Talk:United States/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Palmyra Atoll

"The states compose the vast bulk of the U.S. land mass; the two other areas considered integral parts of the country are the District of Columbia, the federal district where the capital, Washington, is located; and Palmyra Atoll, an uninhabited but incorporated territory in the Pacific Ocean."

Since when was Palmyra Atoll an integral part of the US?—Kelvinsong (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Since 1898 when it was incorporated into the country as part of Hawaii Territory. --Golbez (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would hesitate to call it "integral", most have never heard of it.—Kelvinsong (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that it is an exceptionally tiny and mostly insignificant part of the country - but part of the country nonetheless, as much a part as any tiny uninhabited island off the coast of Maine or Alaska, the difference being this one isn't part of a state or other territory, thus making it worthy of separate mention. --Golbez (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

All incorporated U.S. since 9-11

- Uninhabited Palmyra Atoll is administered from DC by the Interior Department in precisely the same way as eight other uninhabited places. There are no 21st Century places ‘unincorporated’ in the U.S. By |Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l), the geographical extent of the U.S. is 50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands and uninhabited islands.

- The judicial fiat of colonial rule to which Golbez refers is a 1904 judicial doctrine of "unincorporation". It was used to justify NOT extending Constitutional protections to the rebels in the Philippine Insurrection. “Incorporation” was to mean the extension of “Anglo-Saxon custom” to places which would "eventually become states". The Constitution is today extended to all five U.S. Territories, although they have not become states -- Anglo-Saxon or otherwise.

- Palmyra will not become a state without population, it was separated from Hawaii on its ‘incorporation’ as a Gilded Age provision for a single coconut plantation family. When Hawaii was 'incorporated' in | Mankichi, the Constitution did not have to apply in Honolulu's non-Anglo-Saxon governance. When Alaska was 'unincorporated', in | Rassmussen, the Constitution applied because residents there were U.S. citizens.

- All U.S. territories are U.S. citizens native-born, or in Samoa U.S. nationals have Constitutional protections. U.S. citizens are taxed there as they were in 'unincorporated' Alaska. They are all democratically self-governing by local three-branch government and are represented by elected delegates in Congress. The judicial ‘unicorporated’ doctrine which once applied to Puerto Rico is explicitly overturned in 2008 by federal court ruling in the Ponce case, p.5. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What does "9-11" have to do with any of this? --Golbez (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

- 21st century security for U.S. citizens and nationals in its Territories does NOT hinge on late 19th century colonialism or a judicial fiat of 1904 overturned in 2007 federal court at Ponce. Territories need not become states, nor Anglo-Saxon to gain protection. Some U.S. citizens and nationals may retain native customs regarding communal property in (a) Samoa, (b) Native populations in Alaska and Hawaii, (c) tribes affiliated with the Bureau of Indian Affairs within the coterminous forty-eight states.

- Post 9-11 all are guaranteed full protection of the U.S. government. The official geographic extent of the United States by |Executive Order 13423 is states, a district, territories and islands. No one promotes Palmyra Atoll post 9-11, though once ruled “incorporated”, jurists anticipating it in a state. Today no islanders are denied equal standing in U.S. courts as was done in the insular cases. A Samoan U.S. national now has a case against the State Department at the U.S. Supreme Court.

- 9-11 made irrelevant the judicial considerations of Anglo-Saxon custom and issues of anticipated statehood found in colonial 'unincorporated' status. All U.S. citizens and nationals will be guaranteed full protection of the U.S. government in states, district and territories throughout the geographic extent of federal republic which is the official United States of America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered bringing this up on Talk:Puerto Rico? --Golbez (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• The CIA Factbook recognizes the distinction.
• The Office of Insular Affairs (which really ought to know about such matters) recongizes the distinction. [1] [2]
• The definition in Executive Order 13423 is limited in scope to the "geographical sense" and does not address administrative or legal status.

older ≠ wiser 14:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, and I was wrong, apparently Hawaii Territory was only incorporated in 1900. Relevant quote, emphasis added: "On April 30, 1900, Hawaii (including Palmyra Atoll) became an incorporated U.S. territory. ( In corporation has been consistently interpreted as a perpetual state. Once incorporated, an area cannot be de-incorporated.) So, when Hawaii (excluding Palmyra Atoll) was admitted as one of the several States, Palmyra remained and continues to remain an incorporated U.S. territory. It is, in fact, of the fourteen U.S. insular areas, the only incorporated U.S. territory, that is, a Territory. (Under Federal law U.S. insular areas are divided into two categories: incorporated insular areas which use "Territory" with a capital "T" and unincorporated insular areas which use "territory" with a lower-case "t.")" (Which brings up an interesting, if meaningless, question: Since Canal Zone was obviously not an incorporated territory, as evidenced by it no longer being under U.S. sovereignty, had John McCain not been born to U.S. parents, would he have been a natural born citizen?) --Golbez (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

- The law then only required one parent to be a U.S. citizen, regardless of the place of birth. BUT IF

(a) NEITHER parent had been a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, OR

(b) the Congress did NOT then provide for U.S. citizenship at birth there as NOW in Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas, and Guam,

= (c) then, he would not be U.S. President -- UNLESS Congress certified his election at its January joint-session counting electoral college ballots.

- Interesting, the Republican-controlled Congress certified Obama president in 2009. But a very rich (smart) fella keeps wanting a birth certificate, like he's going to single-handedly overthrow the U.S. Congress, Republicans and Democrats. Not likely this January either, I'd say. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

- @ older≠wiser. The ‘geographical sense’ is what we are after for the first-sentence, the U.S. is a federal republic over a geographic extent: states, district, territories and islands.

- Yes, the legal status of DC and five territories are of lesser Constitutional status than the states, in that Congress can amend all six constitutions, for one thing. But U.S. citizens -- under the Constitution, paying taxes to the U.S., with elected delegates in Congress -- are in the geographical extent of the U.S. federal republic to be described in the first sentence.

- The distinction ‘incorporated’ is not commonly used, so it is not the language to be chosen for an encyclopedia of general readership. The U.S. is not styled “states, district and Palmyra” in the CIA Factbook. "Incorporated v. unincorporated territory" should not be a consideration in copyediting here, at least not in the introduction.. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

CIA Factbook and 'incorporation'

@ Older≠wiser The CIA Factbook does NOT recognize an 'incorporated' distinction for NWR administration.

- Open the link Introduction U.S. Pacific Island Wildlife Refuges. Background says, “All of the following US Pacific island territories ... constitute NWR and such are managed by Fish and Wildlife Service of the US Department of the Interior. Scroll down @ Palmyra Atoll The lagoons and surrounding waters … were transferred to the US Fish and Wildlife Service … January 2001. -- In the 21st century, no difference from five other uninhabited islands can be distinguished -- ‘incorporated’ or otherwise.

- Neither has CIA World Factbook. Dependent Listings. There is NO ‘incorporated' distinction in listings at CIA World Factbook quoted here at Talk -- not (a) at a link supplied by you, and not (b) at a link supplied by me.

- In any case, a CIA factbook chart does not alter the official geographic extent of the United States of America -- unless we admit WP:OR original research, extrapolating from an unnamed, unquoted source, unverified here to date. On the other hand, I have now made two direct quotes in two CIA Factbook linked sources supporting my view. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

So what you're saying is, the public resources available from the federal government don't contain a consensus. --Golbez (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

- Everything we look into here at Talk shows that there is practically no use for the judicial doctrine of 'incorporated' - 'unincorporated' territory. The sources provided do not prohibit identifying the official geographic extent of the article country -- as its legal code for judicial procedure defines it.

- In U.S. legal matters, USC § 3002 – Definitions (14) “State” means any of the several States, the District ... Puerto Rico, ... Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States. Example. | 28 USC § 1251 - Original jurisdiction (a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States. (b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of: (2) All controversies between the United States and a State.

- Our sources all show the same geographical extent for the 'federal republic' of the official "United States of America' this century. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You realize you just gave an example of the government making up a term of convenience that has no bearing on reality, right? And that clobbers a healthy portion of your argument? They define "state" that way so they don't have to repeat all the nuances every time they mention it in that law, or so that those nuances can't be used to create a loophole. Puerto Rico is not a state, despite that chapter defining it as one for the purposes of that chapter, and I'm pretty sure you agree that Puerto Rico is, in fact, not a state. Therefore, if you agree that the law can make up definitions for expedience, then maybe that's what they're doing most if not all of the times they define Puerto Rico etc. as part of the "United States". --Golbez (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

- The official reality is what the Congress says it is. The U.S. code applies equally to states, district and territories whenever the word "state" appears, unless there is some exception. Older≠wiser made a reference about U.S. law today -- so there it is, 28 USC § 3002 for the federal judiciary, unlike 1904 judicial doctrine.

- There are exceptions among states and territories. - (a) the Fed charges banks in states west of the Mississippi less in overnight interest. (b) In poor regions with less than half the mean income of the poorest state, Congress taxes less on personal income, but also awards less child support.

- Congress defines the official geographical extent of the U.S. at | State Dept. Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) 7-Consular Affairs, p. 2-3, referencing an Act of Congress: INA : The U.S. is states, a district, five territories and islands -- with no distinction about 'unincorporated' anything today. A country-article should express the official geographic extent in its first-sentence. -- In this case, what the United States Congress says, and importantly after 9-11, also presidential executive order. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

According to that link, American Samoa and the CNMI are not part of the United States. (7 FAM 1112 a) so... either you've changed your argument, or perhaps you should stop using "this term is defined in this chapter/handbook as" statements to back up your cause, as they are extremely self-contradictory. I mean, here, from the EO you linked: ""United States" when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace." That does not match the definition linked in the above article, which is: "the term "United States," when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States."; ergo, you can accept one or the other but you cannot logically offer both as sources that back up your stance. --Golbez (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the heading of this section, the CIA factbook DOES recognize the distinction: Dependency status: unincorporated territories of the US; administered from Washington, DC by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the US Department of the Interior as part of the National Wildlife Refuge system
note on Palmyra Atoll: incorporated Territory of the US; partly privately owned and partly federally owned; administered from Washington, DC by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the US Department of the Interior; the Office of Insular Affairs of the US Department of the Interior continues to administer nine excluded areas comprising certain tidal and submerged lands within the 12 nm territorial sea or within the lagoon (emphasis added) and defines Dependency status as This entry describes the formal relationship between a particular nonindependent entity and an independent state.

