U.S. Territories
June 5, 2023 at 6:08 p.m.
By -
This is a follow-up to my May 5th letter on admission of new states to the Union and more specifically a reader response to that letter. Here is the first part of that reader’s response.
“Part of that nonsense idea is in the Constitution. No state shall be formed within another state.”
First, can the author of this response explain to the readers of the Times-Union and members of the state legislatures as to why the following text from Article 4 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution is a “nonsense idea”?
“... 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.”
Is there something the author feels is wrong with state legislatures having control over their borders of their state?
Second, the author of that response makes another statement: “So size is really a stupid condition to statehood.” The United States Congress in addition to population has historically taken the size of a potential state into consideration which is one reason as to why we have no cities or counties admitted into the Union as states. States in the U.S. while varying in size do have urban and rural areas, resources and room for future population growth. In fact, some residents and citizens from island territories have fueled some of the population growth in these states that have room for expansion.
Third, Puerto Rico would be admitted into the Union under the proposed amendment that was mentioned in the May 5th letter since it has 3.2 million residents and is at least two times the size of Rhode Island. It would bring in two senators and at least five representatives to Congress. I would not call that “again marginalizing” a U.S. territory as you termed it or putting in a “sneak clause.” Puerto Rico could be admitted without the proposed amendment due to its size and population. The main purpose of the proposed amendment in the May 5th letter is dealing with current states and areas within those states that may want to separate from those states along with the issue of D.C. statehood and the status of smaller U.S. island territories.
Fourth, other U.S. territories do have a pathway to be admitted into the Union or receive representation with the possibility of using the following from Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every third thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative.” The remaining four U.S. territories do have populations over this number and it will be up to Congress as to whether they should meet this standard for admission or the population of a full-fledge congressional district.
Alexander Houze
Leesburg
This is a follow-up to my May 5th letter on admission of new states to the Union and more specifically a reader response to that letter. Here is the first part of that reader’s response.
“Part of that nonsense idea is in the Constitution. No state shall be formed within another state.”
First, can the author of this response explain to the readers of the Times-Union and members of the state legislatures as to why the following text from Article 4 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution is a “nonsense idea”?
“... 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.”
Is there something the author feels is wrong with state legislatures having control over their borders of their state?
Second, the author of that response makes another statement: “So size is really a stupid condition to statehood.” The United States Congress in addition to population has historically taken the size of a potential state into consideration which is one reason as to why we have no cities or counties admitted into the Union as states. States in the U.S. while varying in size do have urban and rural areas, resources and room for future population growth. In fact, some residents and citizens from island territories have fueled some of the population growth in these states that have room for expansion.
Third, Puerto Rico would be admitted into the Union under the proposed amendment that was mentioned in the May 5th letter since it has 3.2 million residents and is at least two times the size of Rhode Island. It would bring in two senators and at least five representatives to Congress. I would not call that “again marginalizing” a U.S. territory as you termed it or putting in a “sneak clause.” Puerto Rico could be admitted without the proposed amendment due to its size and population. The main purpose of the proposed amendment in the May 5th letter is dealing with current states and areas within those states that may want to separate from those states along with the issue of D.C. statehood and the status of smaller U.S. island territories.
Fourth, other U.S. territories do have a pathway to be admitted into the Union or receive representation with the possibility of using the following from Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every third thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative.” The remaining four U.S. territories do have populations over this number and it will be up to Congress as to whether they should meet this standard for admission or the population of a full-fledge congressional district.
Alexander Houze
Leesburg
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092