![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
To emphasize that the U.S., unlike most countries don't have federal police and take their boundaries seriously, this material was inserted:
"Borders are sacrosant among the states. A person wanted for civil or criminal court proceedings by another state must formally request judicial extradition from the state in which the wanted person resides."
An editor deleted all of it, without trying to amend it, because county sheriffs issue warrants for civil procedures without state court intervention. (Isn't the sheriff an officer of the court?), I think that people who don't live in the United States should be told that borders are respected by each state. Borders cannot be redrawn (as they are abroad) indiscriminately, without local approval. Nor can states cross the lines of other states to enforce the statutes of their state. Student7 ( talk) 19:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The Extradition Clause in Article Four of the United States Constitution requires that a person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. Resolution of jurisdictional issues between State courts in civil matters can be complex. The details of Civil procedure differ from state to state, and their resolution can be complex. [1]
Currently we have two screens worth of material on Puerto Rico, which BTW, is not a state and (if they have any sense) may never be. We have a couple of lines on California, several times larger that PR with quite a few more people. This is clearly WP:UNDUE. This statehood issue has become a bit WP:SOAPBOX and more than a bit WP:UNDUE. It needs to be forked. Student7 ( talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The Supreme Court case of
Texas vs. White (1869) should have been specifically mentioned and wikilinked to in the text of this article. The article on that subject in the Wikipedia is a very good one.
That Supreme Court decision doesn't say ANYTHING about a state's leaving the Union being "unconstitutional". The decision states that there are only two ways to do this:
1. Leaving with the consent of the other states - with that method of consent being unspecified in the court's decisions.
2. Leaving by the carrying out of a successful rebellion.
As for the means of giving consent for a state to leave, we can guess at some possibilities:
A. By a 2/3 vote of both Houses of Congress.
B. By a unanimous vote of both Houses of Congress.
C. By a unanimous vote of the Senate, and a majority vote of the House delegation from every State.
It would be up to the Federal Courts to decide on the rules.
D. By amending the Consitution in the usual way. For example:
AMENDMENT 31
By this amendment, the states of Alaska, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Texas are allowed to leave the United States within the five years following its ratification, upon the application of each state's legislature.
I don't know when or why, so that's why I made it the 31st Amendment.
Remember that to ratify an amendment requires the votes of 3/4 of the states, so that alone sounds like "the consent of the other states". In any case, the Consitution will have been changed.
98.81.12.250 (
talk)
15:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
A legal way in which the federal government encroaches on states rights is by withholding federal funding for transportation/roads for the non-conforming state. This doesn't seem to be mentioned though it is routinely placed in statutes where the federal government knows in advance that it has no legal jurisdiction over the states. I thought I saw this once in Wikipedia but now can't find it. Student7 ( talk) 15:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Changing the info box number of states from "50" to "50 + 1 Applicant" is appropriate as the President has already stated he will support a clear majority vote an the status of Puerto Rico statehood is now in the hands of congress. I disagree with the changes to the info box being reverted back when clear evidence exists to the contrary. Two references were cited to support this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:C:1D5:0:0:0:2 ( talk) 22:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico., which preamble in part reads: “We, the people of Puerto Rico, in order to organise ourselves politically on a fully democratic basis, ...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the commonwealth which, in the exercise of our natural rights, we now create within our union with the United States of America. In so doing, we declare: ... We consider as determining factors in our life our citizenship of the United States of America and our aspiration continually to enrich our democratic heritage in the individual and collective enjoyment of its rights and privileges; our loyalty to the principles of the Federal Constitution; ...
The Constitution was created "within our union" with the U.S.; with U.S. Citizenship and the enjoyment of its rights and privileges; and with loyalty to the Federal Constitution. The Puerto Rico Constitution was approved by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President on 1952.
Has the U.S. Supreme Court recognized anywhere the applicability of the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico? Yes and I quote Harris Vs Rosario (446 U.S. 651, 652-653 (1980)). Said Justice Marshall in a dissenting opinion: “The first question that merits plenary attention is whether Congress, acting pursuant to the Territory Clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const., Art. IV, 3, cl. 2, "may treat Puerto [446 U.S. 651, 653] Rico differently from States so long as there is a rational basis for its actions." Ante, at 651-652. No authority is cited for this proposition. Our prior decisions do not support such a broad statement. It is important to remember at the outset that Puerto Ricans are United States citizens, see 8 U.S.C. 1402, and that different treatment to Puerto Rico under AFDC may well affect the benefits paid to these citizens. While some early opinions of this Court suggested that various protections of the Constitution do not apply to Puerto Rico, see, e. g., Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244; Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 , the present validity of those decisions is questionable. See Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 475 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in judgement). We have already held that Puerto Rico is subject to the Due Process Clause of either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment, Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 668 , and the equal protection guarantee of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment, Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 599 .” (Our emphasis).
“The Fourth Amendment is also fully applicable to Puerto Rico, either directly or by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Torres v. Puerto Rico, supra, at 471. At least four Members of this Court are of the view that all provisions [446 U.S. 651, 654] of the Bill of Rights apply to Puerto Rico. 442 U.S., at 475 (BRENNAN, J., joined by STEWART, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., concurring in judgement). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 ( talk) 00:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The Northwest Ordinance process (1787),
In practice, most of the states admitted to the union after the original 13 have been formed from Territories of the United States (that is, land under the sovereignty of the federal government but not part of any state) that were organized (given a measure of self-rule by the Congress subject to the Congress’ plenary powers under the territorial clause of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution).[10]
Generally speaking, the organized government of a territory made known the sentiment of its population in favor of statehood. Congress then directed that government to organize a constitutional convention to write a state constitution. Upon acceptance of that Constitution, Congress has always admitted that territory as a state. The broad outlines in this process were established by the Northwest Ordinance (1787), which predated the ratification.
Why the Puerto Rico section belong to this article: The Northwest Ordinance process (1787), which predated the Statehood ratification, was completed by Puerto Rico. 3.8 Millions of U.S. Citizens reside in Puerto Rico.