As for the rest, Golbez is completely right. The Congress can define black as white within the context of specific acts and that does not represent anything other than the definition as used within that specific context.

And why are you making such a big deal about the "geographical extent" of the U.S.? Is there any actual issue in that regard? What bearing does the administrative or legal status of a territory have on the "geographical extent" of the U.S. (or vice versa). If anyone is engaging in OR here, it is you making out of context inferences. older ≠ wiser 05:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Scroll up; he and I engaged in a long debate over whether or not the unincorporated territories were part of the U.S., or just possessions of it. He took the former stance; I took the latter. No motion was accomplished, in part because it was a one vs one argument. --Golbez (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

@ older≠wiser. The CIA does NOT use the concept of ‘incorporated territory’ for anything but a report of a narrow legal term buried in obscure references to an uninhabited atoll, inapplicable to an encyclopedia with a general readership. I believe it is there somewhere, but I still can’t find it in the ‘introduction’ section or the ‘geography’ section, which I opened per your instruction.

- No where is the U.S. geographical extent in the Factbook defined as “officially the incorporated territory” of fifty states, the district and -- Palmyra Atoll. It is not in your copy-text from the Factbook somewhere, nor from any source viewed here at Talk -- it should not govern editorial policy in the article.

- Congress defines the extent of the U.S. federal republic, the subject of the article. The scope of federal court jurisdiction applying the U.S. Code, Title 28 shall be various states, a district, territories and possessions, wherever the word "state" appears, as linked here. This is not my original research, this is the law of the land. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Many government sources use 'unincorporated'

- At the Fish and Wildlife link you gave us, CIA Factbook. The Fish and Wildlife folks -- today -- do not distinguish their administration of wildlife in any practical way according to a 1904 judicial doctrine allowing the USG to violate the Constitution among populations without Anglo-Saxon customs. Further, I do not see the ferns and the fishes as U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals. You have failed in your original research to make a connection from a CIA description of FWS administrative areas to the official extent of the U.S.

- But the CIA Factbook does define the geographical extent of countries such as the U.S. and France as INCLUSIVE of states, departments, districts, reservations and dependencies -- that includes territories.

- The "specific context" Congress addresses in Title 28 is the federal court system, district courts, appellate courts, and Supreme Court. That "specific context" is the official geographical extent of the U.S. federal republic. By law -- in "any of the several States, the District ... Puerto Rico, ... the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the U.S.".

- The U.S. Code is to be administered equally among all places in the extent of the U.S. federal republic as Congress allows. This is unlike the 1904 judicial doctrine by fiat. Congress has made the ruling a nullity. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You stated flatly that the CIA Factbook does NOT recognize an 'incorporated' distinction for NWR administration. This is false.

If your claim is that there is in practice no meaning to the distinction, that may be true. But if your claim is that there is no distinction, that appears to be a conclusion based entirely on your own original research. older ≠ wiser 12:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

- You have not made a connection at the link as relevant to the official geographical extent of the United States of America. At its 'Introduction' or its 'Geography' section, the link does not provide the copy-paste text you provided. I'm sure you found it elsewhere, just not where you linked us. In any case, the link does not support your implication that the NWR defines the official geographical extent of the U.S. nor does it provide guidance to be used in a WP country-article first-sentence.

- Islanders are citizens without the states. The 'unincorporated' exclusion of them does not apply to the U.S. of today. You would take up a 1904 judicial doctrine used to deny protections to populations without Anglo-Saxon traditions. Because 1904 jurists supposed they would never be incorporated into the U.S. as citizens in states, you will not admit that they have become citizens without states. But now that territory residents are citizens without becoming states, their territories should be admitted into the geographical extent of the official country first-sentence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The page has collapsible sections and I saw no way to link to the section. I expected persons with the least bit of familiarity with the web to know how to read a page with collapsible sections. Perhaps I was mistaken. Might I suggest that you look more carefully.

Also, I did not at first notice a bit of subterfuge on your part. The heading of the section blandly claims CIA Factbook sees no 'incorporation' -- yet you apparently are only considering the NWA and are conveniently ignoring the remainder of Palmyra atoll.

Citizenship status of residents is not the sole basis for incorporation. Congress change how citizenship is awarded to residents of the territories. But the fact that Palmyra has no permanent residents makes that factor irrelevant in any case.

I'm not sure what to do with the first sentence, as I agree that territories are a part of the U.S., but I think I disagree about the nature of their inclusion. The territories are not a part of the U.S. on an equal footing with the states. older ≠ wiser 13:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

- Header now reads, -- CIA Factbook and 'incorporation' -- . Thank you, my writing is better for your critique, as it is for Golbez smithing my contributions. You are correct on the heading, but as to characterizing my motivation, I prefer 'enthusiasm' to 'subterfuge'.

- Correct -- the territories and the District of Columbia are not a part of the U.S. on an equal footing with the states. But the copyedit issue in a country-article first-sentence should not be over (a) practically unused judicial doctrine superseded in law beginning in the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, and (b) most recently overturned at federal court in the Ponce case as it pertained to Puerto Rico (Guam and the Philippines were the other two territories "without Anglo-Saxon customs" in the first insular cases).

- I do not propose to omit -- (a) DC with with U.S. citizens due to a less-than-State technical status -- I do not propose to omit -- (b) territories with U.S. citizens in a similar less-than-State technical status. Both DC and territories should be included with states in first sentence official geographic extent -- as Wikipedia does at France for the official Republic of France with its territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If the doctrine of incorporated vs unincorporated were "practically unused" then why do so many government sources (including the CIA factbook) use it? --Golbez (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(a) How is the official geographic extent of the U.S. discussed in these "so many government sources" for "incorporated-unincorporated" internet term searches?-- Though search hits are not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, it's of interest.

(b) Do they describe U.S.A. as its "incorporated" territory -- "fifty states, a federal district, -- and- Palmyra- Atoll"? We have not yet seen it in "so many government sources". The concept is unused in any practical way for description of the official U.S. entire, or in U.S. governance, executive, legislative or judicial in the 21st century -- as found yet among sources here.

= (c) First-sentence extent should encompass U.S. citizens governed by the federal republic of the U.S.A. in fifty states, a federal district, five territories and nine uninhabited islands. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's acceptable to omit Palmyra in every casual reference, so unless they are being exceptional sticklers about the internal divisions of the country, there's no reason for them to mention it. I don't call for mentioning it in the intro, after all. Most sources describe the U.S. as consisting of fifty states and a federal district, and that's more than acceptable. Also, and I know you probably are just using shorthand for convenience (much like the laws you link), but you again have omitted the people of American Samoa due to referring solely to "U.S. citizens". --Golbez (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

- It is not acceptable to omit DC and the territories unless you are "being exceptional sticklers about the internal divisions" -- for the six polities unequal to states Constitutionally. But those six are alike, locally self-governing in republican three-branch governance, under constitutions amendable by Congress, each with its own delegate in the U.S. Congress.

- You may not choose describing the U.S. as "incorporated" territory including Palmyra because the concept has practically no use in today's discussions of U.S. extent. I would not quibble about internal divisions in the country-article introduction, but look to the official geographic extent -- not casual for first-sentence -- to see the U.S. as its living people.

- The U.S. should be described as the people living under the federal republic that is named in the country-article first-sentence -- those who are U.S. citizens and nationals. Samoa is seen equal to the organic-act-territories at State Department, |Dependencies -- and post 9-11 -- in the official extent of the United States by an |Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l), with the force of law, apart from technical internal divisions found elsewhere. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Why geographical extent in a country-article?

And why are you making such a big deal about the "geographical extent" of the U.S.? Is there any actual issue in that regard? What bearing does the administrative or legal status of a territory have on the "geographical extent" of the U.S. (or vice versa). If anyone is engaging in OR here, it is you making out of context inferences. older ≠ wiser 05:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

- Why indeed. What is the rationale to block a country's official self-definition in a country-article at Wikipedia? Please note at France, its territories are included in the official 'Republic of France'. Why not at the official United States of America first sentence?

- The unofficial 'France' generally means Metropolitan France, limited to mainland France and Corsica, as reported in facts and figures. The unofficial 'United States generally means mainland U.S. and Hawaii, as reported in facts and figures.

- There is no push to strip territories from the official "Republic of France" in the WP article first-sentence there. -- I only want "the United States of America" to have an equal expression of its official geographical extent -- just as Wikipedia can provide for other nations recognized by the United Nations in the country-article first-sentence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

In terms of jurisdiction, the territories are indeed part of the U.S. That doesn't mean there is no distinction to be made among the parts. The territories are not part of the U.S. on an equal footing with the states. older ≠ wiser 12:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

- That's it, "the territories are indeed part of the U.S." That does not mean we agree to a copyedit yet. Thanks for reasoning.

- There are distinctions to made among the parts. Among states, Congress allows lower interests for banks in states west of the Mississippi. One copyedit issue is whether any distinction arises to an importance level to impact editorial choices in the country-article first-sentence for official geographic extent.

- Territories and the federal district are not on an equal footing with the states in a narrow technical sense. But this distinction is not of enough importance to editorially remove DC from the geographic extent of the U.S. in the country-article first-sentence. It should not be sufficient to omit the territories.

