Sign in to follow this  
prisonchaplain

Trump 2024?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

It won't be Pres. Biden for long.  I think we see him 25th Amendmented out first year. 

yep, and once they push through three new states, Puerto Rico, Washington D.C and Guam, we will never see another Republican elected President again. That will end the Republic. Not sure the next 12 years of the Harris Regime will be such a good thing for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

yep, and once they push through three new states, Puerto Rico, Washington D.C and Guam, we will never see another Republican elected President again. That will end the Republic. Not sure the next 12 years of the Harris Regime will be such a good thing for us.

You mean Puerto Rico? DC residents don't have Congressional representation, but they still vote for President. And giving Statehood to Guam would be a foreign policy nightmare. I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the problem some are having with the Electoral college is how many more votes per person some states get compared to others.  Part of the problem with this is that we capped the number of states and the number of representatives.

Many think that we should go to a majority vote, but this merely disrupts the republic and hands power to a few cities in the United States.  Like what has happened in some Western Democrat controlled states, the rural areas are then controlled and are completely at the mercy of the urban cities with absolutely no say in their governance.  This is democracy, but it is not letting everyone actually be represented.  It is the tyranny of the  majority, something that the Constitution was made prevent.

If they want better representation they should allow more Representatives.  They need to change what is written by amendment and allow one Representative per number of population again.  HOWEVER...in that same light, they ALSO need to start allowing more states.  Perhaps if an area has 2 million citizens, they will be allowed to create their own states.  This means that Los Angeles and San Francisco could be their own states, but so could Northern, Central, and Southern, as well as Western and several other sections of California could be their own states thus ALSO increasing the number of Senators and representatives they have for them.  This would work in giving more Conservative areas a greater say (and probably making the Senate lean HEAVILY Republican, while the House leaned HEAVILY Democrat) and stop the tyranny of the majority in states where the rural areas no longer have a say in what goes on there.

So, it does not need to just be Puerto Rico, DC, and Guam, but a LOT more areas that want their independence as a State, but have thus far been denied due to political aspects (for example, Urban California does NOT want to let go of the agricultural areas of California, even though the rural areas desperately want to be able to govern themselves and be free from the dictates of the urban majority).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
11 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

yep, and once they push through three new states, Puerto Rico, Washington D.C and Guam, we will never see another Republican elected President again. 

Guam will probably not.

In the last vote, Puerto Rico voted to become a state, but they need congressional approval.

If that's what the people of Puerto Rico want, why shouldn't they be allowed to become a state?  Their citizens serve in the US Military and are loyal to the United States.  The majority of American citizens favor making Puerto Rico a state.

So why shouldn't it be?

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scott said:

Guam will probably not.

In the last vote, Puerto Rico voted to become a state, but they need congressional approval.

If that's what the people of Puerto Rico want, why shouldn't they be allowed to become a state?  Their citizens serve in the US Military and are loyal to the United States.  The majority of American citizens favor making Puerto Rico a state.

So why shouldn't it be?

Because their culture is different.  We may as well offer statehood to Cuba and Haiti.  I’m sure lots of Cubans and Haitians would be happy to profess loyalty to the US and even do a stint in the US military, if it meant they could claim VA benefits and move to New York and demand “diversity preference” at a state-funded university and elect congresscritters who will promise them federal money in perpetuity if they will but stay on the Democrat plantation.

We should have granted Puerto Rico its independence, long ago. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
43 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Because their culture is different.

That's not a good reason.  Plus, different from who?  You?  Hispanics are 17% of the US population.

There are already about as many Puerto Ricans living in the States as there are in Puerto Rico.   There are about as many Puerto Ricans living in the States as LDS members.  The culture of Puerto Ricans isn't any more unique to the US than LDS culture is.
 

Quote

  I’m sure lots of Cubans and Haitians would be happy to profess loyalty to the US and even do a stint in the US military, if it meant they could claim VA benefits and move to New York and demand “diversity preference” at a state-funded university

Puerto Ricans are already US citizens and can freely move to New York and attend university there.  Cubans and Haitians are not US citizens and would have to pass immigration.  Cuba and Haiti are not part of this country.  Puerto Rico is already US territory.

Puerto Ricans have been US citizens for over 100 years now.  
 

Quote

We should have granted Puerto Rico its independence, long ago. 

Puerto Rico wants to be a state.  Most Americans want Puerto Rico to be a state.  It should be left to the people.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Scott said:

Guam will probably not.