1. Puerto Rico residents are declared U.S. Citizens (1917)
2. Puerto Rico residents are declared U.S. Citizens at birth (1952)
3. U.S. Congress directed Puerto Rico government to organize a constitutional convention to write a constitution. (1952)
4. The organized government of Puerto Rico makes known the sentiment of its population in favor of statehood to the President and the U.S. Congress - November 2012.
Like the U.S. States, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution adopted by its people and a bill of rights. The Approval of that constitution by Puerto Rico's electorate, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. President occurred in 1952. The rights, privileges and immunities attendant to the United States Citizens are "respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a state of the union" through the express extension by the U.S. Congress in 1948 of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 ( talk) 00:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, you are right! The Governor of Puerto Rico informed today that he will send a letter to the Congress and the President informing the result as soon the 100 % of the vote are counted and the official certification is submitted by the Puerto Rico State Election Commission. The legislature of Puerto Rico meeting should happened before the end of this month. As soon this happened I will post the reference here!
The general elections are every four year. This is just the third plebiscite on the last 60 years. These are two different processes, the general election and the plebiscite. On the last 40 Years, Puerto Rico had 4 Pro Statehood Governor and nobody could said that Puerto Rico has request the statehood for that reason however this time Puerto Rico on a different ballot for the Plebiscite decided to reject the current territorial status and request the statehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 ( talk) 01:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
By the way, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, a delegate to the U.S. Congress, that Support the Statehood, was elected on the general election. The responsibility to give follow up to this result belong to the Puerto Rico Congressman Pierluisi. He is the person that represents the 3.8 million U.S Citizens of Puerto Rico in the U.S. Congress. His new term is from 2013-2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 ( talk) 01:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Finally,
September 12, 1967
Article Three of the United States Constitution, was expressly extended to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through the federal law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, this law was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson.
August 5, 1947
The Privileges and Immunities Clause regarding the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States was expressly extended to Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through the federal law codified on the Title 48 the United States Code as 48 U.S.C. § 737 and signed by President Truman. This law indicates that the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 ( talk) 02:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
"We made history with this plebiscite," said Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, the island's representative in Congress and a member of both the pro-statehood New Progressive Party and the Democratic Party.
The certified results will be sent to the White House and the congressional leadership, and it would be up to them to begin the process of possibly admitting Puerto Rico into the union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 ( talk) 03:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Vote for statehood - This Information is directly related to Admission into the union section of this article.
In November 2012, Puerto Rico achieved a first clear electoral mandate rejecting the present form of territorial status, and requesting the U.S. Congress to admit Puerto Rico as the 51st State of the United States of America. In all earlier referenda, votes for statehood were matched almost equally by votes for remaining an American territory, with a small balance of votes cast for independence. Support for U.S. statehood has risen in each successive popular referendum until a clear majority of 61.15% was attained on November 2012. [1] [2] The most recent referendum process began in October 2011 when Governor Luis Fortuño proposed a bill, following the recommendation of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status to provide for self-determination. The proposed bill set the date of August 12, 2012 to hold the first part of a two-step status plebiscite. The first question on the plebiscite would ask voters whether they wanted to maintain the current commonwealth status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution or whether they preferred a non-territorial option. A second question on the plebiscite would offer three status options: statehood, independence or free association. [3] This bill was brought before the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, then the Senate of Puerto Rico in 2011 to effect the governor's proposal. The bill passed on December 28, 2011. The date was revised such that both steps were voted on in a single ballot on November 6, 2012. As a result of that ballot, 54% of the population voted to change the territorial status quo, with 61.2% of the population voting for statehood as the preferred change from the status quo. [4] [5] [6]
The Plebiscite proposal and guidelines was recommended by the following U.S. Government Reports:
The Democratic Party platform of 2012 says:
As President Obama said when he became the first President to visit Puerto Rico and address its people in 50 years, Boricuas every day help write the American story. Puerto Ricans have been proud American citizens for almost 100 years. During that time, the people of Puerto Rico have developed strong political, economic, social, and cultural ties to the United States. The political status of Puerto Rico remains an issue of overwhelming importance, but lack of resolution about status has held the island back. It is time for Puerto Rico to take the next step in the history of its status and its relationship to the rest of the United States. The White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico has taken important and historic steps regarding status. We commit to moving resolution of the status issue forward with the goal of resolving it expeditiously. If local efforts in Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of clear status options, such as those recommended in the White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico, which the United States is politically committed to fulfilling. The economic success of Puerto Rico is intimately linked to a swift resolution of the status question, as well as consistent, focused efforts on improving the lives of the people of Puerto Rico. We have made great progress for Puerto Rico over the past four years, including a sharp, historic increase in Medicaid funding for the people of Puerto Rico and fair and equitable inclusion in the Recovery Act and the Affordable Care Act. Going forward, we will continue working toward fair and equitable participation for Puerto Rico in federal programs. We support increased efforts by the federal government to improve public safety in Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, with a particular emphasis on efforts to combat drug trafficking and crime throughout our Caribbean border. In addition, consistent with the task force report, we will continue to work on improving Puerto Rico's economic status by promoting job creation, education, health care, clean energy, and economic development on the Island.
The Republican Party platform of 2008 and 2012 says:
We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 ( talk • contribs)
The information has been on this article by more of two years. That means a more than two years consensus to get that information there by a lot of editors. You can not delete all that information just because you dont like it. The great mayority of the editors understand that this information belong here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 ( talk) 14:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Justify that sometime does not belong to an encyclopedic article with a Personal Opinion like this: "statehood is at least a decade or more away or never" is not encyclopedic. It tries to impose a personal opinion over encyclopedic historical facts!