- Federal courts apply the U.S. Code equally to territories in a larger sense. In Title 28 Congress directed courts to dispense justice to states, district and territories, in the same way, wherever the word "state" appears. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Source 'geographical extent'

You need a source in constitutional law. My understanding is that countries may acquire territories, for example by treaties, but they do not become part of the country until declared as such by law. TFD (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(a) The Congress has directed the laws to be uniformly administered and enforced throughout the geographical extent of the U.S.

(b) All federal courts are bound by U.S. Code of Law (USC), Title 28, “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, -- district, appellate, supreme.

(c) Everywhere in the USC where “state” appears -- by description, permission, requirement or prohibition, the U.S. courts are directed to read “state” as directed by law: | 28 USC § 3002 – Definitions to include the official geographical extent of the U.S.A.

(d) (14) “State” means any of the several States, the District ... Puerto Rico, ... Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States. Example. | 28 USC § 1251 - Original jurisdiction (a) The Supreme Court shall have ... jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States. (b) ... jurisdiction of: (2) All controversies between the [U.S.] and a State.

= Therefore, current law nullifies a judicial doctrine of 1904 which permitted the USG to administer ‘unincorporated’ Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines WITHOUT Constitutional guarantees for those without Anglo-Saxon customs -- whom the court surmised would never become U.S. citizens incorporated in a state –- unless Congress so directed by law at a later date, of course. --

- Well, here we are at a later date. -- There are U.S. citizens in the territories, a U.S. national can appeal to the Supreme Court, U.S. citizens are taxed in Samoa and do not lose citizenship by permanent residence, and -- post-9-11 by 2007 executive order -- the geographical extent of the U.S. includes Samoa. So today we have law, and an executive order with the force of law. to define the official geographical extent of the United States of America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Scholarly source for geographical extent of the United States. -- Sparrow, Bartholomew H., in Levinson, S. and Sparrow, B. H., The Louisiana Purchase And American Expansion, 1803-1898 2005. ISBN 0-7425-4984-4 p.232. viewed December 2, 2012.

- "At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.”

- This gives us a scholarly reliable source, law, and an executive order with the force of law to define the official geographical extent the federal republic which is the United States of America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It is the opinion of an expert arguing against consensus and therefore cannot be presented as a fact. TFD (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

- Facts by consensus only -- without a reliable source, verifiable in published scholarship -- is WP:OR original research, not admitted here.

- Wikipedia is not cinematic subtextual criticism, where it doesn't matter what is verifiable concerning the producer on the day of shooting, "it's about me making my case [for my aesthetic]; I either convince you or I don't." See "|An hour with Quentin Tarantino, Charlie Rose on Dec 21, 2012. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Experts not allowed

Scholarly source for geographical extent of the United States. -- Sparrow, Bartholomew H., in Levinson, S. and Sparrow, B. H., The Louisiana Purchase And American Expansion, 1803-1898 2005. ISBN 0-7425-4984-4 p.232. viewed December 2, 2012.

- - At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.

- This gives us a scholarly reliable source, law, and an executive order with the force of law to define the official geographical extent the federal republic which is the United States of America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It is the opinion of an expert arguing against consensus and therefore cannot be presented as a fact. TFD (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) At WP:RELIABLESOURCES, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: -- the piece of work itself (the article, book), -- the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and -- the publisher of the work (Random House or Cambridge University Press).

(2) At WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: -- Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. -- Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable -- if the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

(3) At WP:ORIGINAL, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material for which no reliable, published sources exist. -- All material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. An inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged.

== (4) I am attempting to make a contribution (a) with a reliable source, (b) backed up by scholarship not my own, and (c) an inline citation for material likely to be challenged. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well of course we have a reliable source that Sparrow made that claim, but it does not elevate it to a fact. TFD (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

- So far, Sparrow is all we have as a source for fact, linked online, for which one claims doubt. If you are not sure about it in your own mind, you may in collaboration with Wikipedians, find another source. That's how we get better at this encyclopedia-writing business together.

- Pick another reliable source published in geopolitics, history or law and quote it here -– purporting to EXCLUDE U.S. dependencies for official U.S.A. and likewise EXCLUDING French dependencies for official 'Republic of France'. It will contradict article France, which includes territories for geographic extent in the country-article first-sentence if you do. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Your source that the territories are part of the U.S. says that the U.S. is an empire. If you accept the source then you are accepting that the U.S. is an empire. I just provided a source from the United Nations that said Puerto Rico is a state separate from the U.S. The three non-self governing territories recognized by the UN are US Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Guam. But the UN also considers Puerto Rico and the North Mariana Islands to be outside the U.S. They recognize the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and Palau as independent states in free association with the U.S. The U.S. has no other overseas territories. TFD (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) I propose a collaboration between us, for this article -- I have some background in your perspective, I am part Algonquin-Powhatan, though not enough to be a person by tribal law, with Cuban and Guatamalan cousins, I can only say teachers in public schools lose their racial blinders and it just happens.

(2) I make a three-part proposal. –- (a) The intro sentence reads in part, the U.S. federal republic includes fifty states, a federal district, five territories and nine uninhabited islands.[note], with links -– (b) The intro note says in part, that territory claimed by the U.S. as within its jurisdiction has been and still is contested in international forums both in the Caribbean and in the Western Pacific. – (c) Narrative under ‘Political divisions’, or with a wiki-link, with the following points to be developed in Wiki-collaboration: balanced -- first two categories adverse to U.S. interests, then -- two categories consistent with U.S. interests

- - (1) International forum disputes -- by Haiti, Cuba, New Zealand and others,

- - (2) U.N. 2012 investigation -- including Guam and others,

- - (3) U.N. cases in U.S. favor -- Puerto Rico, Northern Marianas by |U.N. oversight |Compact, |Executive Order, etc.,

- - (4) Bi-lateral 2012 negotiations -- undertaken by the U.S. State Department, perhaps two currently –

- What do you say? (I'll answer your sourcing-concern post for contribution which is likely to be challenged below.) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is authority in the U.S.?

@ older≠wiser. says, The Congress can define black as white within the context of specific acts and that does not represent anything. older ≠ wiser 05:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

- The Congress embodies the sovereign American people – all of them, everywhere. Where it rules is the geographical extent of the United States. The U.S. has black-as-white defined by the representatives of those people. Yes, Congress sees (white) -- [King] sovereign : people servants – and Congress defines it as (black) -- people sovereign : [government] servant. -- So that IS to be the reality for the extent of the U.S.

- Congress tells the federal judiciary its “black-as-white” in Title 28 of the U.S. Code – state judges swear to uphold the Constitution too. Judges in territories do so swear also. Everywhere a jurist reads “state”, the law is to be equally interpreted and enforced for -- states, and federal district and territories and possessions. Do not dismiss the Congress with, “that does not represent anything.” for the purposes of this article. It governs the American people in a democratic federal republic of states, district, territories and possessions, that’s where. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

@ older≠wiser. says, What bearing does the administrative or legal status of a territory have on the "geographical extent" of the U.S. (or vice versa). If anyone is engaging in OR here, it is you. older ≠ wiser 05:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

- The United States is in a place. The extent of its sovereignty refers to its control of people in places under its democratic federal republican forms of government. The status of a territory has to do with the extent of the country, because the control of a territorial place implies a country’s possession by it.

- Vice versa, the extent of a country has to do with the status of a territory, because the possession of a territorial place implies the country’s control of it. Common sense is not original research. The U.S. is a government of people in a place defined by states, district, territories and possessions, that’s where. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

One state may own or control another state without that state being part of it. For example, the UK has control over Bermuda, Gibraltar and formerly Canada and even the original 13 colonies that now make up the US. But those places were never part of the UK. Guantanamo Bay for example is controlled by the US but is part of Cuba. Find a reliable source that supports your views. TFD (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sparrow, Bartholomew H., in Levinson, S. and Sparrow, B. H., The Louisiana Purchase And American Expansion, 1803-1898 2005. ISBN 0-7425-4984-4 p.232. viewed December 2, 2012.

"At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states." (Levinson, p.232) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, that is the opinion of an expert (Sparrow) who argues against the accepted view that US possessions are outside the US. Note that the US is in dispute with the UN over the status of Puerto Rico - they say it is an "overseas territory", while the US says it is in "free association" with them.[3] The UN had listed Puerto Rico as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, but in 1952 it was relisted as an "unincorporated organized territories". Neither side has argued that it is part of the US. Sparrow also calls the United States an empire as part of his argument that the territories are part of the US. If we mention the first claim we must mention this one as well. Do you think we should change "is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district" to "is an empire consisting of fifty states, a federal district and overseas territories"? TFD (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(a) You have no source as yet for any view other than Sparrows. Four Wikipedians on a Talk page are not “the accepted view” in any academic subject at WP. Please pick any reliable source other than Sparrow published in geopolitics, history or law – purporting to EXCLUDE U.S. dependencies for the U.S.A. and likewise EXCLUDE French dependencies for the Republic of France, in direct contradiction to the WP article France including territories in its first sentence.

(b) We should NOT use 19th century common-place expressions inappropriate for a modern encyclopedic style, such as “The U.S., empire of liberty in fifty states, district, territory and possessions.” We should NOT use “The U.S., a shining beacon of liberty to all the world marching bravely across the world’s stage in states, a district, territories and uninhabited islands.” No, thank you.

