We kind of discussed this in a thread from back in September, Why doesn’t the “United States of America” encompass all of North and South America?; basically, the U.S. has never really been into annexing and incorporating areas with large populations of their own. If we discovered a good-sized island off our coast (which all the hardy explorers and satellites and so on over the centuries had unaccountably missed) whose people were hunter-gatherers with Neolithic technology…we probably still wouldn’t overrun and settle the territory with Americans and eventually absorb it into the Union while shoving the native peoples off into “reservations” in the less desirable parts of the island, 21st century mores being rather different from those of the 19th century when it comes to doing things like that. We’re certainly not going to march in and divide all Mexico into three parts or anything like that.
At any rate, I seriously doubt the U.S. is doomed because it can’t keep growing in a territorial sense. It’s not like we fund our government or economy by looting newly conquered provinces.
Indeed a huge issue. To add on what MEBruckner said, the people “battering down the door” to gain statehood up until 1912 were essentially “Anglo” *settlers that had moved into thinly populated territories and grown into large enough communities * that they were now the dominant local force with large enough economic and political interests and craved a seat at the decisionmaking table. It wasn’t the Mexicans in Tejas nor Queen Liliuokalani in Hawai’i who were banging at the door (Let’s be real: did Messrs. Austin and Houston in Texas in the 1830s, and Dole and Bishop in Hawaii in the 1890s, really mean to establish an enduring republic? Or just to take over and then arrange an annexation to the USA on terms advantageous to THEIR interests?). The idea of “you don’t like being unrepresented, so move to a state” did not apply then – the deal back then was the other way around: “you don’t like it in the state you’re in, move somewhere where you may start your own state where things will be your way”.
OTOH Puerto Rico ca. 2010 is an interesting whole 'nother story, because by now the social and cultural cross-pollination is so huge that the community in the island may be inextricably enmeshed with the community in the continent, even if still distinguishable. At the same time, as the clock ticks and societies and politics and the Law evolve, who knows, the time may come when the USA comes up with a different form of participative structure to provide the US citizens in the “associate” polities with a binding voice and vote on decisions that matter to them (and impose a fairer share in the burden thereof), without altering the status of the constituent States.
At the same time, you may have observed in these types of threads the ocassional post in which someone makes a statement to the effect that they DON’T think gaining full equal political enfranchisement and shouldering the fair share of the cost is worth it and that living w/o representation is no biggie as long as other things are taken care of. I find myself a bit put off by the idea of people being happier as mere subjects; but then again it’s their life.
Thanks to qazwart for again stating the advantages of being a state, though I must make a clarification: the Federal Funds a state receives still CAN have strings attached – 55mph speed limit, 21 y/o drinking age, anyone? – but it has to be on equal terms with other states, they can’t decide to nail just you.
I’m not saying it’s a general feeling amongst Canadians. But when Canadian ex-pats here start griping about their homeland, I’ve noticed a very sharp consideration from Quebecois that having their province be a US state would be better than remaining part of Canada. Albertans as well. Newfies, not so much: they tend to gripe about Quebec’s influence on their homeland.
But again, it’s all my own personal experience, not any sort of scientific evidence. I know about a half dozen Quebecois, two guys from Alberta and probably 20 Newfoundlanders (for some reason I can’t fathom, men from NF love to become travelling nurses in the US)
I think you’re experiencing selection bias here – not sure why, except that your group being unanimously ex-pats might be indicative. To the extent that individual Canadians care about the question – and some care deeply – they seem overwhelmingly against any sort of Anschluss to the U.S. (Or at least that’s the impression I’ve formed – the same bias issue may apply!)
It’s never been their problem. Nobody in Congress cares about what happens in the parts of DC that aren’t connected to them; members of the Transportation Committee from Northern Virginia regularly voted to screw over DC in order to help Arlington.
Reynolds v. Sims would like to have a word with you.
IANAL but I just read up on Reynolds and it has to do with the way that legislative districts are apportioned within a State. How does this apply to D.C.?
I always thought this would be a fun argument to ever use in real life:
“Civil Engineering Customer Service, Airman Ragu speaking.”
“Our toilets are all clogged up. They’ve been clogged up for two weeks. Could you please send someone to unclog them?”
“Sir, don’t you think we here in Civil Engineering have more important things to do, like training for the wars overseas? I mean, there are perfectly good bathrooms in the building next to yours!”
Yeah, that would fly about as far as the fan. :rolleyes:
And yes, heraldry is a very important thing, culture-wise, in the US military. Flags, unit patches, uniform badge design, all of it has meaning and has to be regulated somewhere. When a patch design is approved that is highlyderivative because nobody bothered to do unimportant stuff like actually bothering to do any of that heraldry design, it pisses a lot of people right the heck off.
That districts should be fairly evenly apportioned had already been established in Baker v. Carr. Perhaps you’re familiar with the “sound bite summary” of Reynolds v. Sims: “One man, one vote”??
Well, I was thinking of the part in the opinion where it basically says “If you feel that your vote is being unfairly diminished by the way the districts are drawn, trying to change that is an acceptable tactic. Moving away from that place is not your only legitimate option.”
I don’t think it will end up as a viable state. The best solution would be to simply have it annexed back to Maryland (For example, Arlington was once part of the District of Columbia and was given back to Virginia).
This would solve many political issues. Washington would be under the supervision of the State of Maryland just like many large cities are under the supervision of their states. Since the State of Maryland is a local entity and that the city of Washington would have a say in the politics of Maryland, the supervision would be better. Right now, someone from across the country can make an example out of Washington, and would suffer no political consequences.
This would also solve the dilemma of Washington having no Senate or House representation. As a city, it would be entitled to about one representative. As part of Maryland, it would have a say in Maryland’s two Senators. It would also be represented in the State House and Senate too just like any other large city.
This would also get around the dilemma of a fairly substantial city being denied Congressional representation, but at the same time, Republicans be against having two more additional Democratic senators in the Senate. This would allow Congress to add another Democratic representative (possibly two), but not gain any more Senators in the Senate.
And, there is no issue with the Federal capital being under a state’s jurisdiction. Both Philadelphia and New York were state capitals under the Constitution without having to become independent of their respective states.
There are two issues: Would Maryland take Washington as a ward? Washington has a lot of problems, and not much in the way of resources to help solve those issues. There would have to be some sort of Federal pact to help pay for the Federal part of Washington. Many state capitals have such a pact with their state, so there is a precedent for it.
I also believe that many politicians in Washington D.C. see statehood as a way of increasing political jobs (two Senators, a Governor, etc.). Merging Washington into Maryland would mean no new political positions. You already have a Mayor, and a non-voting Representative in Congress. An aspiring Washington D.C. local politician would have to run a campaign across all of Maryland to get a Senate seat and that means competing against other Maryland politicians. It would also mean having actual oversight over corruption instead of mere Congressional preening.