In the last vote, Puerto Rico voted to become a state, but they need congressional approval.

If that's what the people of Puerto Rico want, why shouldn't they be allowed to become a state?  Their citizens serve in the US Military and are loyal to the United States.  The majority of American citizens favor making Puerto Rico a state.

So why shouldn't it be?

Why haven't we granted the Northern and Eastern Californians their state?  They want it, but keep getting over voted by those in San Francisco and Los Angeles.  There are more people clamoring to be free from California into their own states than Puerto Rico by several times. 

Why do we not allow those in Eastern Washington and Oregon to form their own states.  The folks who are not in the urban centers are in a similar situation (and have been forming different scenarios for decades now, even where they try to combine themselves into a single state rather than separate ones just so they can govern themselves).  Why don't we allow them to have their own state?

If that's what the people of Northern California, Eastern California, Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington want...why shouldn't they be allowed to become a state?  Their citizens serve in the US Military and are loyal  (and in some cases, probably MORE loyal than some in the parts they want to separate from) to the United States. 

So why shouldn't it be?

 

PS: Perhaps, it should be time for another great compromise between the Conservatives and Liberal sections of government...oh wait...no one wants to negotiate or compromise between the Democrats and the Republicans these days...perhaps that's the REAL reason nothing is going to happen unless one group tries to bulldoze it through, and then another bulldozes their agendas through.

If Puerto Rico becomes a State, let California become three separate states like what was proposed a few years ago, or let Eastern Washington and Eastern Oregon become their own states to balance it all out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Scott said:

[1]That's not a good reason.  Plus, different from who?  You?  Hispanics are 17% of the US population.

There are already about as many Puerto Ricans living in the States as there are in Puerto Rico.   There are about as many Puerto Ricans living in the States as LDS members.  The culture of Puerto Ricans isn't any more unique to the US than LDS culture is.
 

[2]Puerto Ricans are already US citizens and can freely move to New York and attend university there.  Cubans and Haitians are not US citizens and would have to pass immigration.  Cuba and Haiti are not part of this country.  Puerto Rico is already US territory.

Puerto Ricans have been US citizens for over 100 years now.  
 

[3]Puerto Rico wants to be a state.  Most Americans want Puerto Rico to be a state.  It should be left to the people.
 

1.  I’m talking about culture; I’m not sure why you’re responding with statistics about race.  And I’m talking about Puerto Rico specifically, not Hispanic culture as a whole.

Have you been looking at Puerto Rican politics over the past decade?   When we look at the way Puerto Rico has governed itself of late, as well as the values espoused by prominent Puerto Rican politicians like AOC, I think there are serious questions about their culture’s commitment to values like rule-of-law, noncorruption, individual rights, and sound fiscal management—not to mention a troubling affinity for Marxist dogma and a penchant for voting themselves money that was accumulated by people more prudent than themselves.  The fact that the Democratic Party (or even, to a lesser extent, the GOP) has degenerated into the same sorts of issues, does not mean that Puerto Rico deserves a seat at the congressional table in allocating the resources that are generally husbanded by other, more functional states (Puerto Rico’s per capita income, by the way, is barely half of Mississippi’s, the poorest US state).  Mormon Utah consistently ranks among the best-run US states/territories.  Puerto Rico . . . does not.

2.  Be that as it may, their ability to bloc together in a geographical area and vote themselves benefits from the public purse is currently limited. In their diaspora, they have not been able to turn any American jurisdiction into quite the sort of dysfunctional morass that Puerto Rico itself currently is.  Cripes, Puerto Rico was on the edge of bankruptcy and screaming for a federal bailout not five years ago!

No ones saying that individual Puerto Ricans should, or constitutionally can, lose their US citizenship if PR attains independence.  If they want to remain Americans and have their children enjoy birthright citizenship, they are free to immigrate and see firsthand how a successful American state functions, and make their voting decisions accordingly.  But as for the island of Puerto Rico:  I have no duty to buy what they have broken.

Puerto Rico is likely to be even more of a drain on American resources as a state, than it is as a territory.  It’s residents themselves understand this.  Even as a territory they’ve got a pretty sweet gig—which is why they don’t want independence.  To paraphrase Kennedy:  they aren’t interested in what they can do for America.  They’re interested in what America can do for them.

