the state. That kind of split would be untenable in a number of other ways as well.
I’ve never heard Quebecois be open to such an idea, since it’s totally and utterly in opposition to solving their problems with Canada. Joining the USA would be ten times worse solely from the perspective of language issues.
Couldn’t you give the “Inland” state San Diego (and the southern counties)? That’s pretty Republican and has a population of 1.3 (3 million in the whole metro area). It would also give the state a coast line and Republicans would love to be in charge of the border area!
Oh, thank you so very much! Leaves me living in the middle of a Republican state. No way. The line needs to divide North and South, and should be just south of Bakersfield.
I personally think making DC a state is a bad idea for a variety of reasons. D.C. is a territory less than 100 square miles in size. It controls no hinderlands and has very little income. As a state, it would find itself a ward to the Federal government. Most of the people who work and play there live outside its territory and control.
However, D.C. is now overseen by the Feds who decide what type of government, what laws, and how DC should be run. You have people from all over the country using DC as a whipping boy to get votes back at home. City Council will recognize same sex marriages? Congress will over rule it. Too many guns in the streets? Tough, Congress says DC can’t have any meaningful gun regulation. City trying to give needles to addicts in order to lower AIDS infection? Sorry, Congress says no.
As long as you’re not a state, you are depending upon the largess of Congress in your government. Being a state means that you get more of a say in how you are run. By the way, ask small states such as Wyoming and Alaska about getting your hands on federal money. Unlike D.C., they seem to get piles of it, and no one tells them how it has to be spent.
The figure I’ve heard said that Quebec has the highest proportion of Canadians who believe that Canada will eventually become a part of the US, but it didn’t say anything about their own personal feelings on the matter.
Somewhat more extreme than the usual suggestions, some of which have the southern half getting Monterrey. People glancing at a map often notice the very convenient border line defined by the northern borders of San Bernardino, Kern and San Luis Obispo counties. Sorry - you get Bakersfield. Maybe you would like this suggestion I found on some message board:
(the six coastal counties around San Diego and LA become a separate state)
The interesting part is that that division leaves two pieces with roughly identical population, although those six counties are so much smaller in area. Orange county would be rather unhappy, I’d guess. It leaves the other part with something pretty close to a balance, politically - many things would come down a tussle between the Central Valley and the Bay Area.