- However, if you were serious,

(c.1) -- YOU can accept my proposed language, “The U.S. is a federal republic consisting of fifty states, a federal district, five territories and nine uninhabited islands.[n.]” With (1) appropriate links and (2) a reliable source, verifiable in published scholarly literature, and –- (c.2) -- AND I will accept as a friendly amendment, what I take to be your serious proposal -- a footnote to the country-article first-sentence – you pick and choose from the menu -- documenting for places that the U.S. claims as under its own jurisdiction, stating in a clear balanced way with online links wherever possible,

(1) international forum disputes by Haiti, Cuba, and several others, --

(2) U.N. 2012 investigation including Guam and others,

(3) U.N. cases in U.S. favor including Puerto Rico, Northern Marianas and others,

(4) Bi-lateral 2012 negotiations undertaken by the U.S. State Department, perhaps two currently --

or any combination you think most significant for the footnote, appropriate for the general reader. And you might kindly not ask me to defend the indefensibly archaic "empire" terminology for a modern encyclopedia hereafter. [earlier post modified in collaboration] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead should be restructured

The lead talks too much about the history of the United States rather than its modern aspects, which I think it should focus more on. I also don't think the lead needs to be as long as it currently is, with four big paragraphs. I think the history of the country should be condensed into one paragraph, omitting less important details about things like the Spanish-American war or how the US acquired specific territories, instead leaving a more general sentence like "over time the US expanded across the continent, acquired new territories and admitted new states". What most editors go by for the length of the lead is that almost all of it should be readable in one computer screen without having to scroll down. Its economy is given a brief mention, but little to nothing about its politics, infrastructure, geography or foreign affairs. Overall, too much attention is given to its history and I am being bold and making changes where I see fit. If there are issues we can always discuss it here. Cadiomals (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Vikings must be included here, even though it was insignificant historically.

OK, so the Viking discovery of America did not amount to much. But that in itself is significant. It took Europe until the 1400 to have the capacity to spread the news of such a huge discovery and take advantage of it. Yes, that is more of a story about Europe, than America, but its an important point to teach students. That if a society (greater Europe in this case) is unprepared, it cannot take advantage of, or even realize the importance of new discoveries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYC-ALB (talk • contribs) 05:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Except that the Vikings did not discover the United States, neither the country it is now nor the land that became the nation. The Vikings called their settlement Vinland, which was determined to be L'Anse aux Meadows, in Canada. So the tale of the Viking is more appropriate in articles on the history of Canada, North America, the Exploration of North America, or Norse colonization of the Americas. However, I would agree that one of these can be included in the See also section. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Except, neither did Columbus. Though, it was because of Columbus more people came over. The Vikings got here first, but no one came back until Columbus brought word of the new world. So NYC-ALB has a point in that it's more about how news and information moved in Europe, but on the other hand I agree that it is a footnote at best. What would we say? "In 10xx, Vikings came to North America and then died. In 1492, Columbus found the new world, and [continue on as we have so far]." I can't think of further detail than that. I can't think of a mention of the Vikings that adds anything useful to an article about the United States. --Golbez (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

- Agree with Golbez. Columbus gets cred because he shares the information. It is true Columbus shared to increase the wealth of the Americas to prosper his own family were it to amass titles there. How to write up Vikings and the fish trade which continues by seasonal workers from several regions on and off for centuries prior to permanent settlement.

- The issue is not who comes first, the Vikings, the Polynesians, the Chinese or Irish monks. And the eco-catastrophe of diseases following the Columbian discovery brought by Euros and Africans to the Americas in Small Pox, et. al. was comparable to the 20-90% loss from diseases following Mediterranean-Silk Road trade brought by Asians and Near Easterners to Europe in the Black Plague, et. al. But Columbus is different in that he shared the information to encourage settlement, rather than keeping the Americas literally a 'trade' secret. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct, I would say even more important than Columbus was the Columbian Exchange. So far as I know, no flora or fauna were transported between the old and new world by the Vikings, so combined with the lack of information, their impact was relatively minor. --Golbez (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The Vikings were never anywhere near the US and their visit to Canada had no impact on US history or culture. Columbus had a great impact on US history (via Spanish Empire & disease) & on popular culture (and he did visit US territory--Puerto Rico 1493) Rjensen (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The Icelanders did in fact (another term for "in my opinion") share their information about Vinland in the Vinland Sagas. It is just that no one in Europe bothered to read them. How near they got to what in now the USA is not clear. Carptrash (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

'Unincorporated' territories outside U.S.

In your source, Sparrow (not Levinson, who was the editor not the writer of the article says that it was decided in Downes v Bidwell that some US territories are "unincorporated". On p. 89 of the same book, Burnett says that the case distinguished between "territories within and outside the "United States"". Both the United States and the United Nations (follow the link I provided) consider unincorporated territories to be outside the United States, and in fact the US is not the only country that has overseas territories. BTW if every territory obtained by the US became incorporated, then Iraq would have become part of the US in the last decade. TFD (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

- But the 1901 jurists in Downes case, etc. -- establishing colonial rule in Guam, Philippines and Puerto Rico -- are superseded by the Congress in 2012 law. The Burnett cite discussing 1901 America does not apply to the 21st century U.S. article here. "Insular cases" said the provisions and protections of the Constitution don't apply in ‘unincorporated’ territory until Congress says.

- Congress says the extent of U.S. jurisdiction today in the U.S. Code of Law (USC), Title 28, “Judiciary and judicial procedure”, the jurists read “state” as directed by law: | 28 USC § 3002 – Definitions that the word "State" -- in Title 28 -- means any of the several States, the District ... Puerto Rico, ... Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the [U.S.]. — Example. | 28 USC § 1251 - Original jurisdiction (a) The Supreme Court shall have ... jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States. (b) ... [jurisdiction of] all controversies between the [U.S.] and a State (i.e., states, district, territories and possessions).

- “State” at USC Title 28 does NOT mean Iraq. The Constitution does NOT “follow the flag” -- the people in a place must choose to be in the U.S., AND the Congress must agree. Congress has not adopted any Organic Act organizing Iraq into the U.S. federal republic as it has for Puerto Rico or the |U.N.-recognized Covenant of unification with the Northern Marianas.

- Congress makes the U.S. geographical extent for the official U.S. today, not 1904 jurists imposing colonial rule on Filipino rebels. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That US jurisdiction covers US possessions does not make them part of the US. CMD (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The English Parliament had absolute power to make laws for the Province of Virginia, the inhabitants were subjects (there being no citizenship), courts sitting in England were able to issue prorogative writs, and in fact removed a governor on a writ of quo warranto, all laws passed by the House of Burgesses had to be approved by the Crown and all Virginia court judgments could be appealed to the Crown. That prerogative writs could be sent to Britain's colonies was used in arguing for the right of habeas corpus in Guantanamo Bay. Otherwise the English courts considered Virginia outside their jurisdiction and accepted the independence of local courts. Obviously a country cannot possess another country unless it has executive, legislative and judicial power over it. Would you say that the Virginia was a part of England? Do you think that Bermuda, etc. are part of England today? Or Canada for that matter until Britain ceded its power to legislate in 1982? TFD (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) Nothing purports to include Guantanamo Bay, a lease-hold from Cuba -- in the “geographical extent” of the official U.S., neither Congressional Judiciary establishment, INS statue, State Department Manual, nor presidential Executive Order. Nor is Iraq a part of the U.S. as you have imagined it. You have no source to the contrary.

(2) The official U.S. encompasses people living under the federal republic of the U.S. in states, federal district, five territories – (a) American Samoa, (b) Guam, (c) the Northern Marianas, (d) Puerto Rico, (e) U.S. Virgin Islands, and other possessions. Not from Britain nor Bermuda, you have no source to the contrary.

(3) A country makes a place a part of it when it organically incorporates the people living there within its executive, legislative and judicial power. Judicially that is found at USC Title 28. Territories with lesser Constitutional status than states are incorporated into the U.S. federal republic executively and legislatively in Organic Acts for DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Covenant for the Northern Marianas -- and for Samoa in INS statute and Executive Order with the force of law. A Samoan U.S. national has standing at law before the U.S. Supreme Court. You have no source to the contrary. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

A territory is only incorporated into the US when the US says it is. Unincorporated territories are by definition territories that ha e not been incorporated. Otherwise, how are these territories any different from the examples I provided? Do you think that Virginia used to be part of England and that Bermuda still is? TFD (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) Samoa is the only "overseas territory" of the U.S. but it is still a part of the U.S. according to the State Department sources cited here. You have no source using 'incorporated territory' to define the U.S. as "states, federal district and Palmyra" because the concept is not suitable for an encyclopedia of general readership.

(2) Organic Act defined for territories. U.S. Dept of Insular Affairs (DOI) defines |Organic Act. "The body of laws that the United Congress has enacted for the government of a United States insular area; it usually includes a bill of rights and the establishment and conditions of the insular area's tripartite government". These provide explicitly for protections of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. citizenship, U.S. taxation provisions, local self-governance and delegate representation in the U.S. Congress.

(3) Six territorial places incorporated into the U.S. by court jurisdiction in USC Title 28 are incorporated into U.S. executive and legislative governance of the U.S. federal republic by Organic Act: (a) | District of Columbia home rule, (b) | American Samoa deed of cession, (c) | Guam organic act, (d) | Marianas covenant, (e) | Puerto Rico organic act], (f) [| U.S. Virgin Islands organic act.

(4) Reliable source |Bartholomew Sparrow at the University of Texas published in a | verifiable publication, "At present, the [U.S.] includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the [D.C.] and, of course, the fifty states." (Sparrow in Levinson 2005, p.232)." You cite Butler there describing 1901 judicial doctrine to dismiss Sparrow's description of 21st century U.S. governance. That misapplies Butler.