3.  Fortunately, while “what the people want” is a major factor in US governance, it is not the only factor.  As Latter-day Saints, our own history should make us particularly attenuated to the pitfalls of majority rule. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, dprh said:

Wikipedia shows 5.7 Puerto Ricans live Stateside.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateside_Puerto_Ricans

Snarky comments about the poor 0.7 Puerto Rican aside, how does an island with a population of just over 3 million put almost 6 million in the States?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Vort said:

Snarky comments about the poor 0.7 Puerto Rican aside, how does an island with a population of just over 3 million put almost 6 million in the States?

By being such a dysfunctional armpit that anyone who can get out, does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
30 minutes ago, Vort said:

Snarky comments about the poor 0.7 Puerto Rican aside, how does an island with a population of just over 3 million put almost 6 million in the States?

Because they are US citizens and can live in the US wherever they choose to and a lot of them choose to live on the mainland.  Since they rely so much on imports (as do most islands), a lot of goods are really expensive there.  Most wages are lower too.

The population has been declining in Puerto Rico for a couple of decades, even though their birthrates are really high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Mormon Utah consistently ranks among the best-run US states/territories.  Puerto Rico . . . does not.

Utah was given statehood in 1896.   At the time it was not considered one of the best run territories or states by other Americans.

Utah pushed for statehood despite of this.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Puerto Rico is likely to be even more of a drain on American resources as a state, than it is as a territory.

I agree Puerto Rico has its problems.  How many states didn't have serious problems when they were admitted to the Union?  A lot of them did.  A lot of them were a lot poorer (much more so than Puerto Rico) than the majority of the rest of the Union.  Hawaii was the last state admitted to the Union.  It too was an island territory with a lot of problems.

Having no problems isn't a requirement to become a state.  The requirements for a territory to become a state are that the territory have a permanent population, a defined territory, a constitution/government, and the capacity/desire to enter into the United States.

 Puerto Rico meets these requirements.    The things you list are not a requirement.  Congressional approval is also a requirement, which Puerto Rico has not met at this time.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

3.  Fortunately, while “what the people want” is a major factor in US governance, it is not the only factor.  As Latter-day Saints, our own history should make us particularly attenuated to the pitfalls of majority rule. 

This is true.  But..most Puerto Ricans and 66% of mainland Americans favor Puerto Rico statehood.

Puerto Rico has a lot of similarities (and some differences of course) to the Utah territory when it became a state.  Puerto Rico has an overall religious population, was less developed,  poorer than a lot of the other states, and had a different culture than a lot of the rest of the United States.  Hawaii was even more similar to Puerto Rico and was closer to our time period.

There is no constitutional reason to not give it at least consideration.  Congress should allow both Puerto Rico and the American people decide.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @Scott.  There is no legal, constitutional, practical reason to deny Puerto Rico statehood.  They just need to follow the procedure.

In the meantime, here are some interesting articles to read.

Apparently there was an Op-Ed that said that Puerto Rico has voted to become a state, but the Feds rejected the petition.  But the following article refutes that.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/511160-doj-rejects-statehood-for-puerto-rico-so-do-puerto-ricans

Quote

Puerto Ricans have rejected annexing our country into the United States as a state every time we have been asked at the ballot box. The fact is that incorporating Puerto Rico into the union would not only be detrimental to Puerto Ricans, but to Americans as well. 

...

Puerto Ricans directly rejected statehood at the ballot box in plebiscites held in 1967, 1993, and 1998. In 2012 and 2017, the people rejected the entire process outright.

This article, however, disagrees.

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/in-depth/explained-why-americans-disagree-on-granting-statehood-to-puerto-rico-and-washington-dc/ar-BB1b1cCJ?%3Bamp%3Bpfr=1

Quote

The polls in 1967, 1993 and 1998 reaffirmed commonwealth status, but the last three ones– 2012, 2017 and 2020– chose statehood. In 2020, around 52 per cent said they favoured statehood, with the remaining voting against. 

Still a third site provides more detail on why the previous websites interpreted the result differently.

https://www.thoughtco.com/us-statehood-process-3322311

Quote

On November 6, 2012, the territorial government of Puerto Rico held a two-question public referendum vote on petitioning for U.S. statehood. The first question asked voters whether Puerto Rico should continue to be a U.S. territory. The second question asked voters to choose from among the three possible alternatives to territorial status—statehood, independence, and nationhood in free association with the United States. In the vote count, 61% of the voters chose statehood, while only 54% voted to retain territorial status.

In August 2013, a U.S. Senate committee heard testimony on Puerto Rico’s 2012 statehood referendum vote and acknowledged that the majority of the Puerto Rican people had “expressed their opposition to continuing the current territorial status.”