Wikipedia is not a place for Personal Opinion! It is a place to a holistic cover the issues related to the article. Buzity ( talk) 00:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Consensus Proposal submitted! Buzity ( talk) 03:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Congressman Pierluisi on the Congress oficially informing the results of the 2012 Plebiscite Buzity ( talk) 03:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
As has been mentioned multiple times before, the details do not belong in this article. There has in the past been controversy about the admission of various states -- consider Alaska and Hawaii, not to mention Missouri/Maine, Oregon and Utah. All of these are notable, and are adequately discussed in other articles. As the issue is current, it certainly deserves a paragraph or so in this article, but no more. What would this article look like if every controversial statehood proposal were given the same weight in this article as is being suggested for Puerto Rico? I think there has been enough discussion now and I believe a consensus. I'm not sure what the protocol is, but can someone propose a way of closing this discussion? YBG ( talk) 02:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Consensus Proposal:
The most likely candidate for statehood is generally thought to be Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. The island’s ultimate status has not been determined as of 2012 [update]. As with any non-state territory of the United States, its residents do not have voting representation in their federal government. Puerto Rico has limited representation in the U.S. Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a delegate with no voting rights. [7]
Like the U.S. States, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution adopted by its people and a bill of rights. U.S. Congress in 1948 extended the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico. [8]
In a plebiscite held on November 6, 2012, following the recommendations of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status reports, 54% of the ballots were cast against the continuation of the the island's territorial political status in favor of a new status, and 61.2% choose statehood as the preferred, international recognized, constitutionally viable non-territorial options to the current territory status. [9] [10] The task force direction is to "report on its actions to the President ... on progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status." [11]
President George H. W. Bush issued a memorandum on November 30, 1992 to heads of executive departments and agencies establishing the current administrative relationship between the federal government and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and directs all federal departments, agencies, and officials to treat Puerto Rico administratively as if it were a state, insofar as doing so would not disrupt federal programs or operations. [12]
2nd Consensus Proposal:
The most likely candidate for statehood is generally thought to be Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. The island’s ultimate status has not been determined as of 2012 [update]. As with any non-state territory of the United States, its residents do not have voting representation in their federal government. Like the U.S. States, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution and a bill of rights adopted by its people and accepted by U.S. congress. Puerto Rico has limited representation in the U.S. Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a delegate with no voting rights. [7] [13]
In a plebiscite held on November 6, 2012, following the recommendations of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status reports, 54% of the ballots were cast against the continuation of the the island's territorial political status, in favor of a new status, and 61.2% choose statehood as the preferred, international recognized, constitutionally viable non-territorial options to the current territory status. [14] [15] The task force direction is to "report on its actions to the President ... on progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status." [11] [16]
-- Buzity ( talk) 04:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The project of law of the Congress are neither crap! -- Buzity ( talk) 15:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty since the late 19th century, and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. As with any non-state territory of the United States, its residents do not have voting representation in their federal government. Like the U.S. states, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution, with a bill of rights, adopted by its people and accepted by Congress. Puerto Rico has limited representation in Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a delegate with no voting rights on the floor of the House, [7] [17] and no representation in the Senate.
President Bush created the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status with the mandate to "report on...progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status." [18] [19] The report recommended that two questions be put to the people of Puerto Rico: whether to retain the current status and which of a list of alternatives they preferred.
In light of the report, a plebiscite was held on November 6, 2012, in which 54 percent of the ballots were cast against the continuation of the the island's current political status. On the second question, that of alternatives to the current status, 61.2 percent choose statehood, though a large number who answered the first question cast blank ballots for the second, casting some doubt on the outcome. [20]
This version does a number of things. First, it retains the form of the current "See also:" link. Those are not supposed to be piped. Second, it gets rid of the unsupportable sentence about "general thought". I take back what I said earlier about that being Buzity's opinion. It was in fact User:Coolcaesar's change, made amongst many others, on 28 August of last year. He changed it from "might", by the way. In either case, the sentence is unnecessary, unsupported, and unhelpful. It also puts together the sentences about sovereignty and citizenship, which are logically and syntactically parallel, to avoid starting the section with two similar sentences. My version also removes the "currently...as of" business. There is no reason for that. If Puerto Rico becomes a state, or even gets closer to becoming a state, there is no danger of this article falling behind. It is simply watched by too many people for that to be a risk. This version also briefly expands the bit about the task force, separating it from the bit about the referendum as suggested by YBG. Finally, it cleans up some WP:MOS issues. - Rrius ( talk) 06:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)-- Buzity ( talk) 21:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The Republican Party’s platform was not so kind to the District, flatly stating: “We oppose statehood for the District of Columbia.”
We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state if they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a State, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government. -- Buzity ( talk) 14:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Buzity ( talk) 17:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
We favor a larger measure of self-government leading to statehood, for Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. We favor the appointment of residents to office, and equal treatment of the citizens of each of these three territories. We favor the prompt determination and payment of any just claims by Indian and Eskimo citizens of Alaska against the United States. [21]
As President Obama said when he became the first President to visit Puerto Rico and address its people in 50 years, Boricuas every day help write the American story. Puerto Ricans have been proud American citizens for almost 100 years. During that time, the people of Puerto Rico have developed strong political, economic, social, and cultural ties to the United States. The political status of Puerto Rico remains an issue of overwhelming importance, but lack of resolution about status has held the island back. It is time for Puerto Rico to take the next step in the history of its status and its relationship to the rest of the United States. The White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico has taken important and historic steps regarding status. We commit to moving resolution of the status issue forward with the goal of resolving it expeditiously. If local efforts in Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of clear status options, such as those recommended in the White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico, which the United States is politically committed to fulfilling. The economic success of Puerto Rico is intimately linked to a swift resolution of the status question, as well as consistent, focused efforts on improving the lives of the people of Puerto Rico. [22]
Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty since the late 19th century, and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. As with any non-state territory of the United States, its residents do not have voting representation in their federal government. Like the U.S. states, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution, with a bill of rights, adopted by its people and accepted by Congress. Puerto Rico has limited representation in Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a delegate with no voting rights on the floor of the House, [7] [23] and no representation in the Senate.
President Clinton created the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status with the mandate to "report on...progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status." [18] [24] The Task Force reports recommended that two questions be put to the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico: whether to retain the current territorial status or not and which of a list of constitutionally viable non-territorial options, they preferred to the current territory status.