= (5) We have sources for this text: The U.S. federal republic extends to fifty states, a federal district, five territories and other possessions.[n.] I propose we [note] two things: -1- the WP:RS for text likely to be challenged, then -2- "U.S. has claimed jurisdiction over territory contested in (a) international disputes, (b) U.N. investigations, (c) U.N. cases in favor of the U.S. and (d) ongoing bi-lateral negotiations on national possession. -- expanding the narrative with you -- along the outline I've made elsewhere. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Again even the source you provide contradicts your conclusion and your arguments are just original research and therefore not acceptable. Claiming jurisdiction over is not the same thing as some place becoming part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian, regarding your #3 here, an organic act does not equal incorporation into the U.S. -- it merely represents the vehicle by which the organization of a territory's governance and administration is established. older ≠ wiser 19:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

- @ T-4-Ds, the source Sparrow says, "At present, the [U.S.] includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [D.C.] and, of course, the fifty states." This is NOT contradictory to my argument for "The U.S. federal republic extends to fifty states, a federal district, five territories [in the Caribbean and Pacific] and possessions." My paraphrase of referenced citation is not original research, this is a paraphrase of a reliable source in a scholarly publication. The publication has (a) one voice addressing "U.S.-at-present" in his article, and (b) another voice addressing "U.S.-in-1901".

- @ older≠wiser, the "organic law" organizing local territorial three-branch government -- (a) under the authority and integrated into the procedures of the U.S. government as are "states" in USC Title 28, (b) extending protections of the Constitution and standing in U.S. courts, (c) with their citizens "native-born" equal to all citizens throughout the land, (c) subject to the law of the U.S. everywhere, (d) free to travel throughout the country without visa, (e) represented in the Congress -- organic law is how five territories and the District of Columbia are incorporated into the U.S. without becoming states.

- The colonial doctrine of courts making a judicial fiction in 'unincorporated' territory by fiat -- allowing USG to govern Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico apart from the Constitution -- is no longer permissible by the Congress representing the people of the U.S. We see in Rassmussen that even in territorial Alaska -- U.S. citizens gained protection of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, even though 'unincorporated'. So it is, that by making territorial citizens by Jus soli the territory and citizens are incorporated into the U.S.

- Those who would determine citizenship by blood, not place, are disagreed with the preponderance of U.S. people and Congress. The Insular Cases repeated references to withholding Constitutional government from those without "Anglo-Saxon traditions" by establishing 'unincorporated' territory is just such a racial, citizenship-rights-by-bloodline argument.

- Jus sanguinis citizenship is allowed in the U.S. federal republic in Samoa -- the only U.S. nationals by birth, though they may become U.S. citizens by residing a year in Guam, etc., recognized Amerindian tribes, where individuals may choose U.S. citizenship, and others. But this view is not found in the preponderance of the literature regarding the United States its citizenship or its geographical extent. The U.S. uses "citizenship of the soil", the places of the U.S. federal republic' jurisdiction, so the WP article should be guided by where the U.S. citizens are born, plus Samoa with its U.S. citizens. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You are in fact mistaken about organic law. An organic act by itself does not incorporate a territory into the U.S. It is an essential step in becoming a state, but by itself is nothing more than the organization of government in a territory. Sorry, but you'll need to do better present your misinterpretations. older ≠ wiser 00:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Several editors have explained to you why you are wrong and you have not replied to their points, and provided sources for you to consider. You have not provided anything except one quote taken out of context, and your own arguments. If you continue I will apply to ANI for you to be topic-banned. TFD (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

- Sean D. Murphy in | United States Practice in International Law: 2002-2004 (2005) ISBN 978-0-521-75071-4, Cambridge U. Pr., Murphy quotes Judge Charles S. Chapel, “within the United States [are] individual states, districts and territories.” (Murphy p. 34) .

- In the Ponce case, the federal district court ruled “Puerto Rico … had evolved into an incorporated territory due to … Congressional actions.” including U.S. citizenship ... and … the [U.S.] system of government and laws, [where] an Article III federal court sits.” (p. 5).

- At T-4-Ds source, | Overseas Territories Review we see in 2005 an undefined majority of ~30 Puerto Ricans petitioners were dissatisfied with U.S. governance. Echoing “many other speakers”, the Cuban representative tabled the motion, reported as emphasizing --Action on Puerto Rico’s status should be based on decolonization alternatives enshrined in international law.--

- Because Puerto Rico is removed from the list of U.N. Non-Self-Governing Territories, changes in the relationship are to be made through mutual consent with Congress. If Cuba wants Puerto Rican independence tabled at the U.N. in 2005, perhaps it is time for Wikipedia to catch up -- include Puerto Rico in the official geographical extent of the U.S. in its country article. You will note my opponents' sources again -- since October-- support my position whenever they are investigated. What is the ANI? Do they impartially investigate sources for us? Gotta take a break for holiday. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You are misreading Chapel. He wrote that courts had agreed that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations "is binding on all jurisdictions within the United States, individual states, districts and territories." You are correct about what the opinion in Ponce, but the judge admits that his findings are in conflict with previous supreme court findings and the case is still pending. Ultimately the Supreme Court may agree with the judge, but in the meantime it means little. The point of the "Overseas Territories Review" is that Puerto Rico is not part of the US, but a non-self governing territory or colony, and therefore the US must either incorporate it into the U.S., give it independence, or allow it to enter a free association as an associated state. The US claims it is an associated state. No one claims that it is an incorporated territory - if it were then it would be outside the jurisiction of the Review. The UN had removed Puerto Rico from the list when they decided to recognize it as an "uncorporated organized commonwealth of the United States". They did not recognize it as part of the US. None of your sources support your position. We have now examined all your sources and you must stop pushing your views. You may believe that Puerto Rico is part of the US, and you may be correct. But articles must reflect mainstream opinion and until that changes, these territories must be considered to be outside the US. ANI is a noticeboard where editors may be among other things banned from editing specific articles. TFD (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

- You may recall that DeToqueville observed lawyers were America’s priestly class. Nevertheless, were I to be in court, I would want the legal team of "TFD" and "The Four Deuces" on my side. When I write, Sourc X = A extent, your habit is to reply X = ~A or ~X = A. You make a reply without sources to support your position, such as, Source Y = ~A extent. Chapel is clear, the U.S. has internal polities, from an international perspective -- states, districts and territories -- without distinction. The country-article should introduce the nation internationally recognized by the U.N. The point of the OTR piece is that a U.N. panel did not act on the petition. The Cuban recommended regular international procedures for petitioners, the article reminded readers that meant mutual negotiation, not the U.N.

- The motion that you correctly summarize was tabled indefinitely. That means petition will not actively define U.N. relations with the United States as individual states, districts and territories. The tabled resolution of two dozen private petitioners does not meet the significance test for the U.S. country article introduction. The search engine hit count is not a reliable source, nor is it "mainstream".

- Looking at the referenced cites, nowhere do we find “Puerto Rico is independent of the U.S.” In 2012 there may be native-born U.S. citizens resident in a place that is not incorporated as a state – unimaginable in the U.S. of 1904 injustice. The links to narrow arcane definitions of “unincorporated” term used to perpetrate that 1904 injustice nowhere declare that today, "the official U.S. is states, a federal district and Palmyra Atoll” because the concept not “mainstream” in the 21st century -- nor is the 1904 injustice.

- The U.S. country-article first-sentence should report that the geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic is states, federal district and territories. This is description is found in reliable secondary sources of (1) international law, (2) history and geopolitics, -- and primary sources of (3) executive order, (4) state department manual, (5) Congressional statute and (6) federal court. There is no mainstream source provided to the contrary that the U.S. is officially, solely 'incorporated' territory of 50 states, federal district and Palmyra Atoll holding that no other territory is a part of the United States.

- The dispute is where to find governing WP country-article fist-sentence policy. (1) superceded 1904 judicial fiat, or (2) subsequent reenacted expanded 1950s INA statute, 2005 executive order, 2007 federal court, current U.N. usage and France country article precedent describing the official country including dependent territories of citizens and nationals. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The United Nations does not recognize the overseas territories as part of the United States but as dependent territories. "Dependent areas are territories governed by a sovereign state but they are not part of the motherland or mainland and they often have a certain degree of autonomy represented by a local government, but they do not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a state."[4] Puerto Rico is listed as a country on the UN website.[5] The dispute between Cuba and the US is not whether PR is part of the US, but whether it is a colony or an associated state. If it were part of the US, then it would not be considered an "overseas territory" and hence Cuba's proposal could not have come up. Note that people born in all nations of the British Commonwealth were considered full "British subjects" with equivalent rights as people born in the UK until 1947, yet that did not mean that India was part of the UK. TFD (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

- To locate the official U.S. extent, begin where its citizens are located. In State Department Consular Affairs Manual, | Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth in the U.S page 3, references Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), that “the term 'United States, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.”

- U.S. State Department defines | Unincorporated territory as "outlying possession" on page 3, then does not use the defunct term of injustice. | Consular Affairs Manual references INA statute, "Outlying possessions of the United States" is restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island. (page 6) Under international law and Supreme Court dicta, inhabitants of those [other] territories, (Midway, Wake, Johnston, and other [uninhabited] islands) would be considered non-citizen, U.S. nationals. (page 7) You confuse judicial restraint by the PR federal district judge ruling PR incorporated, but failing to rule for the federal district for Guam. In any case, the judge did NOT claim incompetence for PR jurisdiction until an appeal might be taken up by the Supreme Court and subsequently ruled in his favor. People in all U.S. territory fall under U.S. federal court protection. A Samoan U.S. national has a case now before the Supreme Court.

- In the | Rasmussen case found at unincorporated territories. Un-incorporated territory met the standard of Congressional INTENT TO INCORPORATE when the unincorporated Alaska Territory had U.S. taxes collected and citizenship was granted. Modern U.S. territories have U.S. tax districts and federal courts with native-born citizens for all places incorporated by Organic Acts into the U.S. including District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Northern Marianas. Your first Anon.link [[2]] is not a United Nations website. But it does say, [these] do not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a [nation] state. You confuse international term 'state' as a nation-state as though it were a U.S. subdivision such as Vermont 'state'. But we know that those U.S. 'states' are equivalent in international law to other internal polities "districts and territories" from reading Murphy in a reliable source.