Thus the ambiguity was the reason for the rejection.

Quote

On February 4, 2015, Puerto Rico’s Resident Commissioner in the U.S. House of Representatives Pedro Pierluisi, introduced the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Process Act (H.R. 727). The bill authorizes Puerto Rico’s State Elections Commission to hold a vote on Puerto Rico's admission into the Union as a state within one year after the Act's enactment. If a majority of the votes cast are for Puerto Rico's admission as a state, the bill requires the president of the United States to issue a proclamation to begin the transition process that will result in Puerto Rico's admission as a state effective January 1, 2021.

On June 11, 2017, the people of Puerto Rico voted for U.S. statehood in a nonbinding referendum. Preliminary results showed that almost 500,000 ballots were cast for statehood, more than 7,600 for free association-independence, and almost 6,700 for retaining the current territorial status. Only about 23% of the island’s approximately 2.26 million registered voters cast ballots, leading to statehood opponents to doubt the validity of the result. The vote, however, did not appear to be divided along party lines.

So, they didn't follow #2 of the list of things that Congress has decided was is the process:

Quote
  • The territory holds a referendum vote to determine the people's desire for or against statehood.
  • Should a majority vote to seek statehood, the territory petitions the U.S. Congress for statehood.
  • The territory, if it has not already done so, is required to adopt a form of government and constitution that are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.
  • The U.S. Congress—both House and Senate—pass, by a simple majority vote, a joint resolution accepting the territory as a state.
  • The President of the United States signs the joint resolution and the territory is acknowledged as a U.S. state.

I have no idea if they have done #3 or not.

But apparently, the standard has been that the number of votes cast in favor must be the majority of "elligible voters" rather than the "majority of votes cast."  And they simply haven't done that.  Never.

I don't know the details of 2020 vote.  But it undoubtedly has the same hangups as the previous ones.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott said:

Because they are US citizens and can live in the US wherever they choose to and a lot of them choose to live on the mainland.  Since they rely so much on imports (as do most islands), a lot of goods are really expensive there.  Most wages are lower too.

The population has been declining in Puerto Rico for a couple of decades, even though their birthrates are really high.

Then why on earth would any sane and patriotic American want Puerto Rico to join as a State and gain seats in Congress?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott said:

I agree Puerto Rico has its problems.  How many states didn't have serious problems when they were admitted to the Union?  A lot of them did.  A lot of them were a lot poorer (much more so than Puerto Rico) than the majority of the rest of the Union.  Hawaii was the last state admitted to the Union.  It too was an island territory with a lot of problems.

Having no problems isn't a requirement to become a state.  The requirements for a territory to become a state are that the territory have a permanent population, a defined territory, a constitution/government, and the capacity/desire to enter into the United States.

Don't be coy. We all know that the reason the western states and Alaska were added to the Union was because they vastly increase US holdings. And Hawaii, for whatever problems it may have had in 1959, was a jewel in the Pacific that added not only territory but, more importantly, strategic location. Hawaii was much easier to develop and fund as a state than it ever was as a territory. Puerto Rico gives us none of these, neither a significant addition to our holdings as a country nor an especially strategic location to be further developed.

As you note, Puerto Ricans are Americans. They don't need a visa to come live in the US proper. It makes little sense to add PR as another state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Then why on earth would any sane and patriotic American want Puerto Rico to join as a State and gain seats in Congress?

Worrying about their seats gained in congress is not a criteria for denying a territory statehood.

Do you have a legal or constitutional reason for denying them statehood?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Why haven't we granted the Northern and Eastern Californians their state?  They want it, but keep getting over voted by those in San Francisco and Los Angeles.  There are more people clamoring to be free from California into their own states than Puerto Rico by several times. 

It would certainly create an intersting economic dynamic if the agricultural centers of CA were to split from the industrial/commerce centers. I'm not saying that the agricultural areas don't have value or that they wouldn't survive without the metro areas, but well over half of California's GDP comes from the very blue parts of Southern and Central CA. Are these new states prepared to fund themselves without the support of the current state's economic powerhouses?

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Why do we not allow those in Eastern Washington and Oregon to form their own states.  The folks who are not in the urban centers are in a similar situation (and have been forming different scenarios for decades now, even where they try to combine themselves into a single state rather than separate ones just so they can govern themselves).  Why don't we allow them to have their own state?

If that's what the people of Northern California, Eastern California, Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington want...why shouldn't they be allowed to become a state?  Their citizens serve in the US Military and are loyal  (and in some cases, probably MORE loyal than some in the parts they want to separate from) to the United States. 

