No representation
-
wrote on 4 Jul 2020, 17:37 last edited by xenon 7 Apr 2020, 17:37
@Jolly said in No representation:
They have representation. They have no vote.
This gets theoretical. Is it really representation if the people have no vote or recourse? (And who represents them?)
-
wrote on 4 Jul 2020, 17:57 last edited by
We had territories before we had the constitution and during its ratification (and ever since). So they aren't outside of the constitutional purview.
-
wrote on 4 Jul 2020, 18:06 last edited by
The Congress of Confederation (pre-dating the constitution) organized the Northwest territory (OH and environs) which had been ceded to the US from Britain by the treaty of Paris.
-
The Congress of Confederation (pre-dating the constitution) organized the Northwest territory (OH and environs) which had been ceded to the US from Britain by the treaty of Paris.
wrote on 4 Jul 2020, 18:08 last edited by xenon 7 Apr 2020, 18:10@jon-nyc have been reading here a bit this morning as well.
Seems like a key provision here is the land ordinance of 1784 (linked in the wiki above as well):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Ordinance_of_1784
Saying that all of these territories are temporary and would eventually be turned into a state.
-
wrote on 4 Jul 2020, 18:20 last edited by
Yeah, that was certainly the intention for those original territories and the Louisiana Purchase, and the territory gained from Mexico.
It was only in the Spanish American war that we gained territories that people then had no intention of turning into a state. It was very controversial, a prominent 'Anti-Imperialist League' was formed over it.
-
wrote on 4 Jul 2020, 18:21 last edited by jon-nyc 7 Apr 2020, 18:21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Imperialist_League
Check out the prominent member list.
-
wrote on 4 Jul 2020, 18:37 last edited by
Did u know that the District of Columbia is a member of the unrpresented nations and peoples organization?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrepresented_Nations_and_Peoples_Organization?wprov=sfsi1
-
Wrong null hypothesis. The union was a compact among states.
FWIW Puerto Rico has voted against statehood a number of times.
wrote on 4 Jul 2020, 18:55 last edited by@jon-nyc said in No representation:
Wrong null hypothesis. The union was a compact among states.
FWIW Puerto Rico has voted against statehood a number of times.
If they had voted for statehood, I think it very probable they would have been the 51st.
-
@jon-nyc said in No representation:
Wrong null hypothesis. The union was a compact among states.
FWIW Puerto Rico has voted against statehood a number of times.
If they had voted for statehood, I think it very probable they would have been the 51st.
wrote on 4 Jul 2020, 23:06 last edited by@Jolly said in No representation:
@jon-nyc said in No representation:
Wrong null hypothesis. The union was a compact among states.
FWIW Puerto Rico has voted against statehood a number of times.
If they had voted for statehood, I think it very probable they would have been the 51st.
Too lazy to look it up - why did they not vote for statehood?
Presumably the benefits of statehood aren't worth it. Wonder what those are?
-
@Jolly said in No representation:
@jon-nyc said in No representation:
Wrong null hypothesis. The union was a compact among states.
FWIW Puerto Rico has voted against statehood a number of times.
If they had voted for statehood, I think it very probable they would have been the 51st.
Too lazy to look it up - why did they not vote for statehood?
Presumably the benefits of statehood aren't worth it. Wonder what those are?
wrote on 4 Jul 2020, 23:58 last edited by@George-K said in No representation:
Presumably the benefits of statehood aren't worth it. Wonder what those are?
A new language?
-
@Jolly said in No representation:
@jon-nyc said in No representation:
Wrong null hypothesis. The union was a compact among states.
FWIW Puerto Rico has voted against statehood a number of times.
If they had voted for statehood, I think it very probable they would have been the 51st.
Too lazy to look it up - why did they not vote for statehood?
Presumably the benefits of statehood aren't worth it. Wonder what those are?
wrote on 5 Jul 2020, 02:08 last edited by jon-nyc 7 May 2020, 02:09@George-K said in No representation:
Too lazy to look it up - why did they not vote for statehood?
Presumably the benefits of statehood aren't worth it. Wonder what those are?
IIRC it was always a three way choice, statehood, independence, or status quo. Status quo always won. They used to have a special economic deal that encouraged businesses to locate there. So there was a lot of economic interest in status quo. People liked their US passports too and always had the option to go to the mainland.
That’s what most pissed me off about Obama’s pardon of Oscar Lopez Rivera and how that was played in the press. They (The press) acted like he was this freedom fighter opposing American oppression when in reality he tried to achieve through violence what Puerto Rican voters roundly rejected multiple times at the ballot box.
-
wrote on 5 Jul 2020, 02:52 last edited by
Don't forget about Guam, the Marianna Island, American Samoa, etc.
-
wrote on 5 Jul 2020, 02:55 last edited by
I think that was all Spanish empire bits we picked up in 1898
The anti-imperialist league was right.
-
Did u know that the District of Columbia is a member of the unrpresented nations and peoples organization?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrepresented_Nations_and_Peoples_Organization?wprov=sfsi1
wrote on 5 Jul 2020, 18:08 last edited by@bachophile said in No representation:
Did u know that the District of Columbia is a member of the unrpresented nations and peoples organization?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrepresented_Nations_and_Peoples_Organization?wprov=sfsi1
And they get more practical representation than any city in the world.