In light of the reports, a plebiscite was held on November 6, 2012, in which 54 percent of the ballots were cast against the continuation of the island's current territorial status. On the second question, that of alternatives to the current territorial status, 61.2 percent choose statehood; though a large number who answered the first question cast blank ballots for the second, casting some questioning on the second question outcome. [25] [26] -- Buzity ( talk) 04:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Consensus Proposal using Rrius's version and some minor updates related to accuracy with the December 2005, December 2007 and March 2011 reports recommendations of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status. In addition is followed the User talk:Wtmitchell recommendation. Finally, mentioned that the Task Force was created by President Clinton instead President Bush. -- Buzity ( talk) 04:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the "way to[o] much" comment. I think that a summary style approach would be more appropriate here, with a {{ main}} link to the Puerto Rico (proposed state) article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Buzity ( talk) 05:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Pages 10 and 11 of Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2007) - President George W. Bush. and Pages 26, 27 and 28 of * Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (March 2011) - President Barack Obama. The H.R.2499 and the 3 reports recommendation were followed on the Puerto Rico Plebiscite.
Recommendation # 2: The Task Force recommends that the permissible status options include Statehood, Independence, Free Association, and Commonwealth. Prior Task Force reports have identified and discussed constitutionally permissible status options. As discussed above, the Task Force took a fresh look at the issues, including the constitutional questions central to prior reports, and concluded that the permissible status options include Statehood, Independence, Free Association, and Commonwealth. Each status option is discussed below, along with a brief mention of some of the issues that would be raised by a choice of that option.
briefly explains the possibilities and major issues under each option. December 2005 report Page 10: Therefore, the following are the recommendations of the Task Force: 1. The Task Force recommends that Congress within a year provide for a Federally sanctioned plebiscite in which the people of Puerto Rico will be asked to state whether they wish to remain a U.S. territory subject to the will of Congress or to pursue a Constitutionally viable path toward a permanent non-territorial status with the United States. Congress should provide for this plebiscite to occur on a date certain. 2. The Task Force recommends that if the people of Puerto Rico elect to pursue a permanent non-territorial status, Congress should provide for an additional plebiscite allowing the people of Puerto Rico to choose between one of the two permanent non-territorial options. Once the people have selected one of the two options, Congress is encouraged to begin a process of transition toward that option. 3. If the people elect to remain as a territory, the Task Force recommends, consistent with the 1992 memorandum of President Bush, that a plebiscite occur periodically, as long as that status continues, to keep Congress informed of the people’s wishes.
December 2007 Report Page 10:
-- Buzity ( talk) 20:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The following are the recommendations of the Task Force (December 2007):
Reliable Sources: CONDICIÓN POLÍTICA TERRITORIAL ACTUAL (English:Actual Territorial Political Condition). Government of Puerto Rico. State Electoral Commission. Nov 16 2012 9:59PM. Retrieved 24 November 2012
OPCIONES NO TERRITORIALES. (English: Non-Territorial Options). Government of Puerto Rico. State Electoral Commission. Nov 16 2012 9:59PM. Retrieved 24 November 2012. -- Buzity ( talk) 03:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Buzity ( talk) 01:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
This opinion from The New York Times maybe could help to reach a consensus:
Will Puerto Rico Be America’s 51st State? -- Buzity ( talk) 04:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty since the late 19th century, and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. As with any non-state territory of the United States, its residents do not have voting representation in their federal government. Like the U.S. states, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution, with a bill of rights, adopted by its people and accepted by Congress. Puerto Rico has limited representation in Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a delegate with no voting rights on the floor of the House, [7] [27] and no representation in the Senate.
President Clinton created the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status with the mandate to "report on...progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status." [18] [28] [29] The report recommended that two questions be put to the people of Puerto Rico: whether to retain the current territorial status and which of a list of non-territorial alternatives they preferred.
In light of the task force recommendations, a plebiscite was held on November 6, 2012, in which 54 percent of the ballots were cast against the continuation of the the island's current territorial political status. [30] [31] -- Buzity ( talk) 04:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Well? What have you changed this time? It is usual to explain such things instead of making everyone else figure out for themselves what's going on. - Rrius ( talk) 06:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |publiser=
ignored (|publisher=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |publiser=
ignored (|publisher=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |publiser=
ignored (|publisher=
suggested) (
help)
Regarding this edit, areas of western Virginia did not rejoin the union. There were two state governments, a Unionist one and a Confederate one, both claiming to be the legitimate state government of Virgina. The Unionist government didn't recognize the Confederate government's secession of Virgina, and the Confederate government didn't recognize the Unionist government's creation of West Virgina.
It is true that some areas were under (and came under) union control, and some were under (and came under) Confederate control, but that's just armies moving around. That is not the same thing as areas joining the Union or the Confederacy.
Unless you count the creation of West Virgina, areas of Virginia never joined the union; it was simply disputed weather Virgina was a Union or Confederate state. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 03:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we could use a "history" subsection here. The problem for foreigners is often "why doesn't the federal government dictate standardization for the states." It makes no sense to them. The 13 colonies each developed separately with close ties, not to each other, but to Great Britain. Ties to each other came late in the 18th century along with a lot of suspicion as to the motives and culture of the other states. A constitution was based on that. And it continued over to new states, despite the fact that the new states did, indeed, have close ties with the federal government, though did want to establish their own identify. This is why Normandy and Brittany are long gone, Quebec redefines it's municipalities with regular confusion every few years, but we still have Rhode Island! A "bottom up" government, rather than "top down." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 ( talk • contribs) 15:40, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
I propose renaming this article to States of the United States. The name "U.S. state" does not sound like a very thorough or official name and the proposed name brings in continuity with many other articles such as Provinces of Indonesia, States of Germany, States and territories of Australia and Provinces and territories of Canada. Nick Mitchell 98 ( talk) 03:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The statements on the result of the 2012 referendum ("61% of voters") appear to contradict Proposed political status for Puerto Rico where it appears to show only 61% of 54% (i.e. 33% of voters) actually voting for statehood. -- PeterR2 ( talk) 19:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
To emphasize that the U.S., unlike most countries don't have federal police and take their boundaries seriously, this material was inserted:
"Borders are sacrosant among the states. A person wanted for civil or criminal court proceedings by another state must formally request judicial extradition from the state in which the wanted person resides."