So why shouldn't it be?

Aside from the potential economic vacuum it would create in the rural states, as outlined above, I just don't think the solution to the divisions in our country is more division. Your proposal essentially eliminates any incentive for Dem politicians to try to gain influence in rural areas, and eliminates incentive for GOP politicians to try to build influence in urban/metro areas. As things currently stand, both parties have a lot of work to do to reach across the aisle and bridge the gap between city and rural voters. I don't think blowing up bridges is going to fix anything in this country. You'll just end up with politicians in DC who don't even pretend to care about half of the country's population because they have no electoral incentive to. Heck, that's already happening in some states, and how's that working out? We've got impossibly high cost of living in some of the bluest states and abysmal educational systems and widespread poverty in some of the reddest ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Vort said:

Then why on earth would any sane and patriotic American want Puerto Rico to join as a State and gain seats in Congress?

So they would have representation.  Seems only fair.  If I want something changed, I've got Senators and Congresspersons I can write to.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott said:

[1] Utah was given statehood in 1896.   At the time it was not considered one of the best run territories or states by other Americans.

Utah pushed for statehood despite of this.

[2] I agree Puerto Rico has its problems.  How many states didn't have serious problems when they were admitted to the Union?  A lot of them did.  A lot of them were a lot poorer (much more so than Puerto Rico) than the majority of the rest of the Union.  Hawaii was the last state admitted to the Union.  It too was an island territory with a lot of problems.

Having no problems isn't a requirement to become a state.  The requirements for a territory to become a state are that the territory have a permanent population, a defined territory, a constitution/government, and the capacity/desire to enter into the United States.

 Puerto Rico meets these requirements.    The things you list are not a requirement.  Congressional approval is also a requirement, which Puerto Rico has not met at this time.

[3] This is true.  But..most Puerto Ricans and 66% of mainland Americans favor Puerto Rico statehood.

Puerto Rico has a lot of similarities (and some differences of course) to the Utah territory when it became a state.  Puerto Rico has an overall religious population, was less developed,  poorer than a lot of the other states, and had a different culture than a lot of the rest of the United States.  Hawaii was even more similar to Puerto Rico and was closer to our time period.

[4] There is no constitutional reason to not give it at least consideration.  Congress should allow both Puerto Rico and the American people decide.
 

1.  Utah wanted statehood so that it could choose its own local officials, rather than having federal appointees filling their executive branch and judgeships.  They would have been happy with independence, had the federal government been so inclined; and even under the statehood rubric their primary wish was to be left alone.  

Puerto Rico has an elected governor who appoints their local judges.  Statehood, for them, is not a step towards self-rule.  It is a step towards letting them rule over the other states and diverting a bigger chunk of federal spending in their direction to help them cope with issues they can't, or won't, resolve on their own.

2.  My friend, this is a bit of a straw man.  My position isn't that a would-be state must have "no problems".  My position is that with regard to Puerto Rico, "there are serious questions about their culture’s commitment to values like rule-of-law, noncorruption, individual rights, and sound fiscal management—not to mention a troubling affinity for Marxist dogma and a penchant for voting themselves money that was accumulated by people more prudent than themselves."  It simply isn't true to suggest that there are universal "requirements for a territory to become a state".  The Constitution merely states

Quote

 

New states may [NOT 'must'--JAG] be admitted by 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.  

--Constitution, Article IV, Section 3 [Emphasis added]

 

The Northwest Ordinance did set a precedent, but it was not a universally binding one; and there have been deviations from that pattern throughout history--sometimes for political reasons, and sometimes (as in the case of the Mormons, as well as the proposed indian state of Sekuoyah) because there were concerns about whether the locals could or would govern themselves in accordance with the underlying principles of the Republic.  The Northwest Ordinance itself affirmed that "religion, morality, and knowledge" as " being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind".  

Certainly, if in 1800, the UK had said "Okay, America; we, with our population of ten million, declare ourselves to be subject to you and your population of five million.  Now, give us our 2/3 of the votes in your House of Representatives, and our majority in the electoral college, and we promise we'll uphold the values on which you founded your revolution!", Congress would have the right to say "hey, wait a second . . .".  Indeed, if China did the same thing in 2020--your logic would suggest we have to admit them, giving them over 80% of the House and an electoral college majority of their own.

That, of course, is nonsense.  Culture and values and prevailing notions of civic virtue in a would-be new state are a legitimate--in fact, a key--point of congressional inquiry.