- U.N. websites represent documents as PDF files, and none are titled, “Cheap Hotels San Juan” Nevertheless, there we read, “In plebiscites held in 1967 and 1993, voters chose to retain commonwealth status.” That is, population under internationally supervised elections chose continued governance under U.S. sovereignty, with full citizenship, Constitutional protections under Article III Courts (NOT 1904 injustices of Army-Navy courts or later one-man Secretary of Interior dictat), delegate representation in the Congress and free travel within their entire country.

- Your ‘full British subjects with equivalent rights as people born in the UK’ does not apply. Their rights did not include free travel throughout the U.K. without passport, access to U.K. courts, nor directly elected Indian representatives in the U.K. Parliament until 1947. In the 1960s a Jamaican required a passport to travel to England, and did not have access to government aid for university education with the same standing as an Englishman. Puerto Ricans are native-born U.S. citizens in 2012, a part of the official U.S. nation-state. And again, no sources to support your lawyerly allusion that British colonial India before 1947 is legally equivalent under international law to Puerto Rico in 2012. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

American territories like British colonies

Before the British Nationality Act 1948, Indians, Jamaicans and all other British subjects had the right to live in the UK and if they lived there they had the right to vote and in fact still do. As colonies, the UK was able to set up separate local courts, but residents were still able to appeal to UK courts for prerogative writs, which was exactly the case in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. And of course American territories, like British colonies, are not represented in Congress. The legal relationship between the UK and the Raj and the US and Puerto Rico under common law is exactly the same. TFD (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

- Still no scholarly sources imagine colonial India and PR are equivalent in international law, Raj to PR as incorporated into the U.S. by Congressional Organic Act. And you suppose a WP article on British Nationality Act applies to U.S. citizenship of Puerto Ricans, but (1) WP article may not be used to source a WP article, and (2) on inspection what you suppose to be there is not, just as in the case of your Overseas Territory Review citation above. What is the source for U.S. territories are like British American colonies have no voice in Congress? American territories and the District of Columbia are represented in Congress and may vote on their committees, appointing two residents to each of the four U.S. military academies -- something the Raj never allowed.

- Read the links. | Directory of Representatives. reports there are five delegates and a resident commissioner representing the District of Columbia and the five territories I propose to name in the article-first-sentence for U.S. geographic extent. They are titled Congressman (3) and Congresswoman (3): (1) District’s |Norton, (2) Guam’s |Bordallo, (3) Northern Mariana’s |Sablan, (4) Puerto Rico’s |Pierluisi, (5) Samoa’s |Faleomavaega, (6) Virgin Islands’ |Christensen. Why would you assert they do not exist, and without sources, when I have previously provided them here? Well here they are again, not by reference but by name-link.

- | The delegates and resident commissioner “possess the same powers as other members of the House, except that they may not vote when the House is meeting as the House of Representatives.” So they vote -- today -- as equals in House Caucus meetings on the "fiscal cliff". I know you say so, What is your source that they do not represent their populations of U.S. citizens today on the Hill. No scholarship required, just search the news for their disenfranchisement in their caucus, or protest anywhere back home over some imaginary exclusion. It is no so. Even if you believe that Puerto Rico should be independent of the U.S. due to 1904 'unincorporated' injustice, Wikipedia is still not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in the country-article first-sentence geographical extent of the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Both India and PR were on the original list of non-self governing territories because they had the same status under international law. Similarly their citizens became "subjects" of the controlling states upon acquisition. Even when they were granted US citizenship, they retained Puerto Rican citizenship. Significantly, delegates from the territories cannot vote on legislation, which is the function of Congress. Even if they could, it would not necessarily mean that the territories were part of the US. TFD (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

- Still no sources show that PR -- the dependency incorporated into the U.S. -- is independent -- as India the nation-state is in the British Commonwealth. -- Yes, there is dual citizenship in nation and states, district and territories throughout the extent of the U.S. federal republic. But this proves the equivalent status of all three is indistinguishable. Organic Acts incorporate DC and five territories into the U.S. with dual citizenship and local self-government in three branches under Article III federal courts, and native-born citizenship, within the U.S.

- Of course it is significant that delegates cannot vote for legislation, that’s why all District of Columbia license plates say “No taxation without representation”. But DC is still an official part of the U.S. and so is Puerto Rico. PR should be admitted as a state, now larger than 21 others, along with their deserved 4-5 Representatives of Congress. A place not a part of the U.S. cannot become a state in it. PR is and it should.

- In the |Homeland Security Actof 2002, "The term 'State' means any State of the [U.S.], the District of Columbia, ... Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, ... the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the [U.S.]". When Barack Obama provided for the |Establishment of the Council of Governors, in 2010, the term "State" has the meaning provided in the Homeland Security Act -- that is -- states, district and territories, just as we found in the INA statute used in the State Department manual. Where are the scholarly sources to say this language does not apply for 2012 Puerto Rico? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No one said that India pre-1948 or PR today are independent. They are dependent territories, dependent on but not part of the controlling country. Do you not understand that there is a difference between oneself and one's possessions? And however different legislation interprets the word "state", DC and PR are not states, because according to the US Constitution, each state has two senators. The US Congress is empowered to legislate for any possession of the US, just as the UK was empowered to legislate for the thirteen colonies before their independance. TFD (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

- The U.S. territories are integrated into the country – just as are states—not held apart as colonies. U.S. citizens have no colonial sub-class of persons possessed as chattel, again you have no reliable source that permits confusing U.S. citizens with British subjects. The UK ruled its colonial subjects without regards to English rights or any other, local courts were abolished, local legislatures dissolved. No such thing happens in 2012 PR to its citizens -- never mind over 20 years -- as in the run-up to the American Revolution.

- It is instructive that you dismiss congressional statute as authority, whether in territorial organic acts, immigration and naturalization statutes or homeland security. Congress represents the people, for the U.S. country-article, Congress should be the authority for the extent of the U.S., not unsourced assertions of colonial oppression. We see on U.N. websites that the Puerto Rican people favor affiliation with the U.S. repeatedly in large numbers, with 80% eligible voter turnouts.

- In 1993 - 92% sought commonwealth or statehood, versus 4% independence. 1998 - 96% for statehood or court-ordered for the PPD party, “none-of-the-above” favoring enhanced commonwealth status, versus 2.3% independence. This last November, following a two-step procedure recommended by the 2011 U.N. report on Puerto Rico, 46% wanted Commonwealth, then of the total number, 47% (94%-step.2) wanted statehood or free association like Northern Marianas, versus 4% (6%-step.2) independence.

- The U.S. Congress wants Puerto Rico in its country as citizens -- there is no constitutional mechanism in place to disallow PR citizenship that you imagine without a reliable source again. And -- Puerto Ricans want to be in political union with U.S. as commonwealth, state or free association with full citizenship. In the |Special Committee decision of 20 June 2011 concerning P.R., the Syrian reporter summarized the recommendation, “an accelerated decision process regarding the status issue whereby Puerto Ricans could express their will regarding status options, and action would be taken by the end of 2012 or later” (p.6). Well Puerto Ricans have opted again by 96% for continued political union with the U.S. And the U.S. Congress agreeing, maintains defense, courts, ensures local three-branch governance protecting individual U.S. citizen rights -- as it does by 14th Amendment for every 'state' -- in Puerto Rico, an official part of the U.S. federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Putting an end to this

Clearly, no one is being swayed by arguments on either side, and with at least three editors disagreeing with VirginiaHistorian's interpretation of law and fact, and VirginiaHistorian strongly disagreeing with ours, we appear to be at an impasse. As there is, and appears to be no chance of, a consensus to change, we must remain with the status quo. Until such time as you can find other editors to join you in this, VH, there appears to be no continued reason to discuss the topic. I suggest you either wait several weeks or so to bring it back up here again, or bring it up on the talk pages of the territories. If you can gain consensus on the territory talk pages then maybe that would leak over here; as it is, you are one railing against many, and this exceptionally long discussion is going absolutely nowhere. Let's stop it now. --Golbez (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

- Well, if you say so, Golbez. It would be nice to have a source from the others, not a wiki-link or anonymous external link without context or page cite. Every post I make has a reference with textual context supporting my point. That is not railing. -- One last, 4.5 million Puerto Ricans vote with their feet to live here, to support American agriculture and successful businesses and majorities of their fellow citizens elect them into Congress from New York, Ohio, Illinois, and Idaho. Americans across the nation admire Puerto Ricans. I do not excuse the injustice of the past, I will not defend the legally or ethically indefensible, against Puerto Ricans or any other.

- Something else is going on here I cannot see, so I will again trust your discretion. Murphy, a reliable source, quotes a jurist to say international law applies to the U.S., states, districts and territories. The counter says the jurist cannot mean "territories" because of his unsupported point of view, there is no counter source. That is, the quote says, A = B-1.2.3, the reply is I misread it, because A = B-1.2.~3, without another source to split-the-difference, or to account for the two opinions in the article. I am shut out without reason. But I have not railed against the others writing 3 = ~3, 3 ≠ 3. I know you to be reasonable. If you tell me to stop, I trust you and I will defer for a bit as you suggest. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that so far you are the only one that is convinced by your original research. I was about to post a comment similar to that of Golbez. older ≠ wiser 16:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

- Thank you for your restraint, I remember the threat to bar me from this article, and I appreciate you letting me stick around to learn. I do think that there is a special knowledge operating in your wake, apart from scholarly sources in geopolitical history and international law, three statutes, six organic acts, three federal court cases, executive orders, state department manuals, census reports, united nations documents, diplomatic reporting, and three PR plebiscites. All support the position that places inside the U.S. administration with native-born U.S. citizens -- the not-states organized in DC and the territories -- are a part of the U.S., and you say I have misread something somewhere.

