Questions for our American friends

[knobby109]

Ireland is a sorry point in our history. It was regarded as a threat to our security as it remained a springboard to our Catholic enemies a way of removing a threat is to take it over.That's why Rome invaded Britain way back, nothing new.
But America was self governing. Taxes were much lower than back in Britain which even bore the costs of administation.The Stamp Act wasn't peculiar to America, it applied equally elsewhere and still left taxation lower than the people would have paid had they stayed in England.And possibly lower than they became after independence.

[Top_Gum]

Puerto Rico already meets the population requirement for statehood. That is not a bar to its becoming a state. Congress must approve the admission of any new state and considering the sorry state of the US economy and the potential gain of two democratic senators, I doubt that the republicans in either the House or the Senate would ever approve of Puerto Rican statehood.

[winebeavis]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

What are the chances of Puerto Rico, the USVI, Guam or Samoa ever becoming states witin the Union? Hawaii was admitted as a state in 1959, so there is a precedent.

It's really hard to say. The only two territories to become states that were not contiguous were the last two with Alaska and Hawaii. Prior to that Oklahoma, Arizona, and New Mexico were territories. Most states were first territories before being admitted. I think West Virginia and Texas are the last two that were not (West Virginia being broke off from Virginia and Texas being Independent.) Cuba and the U.S. were also once U.S. territories for short periods of time. But became independent.

There's really not much chatter going on about statehood for any of the current territories. The U.S. has previously struggled with admitting territories for statehood. The most famous was the series of compromises back in the early 1800s dealing with the abolition of slavery or support thereof. Each new states receives 2 senators and members into the house of representatives on the federal level. Sometimes the political climate is such that one side would not want those two new votes if that would shift the balance of control of power. Other times like the late 1800s through the early 1900s, they were passing out statehood to pretty much to whoever wanted it.

I'm not sure what Puerto Rico wants. Or if they technically even have a say so in the decision. Only Congress can make the law to admit states. I don't believe there is a formal application process. But I would hope if admission was being considered it was because Puerto Rico wanted to be admitted. The chances of Puerto Rico becoming it's own sovereign nation is not likely to happen either. It might be a case of everybody is happy with the situation as it stands.

If I had to guess which territory had the best chance of becoming a state, I would guess Washington, D.C., it's the one that's not like the others. Although it has no congressional representation, it does get 3 electoral college votes.

As for the other territories, I'm not sure if many Americans could find Guam or Samoa on a map without a struggle. But to be fair, the stereotypes about bad geographical knowledge are there for a reason.

[winebeavis]

Originally Posted by Top_Gum

Puerto Rico already meets the population requirement for statehood. That is not a bar to its becoming a state. Congress must approve the admission of any new state and considering the sorry state of the US economy and the potential gain of two democratic senators, I doubt that the republicans in either the House or the Senate would ever approve of Puerto Rican statehood.

Agreed. Here's Article 4, Section 3.

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.

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.

Who knows what the criteria would be? I found it interesting that somebody mentioned earlier (I'm paraphrasing) that both Obama and Romney would act on Puerto Rico's referendum on Nov. 6. I have no idea how either would do such a thing when it's out of the President's control.

Side note: Many, many Americans do not understand how their government works. Particularly the separation of power. The President's power is limited to Article 2. For example, the President can't technically spend a dime. He can propose, suggest, submit budgets, veto them, but he can't pass it. That belongs to the House of Representatives. They can go along with it, or they choose not to do so. Don't get me wrong, the Presidential influence can be enormous and this is a technical aspect. But it's not uncommon for for legislative and executive branches to disagree and nothing get done. Checks and balances is a recipe for gridlock. It was designed this way.

So when Romney and Obama go on and on about spending, budgets, and plans for job creation, neither will have power to do anything sua sponte. Either will need legislative cooperation.

Side note to the side note: The President can issue Executive Orders. And there are loop holes. However, Executive Orders that step on the toes of the exclusive rights of other areas get shot down pretty quickly. It's where there are overlaps that things get interesting. i.e. treaties and appointments needing confirmation.

Meh, enough civics for the day.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by winebeavis

I'm not sure what Puerto Rico wants. Or if they technically even have a say so in the decision. Only Congress can make the law to admit states. I don't believe there is a formal application process.

Puerto Rico has had referendums/plebiscites on Statehood several times, Statehood has never won.

The basic political calculus is this: in a very narrowly divided United States, Republicans don't want to admit a State that would be heavily Democratic. At the same time, Commonwealth status provides some significant Federal financial benefits to Puerto Rico. Another part of the ambivalence is that some Puerto Ricans want independence; Statehood would make that impossible (cf the Civil War).

So Commonwealth status, even though its not really anyone's first choice of what they want, ends up being where the situation rests.

[winebeavis]

Absolutely. I would think it's safe to presume that Puerto Rico would lean more Democratic than Republican, but I really don't know. I'm in Texas and from Ohio. Not really a hot bed of Puerto Rican activity.

I would imagine it's not been much of a political issue outside of Puerto Rico because of the popular "no" votes. No reason for congress to address the matter. I suppose if Puerto Rico came back with a yes, then it would become a political issue in the congress.

[theequestrian]

If you want to know why Americans have both a fascination with, and love for guns here is an oversimplified - but essentially correct - answer. In colonial times they were necessary. We were attempting to carve out an existence in an unknown, possibly hostile land with an actively hostile indigenous population trying to prevent this. As a British colony we were immediately saddled with Brittain's enemies. The French to the north (Canada, upstate NY, northern New England & the Great Lakes) and the Spanish to the south (Florida, extreme southern Georgia) Additionally, hunting was absolutely required to keep the colonies viable because arable land had to be cleared and then planted.
The situation dictated that guns would be an integral part of early colonial life.

But, there is another reason why the gun CONTINUES to occupy what has become an almost hallowed niche: Psychology.
The original 13 colonies were founded & peopled by - almost exclusively - only 3 distinct groups: Heavily armed religeous fundamentalists who were viewed as so patently crazy that even the other fanatical religeous groups wanted nothing whatsoever to do with them. These are the same people responsible for the Salem Witch Trials; heavily armed merchants/gentlemen landowners. The same people responsible for slavery remaining an institution until the advent of The Civil War; and heavily armed minor criminals (the people who currently run our government) The operative words here are 'heavily armed'. These 3 groups descendants still make up over 50% of the US population.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

The real deal-breaker though was the Stamp Act of 1765. UK revenue and customs were to be levied in the Americas just as they were in the UK; after all,the UK had paid for the Americas defence in the Seven Years War. But the Americans had no voice in this parliament which they were going to be financing. Benjamin Franklin petitioned the House of Commons against this measure and was publicly insulted by the members. The story goes that Franklin stood in silence until the MPs had finished shouting him down, denouncing him and calling for his arrest and execution, and then told them: "Gentlemen, I will make your King into a little man for this."

Great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandpa did have a way with words.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by DTravel

Great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandpa did have a way with words.

. . . and a way with women. I suspect that he's probably more people's "Great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandpa" than any other founder.

[Nobody1]

Out of curiosity. I would like to know your opinions on these two presidential candidates.

Jill Stein (Green Party)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8F9iBhOkfs

Jerry White (SEP)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGaA0PJbOrA