3. Had Hawaii--or Utah--been nearly bankrupt within the past five years, and demanded a bailout from the federal government?  Were they rife with corruption?  Infested with a political ideology that has killed a hundred million people and poisoned both the economy and individual liberties of every nation-state it dominated?  Had a per capita income less than half of the rest of the US?  Had they repeatedly misappropriated federal relief aid and bungled disaster response after disaster response?

These are not mere temporary problems to be worked through.  These call into question the fundamental notions of what exactly the prevailing values in Puerto Rico really are.  Back around 2003-2004, progressives had no problem acknowledging that some peoples (*cough IRAQIS cough*) just weren't culturally fit for American-style democracy.  Why, then, do we accept this assumption that Puerto Rican culture can mesh seamlessly into the American experiment; especially when we have so much tangible evidence to the contrary?  By your own figures, an overwhelming majority of Puerto Ricans don't want to be governed by Puerto Ricans.  Why, then, should I?

4.  There is nothing in the Constitution that says the ultimate arbiter of the decision is a plebiscite of either the would-be state in question, or of the American people as a whole.  To the contrary, the Constitution vests that decision with Congress; and Congress has considered statehood for Puerto Rico.  Some folks just don't like the results of that consideration, because a) it makes it harder for Puerto Rico's kleptocratic political class to get its hands into the pocketbooks of people living outside its own jursidiction; and b) it leaves the Senate--for the moment--in Republican hands. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Why haven't we granted the Northern and Eastern Californians their state?  They want it, but keep getting over voted by those in San Francisco and Los Angeles.  There are more people clamoring to be free from California into their own states than Puerto Rico by several times. 

Why do we not allow those in Eastern Washington and Oregon to form their own states.  The folks who are not in the urban centers are in a similar situation (and have been forming different scenarios for decades now, even where they try to combine themselves into a single state rather than separate ones just so they can govern themselves).  Why don't we allow them to have their own state?

If that's what the people of Northern California, Eastern California, Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington want...why shouldn't they be allowed to become a state?  Their citizens serve in the US Military and are loyal  (and in some cases, probably MORE loyal than some in the parts they want to separate from) to the United States. 

So why shouldn't it be?

 

PS: Perhaps, it should be time for another great compromise between the Conservatives and Liberal sections of government...oh wait...no one wants to negotiate or compromise between the Democrats and the Republicans these days...perhaps that's the REAL reason nothing is going to happen unless one group tries to bulldoze it through, and then another bulldozes their agendas through.

If Puerto Rico becomes a State, let California become three separate states like what was proposed a few years ago, or let Eastern Washington and Eastern Oregon become their own states to balance it all out.

 

13 minutes ago, Godless said:

 

It would certainly create an intersting economic dynamic if the agricultural centers of CA were to split from the industrial/commerce centers. I'm not saying that the agricultural areas don't have value or that they wouldn't survive without the metro areas, but well over half of California's GDP comes from the very blue parts of Southern and Central CA. Are these new states prepared to fund themselves without the support of the current state's economic powerhouses?

Aside from the potential economic vacuum it would create in the rural states, as outlined above, I just don't think the solution to the divisions in our country is more division. Your proposal essentially eliminates any incentive for Dem politicians to try to gain influence in rural areas, and eliminates incentive for GOP politicians to try to build influence in urban/metro areas. As things currently stand, both parties have a lot of work to do to reach across the aisle and bridge the gap between city and rural voters. I don't think blowing up bridges is going to fix anything in this country. You'll just end up with politicians in DC who don't even pretend to care about half of the country's population because they have no electoral incentive to. Heck, that's already happening in some states, and how's that working out? We've got impossibly high cost of living in some of the bluest states and abysmal educational systems and widespread poverty in some of the reddest ones.

The federal Constitution would require that a state legislature agree to its own partition; and neither Sacramento, nor Salem, nor Olympia would ever give up their strangleholds on their eastern territories.  Not as autonomous regions, and certainly not as sister states.  Opponents of Puerto Rican statehood, at least, are willing to cut the island loose and let it govern itself.  But the colonials in the backwoods of California, Oregon, and Washington will just have to learn their place.    

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Scott said:

Worrying about their seats gained in congress is not a criteria for denying a territory statehood.

Do you have a legal or constitutional reason for denying them statehood?

Sure. Being a state is not some God-given right. States are admitted because they are beneficial to the Union, not because the Democrats will gain short-term political advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this