- Older≠wiser questioned around 22 December, What bearing does the legal status of a place have on the extent in its country, and vice versa, What bearing does the extent of a country have on the legal status of its places? Well -- I think they are definitive were we to go with international law, and in over a week there are no counter-sources, only unsupported impeachment of mine. Secret knowledge from undisclosed sources might better discussed elsewhere, and Golbez suggested talk pages on the territories, I'll try to learn more about Wikipedia before bringing it up again, but thanks to all. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

To put it more bluntly -- no one agrees with your interpretation of your sources. You appear to be trying to twist something out of the sources that is not there. older ≠ wiser 20:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

- It is apparent we are not talking about Wikipedia, so let me be blunt in return. The France country-article says (a) the Republic of France extends to its territory with French citizens, but editors here will not admit scholarly sources and subject-country government texts supporting (b) the United States of America extends to its territories with U.S. citizens. That is the Wikipedia question of editorial consistency across articles. It is rejected by allusions to the British Raj and plebiscites in Iraq, without references of any textual connection to U.S. territory. How I have misread things.

- Maybe I can address your unspoken concern. Suppose we do four things together, ala Compromise of 1850, (a) leave the federal district a rectangle from Eastern Market to Georgetown Hospital, north to encompass Embassy Row – (b) remand populated areas of DC to Maryland in the same way as Arlington to VA, adding three representatives to MD, but creating a bi-polar state politics akin to MO’s St. Louis-Kansas City divide – (c) expand the House to 441 Members and grant statehood to Puerto Rico with its four representatives – and (d) purchase townhouses on Capitol Hill south to the Navy Yard for Members and their staff with families as free government housing, along with [1] vouchers for their children’s education, or [2] sponsor a Capitol Hill K-12 DoD school with local resident vouchers as needed for classes of 15-20 in each grade.

- IF Congress were to enact those four provisions together in the next term, THEN would you concede to the United States article could follow the Wikipedia style in the France article, to include its geographic extent to territories with citizens? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

France doesn't include the non-European bits because they have French citizens, it includes those bits because they are in its constitution. Despite this, many French territories are still often regarded as dependent territories. CMD (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

- Now you have got me. We have fewer republics than France because there is less in our Constitution and more is given over to Congressional statute. I thought the statute Title 28 U.S. Code extended the Constitution to the territories just as in the French Constitution. Likewise following your link, " the Republic offers to the Overseas Territories ... new institutions ... with a view to their democratic evolution." sounds like congressional Organic Acts for U.S. territories, so I think it supports me.

- But while you see the same thing, you do not understand it in the same way. I now have nothing new to say, so on to the next thing. Thanks for hearing me out. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• On October 10, 2008, a case in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico declared that Puerto Rico no longer remain an unincorporated territory. The court says that although Congress has never enacted any affirmative language such as “Puerto Rico is hereby an incorporated territory,” its sequence of legislative actions from 1900 to present has in fact incorporated the territory. The court elaborated that the Congressional incorporation of Puerto Rico throughout the past century has extended the entire Constitution to the island, and today entitles the territory and United States citizens thereof to full enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the Constitution. Given the same, the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated."Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v Johnny Rullan, Secretary of Health of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" (Document). The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |accessdate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v Johnny Rullan, Secretary of Health of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, viewed November 17, 2012.

March 2, 1917 - Jones-Shafroth Act reorganized Puerto Rico. This act conferred United States citizenship on all citizens of Puerto Rico.

August 5, 1947 - The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution 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.

To define what is an unincorporated territory in Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922), the Court used, as an argument of non-incorporated territory, the following statements regarding the court in Puerto Rico:

The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court.

In Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962) the court cited Balzac and made the following statement regarding courts in unincorporated territories:

Upon like considerations, Article III has been viewed as inapplicable to courts created in unincorporated territories outside the mainland, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 266 -267; Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 -313; cf. Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138, 145 , 149, and to the consular courts established by concessions from foreign countries, In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 -465, 480. 18

"The inhabitants of the ceded territory . . . shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States;" This declaration, although somewhat changed in phraseology, is the equivalent, as pointed out in Downes v. Bidwell, of the formula, employed from the beginning to express the purpose to incorporate acquired territory into the United States, especially in the absence of other provisions showing an intention to the contrary.".[6] Here we see that the act of incorporation is on the people of the territory, not on the territory per se, by extending the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution to them.

July 25, 1952 Puerto Rico became a Commonwealth of the United States, with the ratification of the Puerto Rico constitution by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President and the people of Puerto Rico. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that the purpose of Congress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with a State of the Union.

The 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; ...

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.

Other fundamental rights such as the Eleventh Amendment and the Dormant Commerce Clause were expressly extended by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, the due process clause and the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment were expressly extended to Puerto Rico by the U.S. Supreme court.

The Supreme Court has indicated that once the Constitution has been extended to an area (by Congress or the Courts), its coverage is irrevocable. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say "what the law is.".

The Immigration and Nationality Act section 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(38), that provide the term “United States” definition and evince that Puerto Rico is a part of the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(36) and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(38) Providing the term "State" and "United States" definitions on the U.S. Federal Code, Inmigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1101a

For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President Harry S. Truman on June 27, 1952. Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the native-born status was retroactive. Congressional Research Service Report number RL30527 of April 17, 2000, titled "Presidential Elections in the United States: A Primer" asserts that citizens born in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as natural born citizens, and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor indicated that Puerto Rico “seem[s] to have become a State within a common and accepted meaning of the word.”  United States v. Laboy Torres, 553 F.3d 715, 721 (3d Cir.2009) (O'Connor, Associate Justice, Retired) (quoting United States v. Steele, 685 F.2d 793, 805 n.7 (3d Cir.1982) In fact, this denomination is consistent with how this term has been used in numerous and varied constitutional settings by both the Supreme Court and by the first circuit court.   E.g., Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 469-70 (1979) (fundamental protections of the Constitution extend to the inhabitants of Puerto Rico);  Examining Bd. of Engineers, Architects and Surveyors, 426 U.S. at 599-601 (same re equal protection rights);  Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 668-69, 673 (1974) (same re due process and equal protection rights;  Puerto Rico a “State” for purposes of the Three-Judge District Court Act under 28 U.S.C. § 2281);  Rodríguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1, 8 (1982) (in the context of an election for the Puerto Rico Legislature, “[i]t is clear that voting rights of Puerto Rico citizens are constitutionally protected to the same extent as those of all other citizens of the United States”);  Nieves-Márquez v. Puerto Rico, 977 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir.1992) (Puerto Rico a “State” for Eleventh Amendment purposes);  Trailer Marine Transp., 977 F.2d at 7 (Puerto Rico is a “State” for purposes of the dormant commerce clause of the Constitution);  United States v. López Andino, 831 F.2d 1164, 1168 (1st Cir.1987) (“Puerto Rico is to be treated as a state for purposes of [a criminal defendant's protection under] the double jeopardy clause.”);  48 U.S.C. § 737 (1950) (“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․”);  48 U.S.C. § 734 (1955) (statutory laws of the United States generally “have the same force and effect in Puerto Rico as in the United States”);  42 U.S.C. § 1973ff-6(6) (under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, the term “State” is defined to mean, inter alia, “a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico”).

On December 11, 2012, the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico has enacted a concurrent resolution to request the President and the Congress of the United States to respond diligently and effectively, and to act on the demand of the people of Puerto Rico, as freely and democratically expressed in the plebiscite held on November 6, 2012, to end, once and for all, its current form of territorial status and to begin the process to admit Puerto Rico to the Union as a State. Reference: The Senate and the House of Representative of Puerto Rico Concurrent Resolution --Buzity (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The question must then be asked, Buzity (ps thank you for getting involved in this discussion): Are you arguing that Puerto Rico is incorporated, or that all the territories are? Because 8 USC 1101(a)(38) specifically omits American Samoa; is that not incorporated? Do we still have the dichotomy, just with American Samoa and the uninhabited islands as the outliers instead of the other inhabited territories? Not to mention 4s USC 1973ff-6(6), which omits Guam, the CNMI and the USVI as well. (I note with great amusement that paragraph (a)(40) defines "world communism". And it's an indication of the fact that the US Code defines terms for expedience rather than accuracy. They could [and have] define the U.S. as anything they want, for the purposes of a particular chapter. That doesn't render it fact outside of that chapter.) --Golbez (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

My points is that we have United States District Court decisions like the following one declaring Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands part of the United States.

The United States District Court, District of Columbia already decided on "Alberto O. LOZADA COLON, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., Defendants" that Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands are part of the United States.

"Plaintiff’s arguments boil down to a disagreement with the Secretary of State as to whether or not he meets the relevant criterion of “intent” needed to expatriate. Plaintiff argues that he meets all of the elements: He left the United States, went to the consular’s office in the Dominican Republic, and took a formal oath of renunciation. In rejecting Plaintiff’s renunciation, the Department notes that Plaintiff demonstrated no intention of renouncing all ties to the United States. While Plaintiff claims to reject his United States citizenship, he nevertheless wants to remain a resident of Puerto Rico. The Immigration and Nationality Act makes it unmistakably clear that Puerto Rico [*46] is a part of the United States for such purposes. (See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(38), providing that the term “United States” for the purposes of the statute refers not only to the 50 states of the United States, but also Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.) Indeed, after attempting to renounce in the Dominican Republic, Plaintiff returned to Puerto Rico without making any effort to be documented as an alien under the Immigration and Nationality Act. In other words, while claiming to renounce all rights and privileges of United States citizenship, Plaintiff wants to continue to exercise one of the fundamental rights of citizenship, namely the right to travel freely throughout the world and when he wants to, to return and reside in the United States."