An editor deleted all of it, without trying to amend it, because county sheriffs issue warrants for civil procedures without state court intervention. (Isn't the sheriff an officer of the court?), I think that people who don't live in the United States should be told that borders are respected by each state. Borders cannot be redrawn (as they are abroad) indiscriminately, without local approval. Nor can states cross the lines of other states to enforce the statutes of their state. Student7 ( talk) 19:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The Extradition Clause in Article Four of the United States Constitution requires that a person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. Resolution of jurisdictional issues between State courts in civil matters can be complex. The details of Civil procedure differ from state to state, and their resolution can be complex. [1]
Currently we have two screens worth of material on Puerto Rico, which BTW, is not a state and (if they have any sense) may never be. We have a couple of lines on California, several times larger that PR with quite a few more people. This is clearly WP:UNDUE. This statehood issue has become a bit WP:SOAPBOX and more than a bit WP:UNDUE. It needs to be forked. Student7 ( talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The Supreme Court case of
Texas vs. White (1869) should have been specifically mentioned and wikilinked to in the text of this article. The article on that subject in the Wikipedia is a very good one.
That Supreme Court decision doesn't say ANYTHING about a state's leaving the Union being "unconstitutional". The decision states that there are only two ways to do this:
1. Leaving with the consent of the other states - with that method of consent being unspecified in the court's decisions.
2. Leaving by the carrying out of a successful rebellion.
As for the means of giving consent for a state to leave, we can guess at some possibilities:
A. By a 2/3 vote of both Houses of Congress.
B. By a unanimous vote of both Houses of Congress.
C. By a unanimous vote of the Senate, and a majority vote of the House delegation from every State.
It would be up to the Federal Courts to decide on the rules.
D. By amending the Consitution in the usual way. For example:
AMENDMENT 31
By this amendment, the states of Alaska, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Texas are allowed to leave the United States within the five years following its ratification, upon the application of each state's legislature.
I don't know when or why, so that's why I made it the 31st Amendment.
Remember that to ratify an amendment requires the votes of 3/4 of the states, so that alone sounds like "the consent of the other states". In any case, the Consitution will have been changed.
98.81.12.250 (
talk)
15:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
A legal way in which the federal government encroaches on states rights is by withholding federal funding for transportation/roads for the non-conforming state. This doesn't seem to be mentioned though it is routinely placed in statutes where the federal government knows in advance that it has no legal jurisdiction over the states. I thought I saw this once in Wikipedia but now can't find it. Student7 ( talk) 15:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Changing the info box number of states from "50" to "50 + 1 Applicant" is appropriate as the President has already stated he will support a clear majority vote an the status of Puerto Rico statehood is now in the hands of congress. I disagree with the changes to the info box being reverted back when clear evidence exists to the contrary. Two references were cited to support this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:C:1D5:0:0:0:2 ( talk) 22:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico., which preamble in part reads: “We, the people of Puerto Rico, in order to organise ourselves politically on a fully democratic basis, ...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the commonwealth which, in the exercise of our natural rights, we now create within our union with the United States of America. In so doing, we declare: ... We consider as determining factors in our life our citizenship of the United States of America and our aspiration continually to enrich our democratic heritage in the individual and collective enjoyment of its rights and privileges; our loyalty to the principles of the Federal Constitution; ...
The Constitution was created "within our union" with the U.S.; with U.S. Citizenship and the enjoyment of its rights and privileges; and with loyalty to the Federal Constitution. The Puerto Rico Constitution was approved by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President on 1952.
Has the U.S. Supreme Court recognized anywhere the applicability of the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico? Yes and I quote Harris Vs Rosario (446 U.S. 651, 652-653 (1980)). Said Justice Marshall in a dissenting opinion: “The first question that merits plenary attention is whether Congress, acting pursuant to the Territory Clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const., Art. IV, 3, cl. 2, "may treat Puerto [446 U.S. 651, 653] Rico differently from States so long as there is a rational basis for its actions." Ante, at 651-652. No authority is cited for this proposition. Our prior decisions do not support such a broad statement. It is important to remember at the outset that Puerto Ricans are United States citizens, see 8 U.S.C. 1402, and that different treatment to Puerto Rico under AFDC may well affect the benefits paid to these citizens. While some early opinions of this Court suggested that various protections of the Constitution do not apply to Puerto Rico, see, e. g., Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244; Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 , the present validity of those decisions is questionable. See Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 475 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in judgement). We have already held that Puerto Rico is subject to the Due Process Clause of either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment, Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 668 , and the equal protection guarantee of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment, Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 599 .” (Our emphasis).
“The Fourth Amendment is also fully applicable to Puerto Rico, either directly or by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Torres v. Puerto Rico, supra, at 471. At least four Members of this Court are of the view that all provisions [446 U.S. 651, 654] of the Bill of Rights apply to Puerto Rico. 442 U.S., at 475 (BRENNAN, J., joined by STEWART, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., concurring in judgement). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 ( talk) 00:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The Northwest Ordinance process (1787),
In practice, most of the states admitted to the union after the original 13 have been formed from Territories of the United States (that is, land under the sovereignty of the federal government but not part of any state) that were organized (given a measure of self-rule by the Congress subject to the Congress’ plenary powers under the territorial clause of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution).[10]
Generally speaking, the organized government of a territory made known the sentiment of its population in favor of statehood. Congress then directed that government to organize a constitutional convention to write a state constitution. Upon acceptance of that Constitution, Congress has always admitted that territory as a state. The broad outlines in this process were established by the Northwest Ordinance (1787), which predated the ratification.
Why the Puerto Rico section belong to this article: The Northwest Ordinance process (1787), which predated the Statehood ratification, was completed by Puerto Rico. 3.8 Millions of U.S. Citizens reside in Puerto Rico.
1. Puerto Rico residents are declared U.S. Citizens (1917)
2. Puerto Rico residents are declared U.S. Citizens at birth (1952)
3. U.S. Congress directed Puerto Rico government to organize a constitutional convention to write a constitution. (1952)
4. The organized government of Puerto Rico makes known the sentiment of its population in favor of statehood to the President and the U.S. Congress - November 2012.
Like the U.S. States, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution adopted by its people and a bill of rights. The Approval of that constitution by Puerto Rico's electorate, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. President occurred in 1952. The rights, privileges and immunities attendant to the United States Citizens are "respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a state of the union" through the express extension by the U.S. Congress in 1948 of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 ( talk) 00:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, you are right! The Governor of Puerto Rico informed today that he will send a letter to the Congress and the President informing the result as soon the 100 % of the vote are counted and the official certification is submitted by the Puerto Rico State Election Commission. The legislature of Puerto Rico meeting should happened before the end of this month. As soon this happened I will post the reference here!
The general elections are every four year. This is just the third plebiscite on the last 60 years. These are two different processes, the general election and the plebiscite. On the last 40 Years, Puerto Rico had 4 Pro Statehood Governor and nobody could said that Puerto Rico has request the statehood for that reason however this time Puerto Rico on a different ballot for the Plebiscite decided to reject the current territorial status and request the statehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 ( talk) 01:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
By the way, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, a delegate to the U.S. Congress, that Support the Statehood, was elected on the general election. The responsibility to give follow up to this result belong to the Puerto Rico Congressman Pierluisi. He is the person that represents the 3.8 million U.S Citizens of Puerto Rico in the U.S. Congress. His new term is from 2013-2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 ( talk) 01:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Finally,
September 12, 1967
Article Three of the United States Constitution, was expressly extended to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through the federal law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, this law was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson.
August 5, 1947
The Privileges and Immunities Clause regarding the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States was expressly extended to Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through the federal law codified on the Title 48 the United States Code as 48 U.S.C. § 737 and signed by President Truman. This law indicates that the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 ( talk) 02:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
"We made history with this plebiscite," said Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, the island's representative in Congress and a member of both the pro-statehood New Progressive Party and the Democratic Party.
The certified results will be sent to the White House and the congressional leadership, and it would be up to them to begin the process of possibly admitting Puerto Rico into the union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 ( talk) 03:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Vote for statehood - This Information is directly related to Admission into the union section of this article.
In November 2012, Puerto Rico achieved a first clear electoral mandate rejecting the present form of territorial status, and requesting the U.S. Congress to admit Puerto Rico as the 51st State of the United States of America. In all earlier referenda, votes for statehood were matched almost equally by votes for remaining an American territory, with a small balance of votes cast for independence. Support for U.S. statehood has risen in each successive popular referendum until a clear majority of 61.15% was attained on November 2012. [1] [2] The most recent referendum process began in October 2011 when Governor Luis Fortuño proposed a bill, following the recommendation of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status to provide for self-determination. The proposed bill set the date of August 12, 2012 to hold the first part of a two-step status plebiscite. The first question on the plebiscite would ask voters whether they wanted to maintain the current commonwealth status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution or whether they preferred a non-territorial option. A second question on the plebiscite would offer three status options: statehood, independence or free association. [3] This bill was brought before the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, then the Senate of Puerto Rico in 2011 to effect the governor's proposal. The bill passed on December 28, 2011. The date was revised such that both steps were voted on in a single ballot on November 6, 2012. As a result of that ballot, 54% of the population voted to change the territorial status quo, with 61.2% of the population voting for statehood as the preferred change from the status quo. [4] [5] [6]
The Plebiscite proposal and guidelines was recommended by the following U.S. Government Reports:
The Democratic Party platform of 2012 says:
As President Obama said when he became the first President to visit Puerto Rico and address its people in 50 years, Boricuas every day help write the American story. Puerto Ricans have been proud American citizens for almost 100 years. During that time, the people of Puerto Rico have developed strong political, economic, social, and cultural ties to the United States. The political status of Puerto Rico remains an issue of overwhelming importance, but lack of resolution about status has held the island back. It is time for Puerto Rico to take the next step in the history of its status and its relationship to the rest of the United States. The White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico has taken important and historic steps regarding status. We commit to moving resolution of the status issue forward with the goal of resolving it expeditiously. If local efforts in Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of clear status options, such as those recommended in the White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico, which the United States is politically committed to fulfilling. The economic success of Puerto Rico is intimately linked to a swift resolution of the status question, as well as consistent, focused efforts on improving the lives of the people of Puerto Rico. We have made great progress for Puerto Rico over the past four years, including a sharp, historic increase in Medicaid funding for the people of Puerto Rico and fair and equitable inclusion in the Recovery Act and the Affordable Care Act. Going forward, we will continue working toward fair and equitable participation for Puerto Rico in federal programs. We support increased efforts by the federal government to improve public safety in Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, with a particular emphasis on efforts to combat drug trafficking and crime throughout our Caribbean border. In addition, consistent with the task force report, we will continue to work on improving Puerto Rico's economic status by promoting job creation, education, health care, clean energy, and economic development on the Island.
The Republican Party platform of 2008 and 2012 says:
We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 ( talk • contribs)
The information has been on this article by more of two years. That means a more than two years consensus to get that information there by a lot of editors. You can not delete all that information just because you dont like it. The great mayority of the editors understand that this information belong here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 ( talk) 14:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Justify that sometime does not belong to an encyclopedic article with a Personal Opinion like this: "statehood is at least a decade or more away or never" is not encyclopedic. It tries to impose a personal opinion over encyclopedic historical facts!
Wikipedia is not a place for Personal Opinion! It is a place to a holistic cover the issues related to the article. Buzity ( talk) 00:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Consensus Proposal submitted! Buzity ( talk) 03:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Congressman Pierluisi on the Congress oficially informing the results of the 2012 Plebiscite Buzity ( talk) 03:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
As has been mentioned multiple times before, the details do not belong in this article. There has in the past been controversy about the admission of various states -- consider Alaska and Hawaii, not to mention Missouri/Maine, Oregon and Utah. All of these are notable, and are adequately discussed in other articles. As the issue is current, it certainly deserves a paragraph or so in this article, but no more. What would this article look like if every controversial statehood proposal were given the same weight in this article as is being suggested for Puerto Rico? I think there has been enough discussion now and I believe a consensus. I'm not sure what the protocol is, but can someone propose a way of closing this discussion? YBG ( talk) 02:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Consensus Proposal:
The most likely candidate for statehood is generally thought to be Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. The island’s ultimate status has not been determined as of 2012 [update]. As with any non-state territory of the United States, its residents do not have voting representation in their federal government. Puerto Rico has limited representation in the U.S. Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a delegate with no voting rights. [7]
Like the U.S. States, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution adopted by its people and a bill of rights. U.S. Congress in 1948 extended the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico. [8]
In a plebiscite held on November 6, 2012, following the recommendations of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status reports, 54% of the ballots were cast against the continuation of the the island's territorial political status in favor of a new status, and 61.2% choose statehood as the preferred, international recognized, constitutionally viable non-territorial options to the current territory status. [9] [10] The task force direction is to "report on its actions to the President ... on progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status." [11]
President George H. W. Bush issued a memorandum on November 30, 1992 to heads of executive departments and agencies establishing the current administrative relationship between the federal government and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and directs all federal departments, agencies, and officials to treat Puerto Rico administratively as if it were a state, insofar as doing so would not disrupt federal programs or operations. [12]
2nd Consensus Proposal:
The most likely candidate for statehood is generally thought to be Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. The island’s ultimate status has not been determined as of 2012 [update]. As with any non-state territory of the United States, its residents do not have voting representation in their federal government. Like the U.S. States, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution and a bill of rights adopted by its people and accepted by U.S. congress. Puerto Rico has limited representation in the U.S. Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a delegate with no voting rights. [7] [13]
In a plebiscite held on November 6, 2012, following the recommendations of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status reports, 54% of the ballots were cast against the continuation of the the island's territorial political status, in favor of a new status, and 61.2% choose statehood as the preferred, international recognized, constitutionally viable non-territorial options to the current territory status. [14] [15] The task force direction is to "report on its actions to the President ... on progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status." [11] [16]
-- Buzity ( talk) 04:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The project of law of the Congress are neither crap! -- Buzity ( talk) 15:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty since the late 19th century, and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. As with any non-state territory of the United States, its residents do not have voting representation in their federal government. Like the U.S. states, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution, with a bill of rights, adopted by its people and accepted by Congress. Puerto Rico has limited representation in Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a delegate with no voting rights on the floor of the House, [7] [17] and no representation in the Senate.
President Bush created the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status with the mandate to "report on...progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status." [18] [19] The report recommended that two questions be put to the people of Puerto Rico: whether to retain the current status and which of a list of alternatives they preferred.
In light of the report, a plebiscite was held on November 6, 2012, in which 54 percent of the ballots were cast against the continuation of the the island's current political status. On the second question, that of alternatives to the current status, 61.2 percent choose statehood, though a large number who answered the first question cast blank ballots for the second, casting some doubt on the outcome. [20]
This version does a number of things. First, it retains the form of the current "See also:" link. Those are not supposed to be piped. Second, it gets rid of the unsupportable sentence about "general thought". I take back what I said earlier about that being Buzity's opinion. It was in fact User:Coolcaesar's change, made amongst many others, on 28 August of last year. He changed it from "might", by the way. In either case, the sentence is unnecessary, unsupported, and unhelpful. It also puts together the sentences about sovereignty and citizenship, which are logically and syntactically parallel, to avoid starting the section with two similar sentences. My version also removes the "currently...as of" business. There is no reason for that. If Puerto Rico becomes a state, or even gets closer to becoming a state, there is no danger of this article falling behind. It is simply watched by too many people for that to be a risk. This version also briefly expands the bit about the task force, separating it from the bit about the referendum as suggested by YBG. Finally, it cleans up some WP:MOS issues. - Rrius ( talk) 06:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)-- Buzity ( talk) 21:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The Republican Party’s platform was not so kind to the District, flatly stating: “We oppose statehood for the District of Columbia.”
We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state if they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a State, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government. -- Buzity ( talk) 14:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Buzity ( talk) 17:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
We favor a larger measure of self-government leading to statehood, for Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. We favor the appointment of residents to office, and equal treatment of the citizens of each of these three territories. We favor the prompt determination and payment of any just claims by Indian and Eskimo citizens of Alaska against the United States. [21]
As President Obama said when he became the first President to visit Puerto Rico and address its people in 50 years, Boricuas every day help write the American story. Puerto Ricans have been proud American citizens for almost 100 years. During that time, the people of Puerto Rico have developed strong political, economic, social, and cultural ties to the United States. The political status of Puerto Rico remains an issue of overwhelming importance, but lack of resolution about status has held the island back. It is time for Puerto Rico to take the next step in the history of its status and its relationship to the rest of the United States. The White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico has taken important and historic steps regarding status. We commit to moving resolution of the status issue forward with the goal of resolving it expeditiously. If local efforts in Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of clear status options, such as those recommended in the White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico, which the United States is politically committed to fulfilling. The economic success of Puerto Rico is intimately linked to a swift resolution of the status question, as well as consistent, focused efforts on improving the lives of the people of Puerto Rico. [22]
Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty since the late 19th century, and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. As with any non-state territory of the United States, its residents do not have voting representation in their federal government. Like the U.S. states, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution, with a bill of rights, adopted by its people and accepted by Congress. Puerto Rico has limited representation in Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a delegate with no voting rights on the floor of the House, [7] [23] and no representation in the Senate.
President Clinton created the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status with the mandate to "report on...progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status." [18] [24] The Task Force reports recommended that two questions be put to the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico: whether to retain the current territorial status or not and which of a list of constitutionally viable non-territorial options, they preferred to the current territory status.
In light of the reports, a plebiscite was held on November 6, 2012, in which 54 percent of the ballots were cast against the continuation of the island's current territorial status. On the second question, that of alternatives to the current territorial status, 61.2 percent choose statehood; though a large number who answered the first question cast blank ballots for the second, casting some questioning on the second question outcome. [25] [26] -- Buzity ( talk) 04:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Consensus Proposal using Rrius's version and some minor updates related to accuracy with the December 2005, December 2007 and March 2011 reports recommendations of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status. In addition is followed the User talk:Wtmitchell recommendation. Finally, mentioned that the Task Force was created by President Clinton instead President Bush. -- Buzity ( talk) 04:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the "way to[o] much" comment. I think that a summary style approach would be more appropriate here, with a {{ main}} link to the Puerto Rico (proposed state) article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Buzity ( talk) 05:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Pages 10 and 11 of Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2007) - President George W. Bush. and Pages 26, 27 and 28 of * Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (March 2011) - President Barack Obama. The H.R.2499 and the 3 reports recommendation were followed on the Puerto Rico Plebiscite.
Recommendation # 2: The Task Force recommends that the permissible status options include Statehood, Independence, Free Association, and Commonwealth. Prior Task Force reports have identified and discussed constitutionally permissible status options. As discussed above, the Task Force took a fresh look at the issues, including the constitutional questions central to prior reports, and concluded that the permissible status options include Statehood, Independence, Free Association, and Commonwealth. Each status option is discussed below, along with a brief mention of some of the issues that would be raised by a choice of that option.
briefly explains the possibilities and major issues under each option. December 2005 report Page 10: Therefore, the following are the recommendations of the Task Force: 1. The Task Force recommends that Congress within a year provide for a Federally sanctioned plebiscite in which the people of Puerto Rico will be asked to state whether they wish to remain a U.S. territory subject to the will of Congress or to pursue a Constitutionally viable path toward a permanent non-territorial status with the United States. Congress should provide for this plebiscite to occur on a date certain. 2. The Task Force recommends that if the people of Puerto Rico elect to pursue a permanent non-territorial status, Congress should provide for an additional plebiscite allowing the people of Puerto Rico to choose between one of the two permanent non-territorial options. Once the people have selected one of the two options, Congress is encouraged to begin a process of transition toward that option. 3. If the people elect to remain as a territory, the Task Force recommends, consistent with the 1992 memorandum of President Bush, that a plebiscite occur periodically, as long as that status continues, to keep Congress informed of the people’s wishes.
December 2007 Report Page 10:
-- Buzity ( talk) 20:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The following are the recommendations of the Task Force (December 2007):
Reliable Sources: CONDICIÓN POLÍTICA TERRITORIAL ACTUAL (English:Actual Territorial Political Condition). Government of Puerto Rico. State Electoral Commission. Nov 16 2012 9:59PM. Retrieved 24 November 2012
OPCIONES NO TERRITORIALES. (English: Non-Territorial Options). Government of Puerto Rico. State Electoral Commission. Nov 16 2012 9:59PM. Retrieved 24 November 2012. -- Buzity ( talk) 03:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Buzity ( talk) 01:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
This opinion from The New York Times maybe could help to reach a consensus:
Will Puerto Rico Be America’s 51st State? -- Buzity ( talk) 04:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty since the late 19th century, and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. As with any non-state territory of the United States, its residents do not have voting representation in their federal government. Like the U.S. states, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution, with a bill of rights, adopted by its people and accepted by Congress. Puerto Rico has limited representation in Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a delegate with no voting rights on the floor of the House, [7] [27] and no representation in the Senate.
President Clinton created the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status with the mandate to "report on...progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status." [18] [28] [29] The report recommended that two questions be put to the people of Puerto Rico: whether to retain the current territorial status and which of a list of non-territorial alternatives they preferred.
In light of the task force recommendations, a plebiscite was held on November 6, 2012, in which 54 percent of the ballots were cast against the continuation of the the island's current territorial political status. [30] [31] -- Buzity ( talk) 04:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Well? What have you changed this time? It is usual to explain such things instead of making everyone else figure out for themselves what's going on. - Rrius ( talk) 06:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |publiser=
ignored (|publisher=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |publiser=
ignored (|publisher=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |publiser=
ignored (|publisher=
suggested) (
help)
Regarding this edit, areas of western Virginia did not rejoin the union. There were two state governments, a Unionist one and a Confederate one, both claiming to be the legitimate state government of Virgina. The Unionist government didn't recognize the Confederate government's secession of Virgina, and the Confederate government didn't recognize the Unionist government's creation of West Virgina.
It is true that some areas were under (and came under) union control, and some were under (and came under) Confederate control, but that's just armies moving around. That is not the same thing as areas joining the Union or the Confederacy.
Unless you count the creation of West Virgina, areas of Virginia never joined the union; it was simply disputed weather Virgina was a Union or Confederate state. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 03:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we could use a "history" subsection here. The problem for foreigners is often "why doesn't the federal government dictate standardization for the states." It makes no sense to them. The 13 colonies each developed separately with close ties, not to each other, but to Great Britain. Ties to each other came late in the 18th century along with a lot of suspicion as to the motives and culture of the other states. A constitution was based on that. And it continued over to new states, despite the fact that the new states did, indeed, have close ties with the federal government, though did want to establish their own identify. This is why Normandy and Brittany are long gone, Quebec redefines it's municipalities with regular confusion every few years, but we still have Rhode Island! A "bottom up" government, rather than "top down." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 ( talk • contribs) 15:40, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
I propose renaming this article to States of the United States. The name "U.S. state" does not sound like a very thorough or official name and the proposed name brings in continuity with many other articles such as Provinces of Indonesia, States of Germany, States and territories of Australia and Provinces and territories of Canada. Nick Mitchell 98 ( talk) 03:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The statements on the result of the 2012 referendum ("61% of voters") appear to contradict Proposed political status for Puerto Rico where it appears to show only 61% of 54% (i.e. 33% of voters) actually voting for statehood. -- PeterR2 ( talk) 19:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)