Reference: Alberto O. LOZADA COLON, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., Defendants

In addition we have the United States District Courts, United States Court of Appeals and the U.S Supreme Court, the U.S Congress and the President expressly extending the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico.--Buzity (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stated that Congress may unilaterally repeal the Puerto Rican Constitution or the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and replace them with any rules or regulations of its choice. Reference:"United States v. Sanchez, 992 F.2D 1143 (1993) United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Paragraphs 44 – 46)". In a 1996 report on a Puerto Rico status political bill, the U.S. House Committee on Resources stated, "Puerto Rico's current status does not meet the criteria for any of the options for full self-government under Resolution 1541" (the three established forms of full self-government being stated in the report as (1) national independence, (2) free association based on separate sovereignty, or (3) full integration with another nation on the basis of equality).--Buzity (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ponce is not settled law, just the opinion of one federal judge who disagrees with how the Supreme has decided. The extension of US citizenship to citizens and the extension of US laws and courts of overseas territories does not incorporate those territories into the homeland. Nor does the extension of US law into those territories. When one state possesses another, it has absolute power of determining the laws and government of that territory, whether or not it exercises these powers. TFD (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed this debate. I agree with TFD, Golbez, and older=wiser on this one. Our historian editor's misunderstanding of his/her sources illustrates Alexander Pope's principle that a little learning is a dangerous thing. (See An Essay on Criticism.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

How Incorporation Is Achieved: The Supreme Court Has Defined and Recognized The Existence of a Process That Leads To Incorporation.

Given the various types of territories that the United States has incorporated (Northwest Territory already owned since the Articles of Confederation; California, Mexico by war; Florida by purchase; etc), throughout several decisions the court has established a three stage process to incorporate a territory like Puerto Rico, which in its own words in Delima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, 210 (1901) :

“The question now to be considered relates to territories previously subject to the acknowledged jurisdiction of another sovereign, such as was Florida to the Crown of Spain. And on this subject we have the most explicit proof that the understanding of our public functionaries is that the government and laws of the United States do not extend to such territory by the mere act of cession.”.

It is not the same to incorporate a contiguous territory than it is to incorporate a distant territory. Neither is it the same to incorporate a distant, yet sparsely populous territory, than a distant and populous territory. In evaluating the different circumstances of different territories, that court has produced three requirements for incorporation. First, there must be affiniti between the culture of the people of the territory and the culture and principles behind the U.S. Constitution. Second, U.S. Citizenship must be granted. Third, and most conclusive, the “privileges and immunities" clause is then extended to the People of the Territory.

First, Cultural Affinity. The Insular Cases establish this principle in a very clear setting. In Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 279-283, (1901)))) the court said:

“We are also of opinion that the power to acquire territory by treaty implies, not only the power to govern such territory, but to prescribe upon what terms the United States will receive its inhabitants, and what their status shall be in what Chief Justice Marshall termed the 'American empire.' There seems to be no middle ground between this position and the doctrine that if their inhabitants do not become, immediately upon annexation, citizens of the United States, their children thereafter born, whether savages or civilized, are such, and entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens. If such be their status, the consequences will be extremely serious. Indeed, it is doubtful if Congress would ever assent to the annexation of territory upon the condition that its inhabitants, however foreign they may be to our habits, traditions, and modes [182 U.S. 244, 280] of life, shall become at once citizens of the United States. ...In all these cases (Florida, Louisiana and Mexico) there is an implied denial of the right of the inhabitants to American citizenship until Congress by further action shall signify its assent thereto.

Second: Extension of U.S. Citizenship.

We have already quoted in Downes (Supra) that “In all these cases (Florida, Louisiana and Mexico) there is an implied denial of the right of the inhabitants to American citizenship until Congress by further action shall signify its assent thereto.” However, as part of the process of incorporation, also in Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 254, (1901))it was said that the extension of U.S. Citizenship is essential:

Suffice it to say that the administration party took the ground that, under the constitutional power to make treaties, there was ample power to acquire territory, and to hold and govern it under laws to be passed by Congress; and that as Louisiana was incorporated into the Union as a territory, and not as a state, a stipulation for citizenship became necessary; that as a state they would not have needed a stipulation for the safety of their liberty, property, and religion, but as territory this stipulation would govern and restrain the undefined powers of Congress to 'make rules and regulations' for territories.

Further in Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 332-333, (1901))

The granting of U.S. Citizenship before incorporation takes form. The reasoning for this requirement is simple: The extension of the privileges and immunities clause of the U.S. Constitution, which produces the incorporation, can only happen on Citizens of the United States. Citizenship alone can be extended without incorporation; but incorporation cannot happen without citizenship.

Third: The Extension of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution.

We have already mentioned, without discussing the matter, that the extension of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution to the citizens in a territory produces its incorporation. The court, however, offers two ways in which that extension could be made. Express or Implied

In Balzac v. People Of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 306 (1922), where Mr. Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion of the Court, the meaning of “implied” was specified:

"Had Congress intended to take the important step of changing the treaty status of Porto Rico by incorporating it into the Union, it is reasonable to suppose that it would have done so by the plain declaration, and would not have left it to mere inference. Before the question became acute at the close of the Spanish War, the distinction between acquisition and incorporation was not regarded as important, or at least it was not fully understood and had not aroused great controversy. Before that, the purpose of Congress might well be a matter of mere inference from various legislative acts; but in these latter days, incorporation is not to be assumed without express declaration, or an implication so strong as to exclude any other view."

To summarize, the first and second requirements for incorporation were met by 1917. The U.S. Organic Act of 1917 (48 U. S. C., sec. 737), commonly known as the Jones Act of 1917, granted U.S. Citizenship to the residents of Puerto Rico. The problem of affinity had been overcome, moving Congress to grant citizenship.

The third requirement for incorporation is the actual incorporation of its body politic. In Dorr v. USA (195 U.S. 138, 141-142 (1904)) Justice Marshall is quoted more extensively as follows:

'On the 2d of February, 1819, Spain ceded Florida to the United States. The 6th article of the treaty of cession contains the following provision:

'The inhabitants of the territories which His Catholic Majesty cedes the United States by this treaty shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution, and admitted to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States.' [8 Stat. at L. 256.]

[195 U.S. 138, 142] 'This treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States. It is unnecessary to inquire whether this is not their condition, independent of stipulation. They do not, however, participate in political power; they do not share in the government till Florida shall become a state. In the meantime Florida continues to be a territory of the United States, governed by virtue of that clause in the Constitution which empowers Congress 'to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." (Our emphasis).

Here we see that the act of incorporation is on the people of the territory, not on the territory per se, by extending the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution to them. And the statement by Justice Marshall makes clear that incorporation does not change the status as a territory outside the federal character of the Constitution, until it "shall become a State." In Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 321 (1901) the first mention of incorporation is made in the following paragraph by Mr. Justice Brown:

In view of this it cannot, it seems to me, be doubted that the United States continued to be composed of states and territories, all forming an integral part thereof and incorporated therein, as was the case prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Subsequently, the territory now embraced in the state of Tennessee was ceded to the United States by the state of North Carolina. In order to insure the rights of the native inhabitants, it was expressly stipulated that the inhabitants of the ceded territory should enjoy all the rights, privileges, benefits, and advantages set forth in the ordinance 'of the late Congress for the government of the western territory of the United [182 U.S. 244, 322] States.'

Also in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 252 (1901) it was said:

"Owing to a new war between England and France being upon the point of breaking out, there was need for haste in the negotiations, and Mr. Livingston took the responsibility of disobeying his (Mr. Jefferson's) instructions, and, probably owing to the insistence of Bonaparte, consented to the 3d article of the treaty (with France to acquire the territory of Louisiana), which provided that 'the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the meantime they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess.' [8 Stat. at L. 202.]

This evidently committed the government to the ultimate, but not to the immediate, admission of Louisiana as a state....”

Further into Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 256 (1901) Justice Brown says:

"The same construction was adhered to in the treaty with Spain for the purchase of Florida (8 Stat. at L. 252) the 6th article of which provided that the inhabitants should 'be incorporated into the Union of the United States, as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution;"

Here we see that “the inhabitants should be incorporated.” In Rassmussen v. The United States (197 U.S. 516, 522 (1905)), the same principle is exposed:

“The treaty concerning Alaska, instead of exhibiting, as did the treaty respecting the Philippine Islands, the determination to reserve the question of the status of the acquired territory for ulterior action by Congress, manifested a contrary intention, since it is therein expressly declared, in article 3, that:

'The inhabitants of the ceded territory . . . shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion.' [15 Stat. at L. 542.]

This declaration, although somewhat changed in phraseology, is the equivalent, as pointed out in Downes v. Bidwell, of the formula employed from the beginning to express the purpose to incorporate acquired territory into the United States, especially in the absence of other provisions showing an intention to the contrary."

The Constitution of the United States was constructed to create a Union of Citizens, making it obvious that the incorporation of U.S. Citizens in a territory produces the incorporation of the territory, which would then be followed by its admission as a State if the people of the territory ask for it. The preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America in part reads as follows:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, ...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It’s a people’s Constitution; and its fundamental purpose clearly flows from Section 2 of Article IV which states:

"The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

It is evidently clear that such privileges and immunities are contained in the U.S. Constitution itself and the laws of Congress. In the Federalist Papers Number 80," The Powers of the Judiciary" (Alexander Hamilton), we find the following statement:

"It may be esteemed the basis of the Union that 'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.'"

The importance of Section 2 of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution has also been expressed in the Supreme Court (Tomes v. Witless, 334 U.S. 385, 395 (1948)):

The primary purpose of this clause, like the clauses between which it is located... was to help fuse into one Nation a collection of independent sovereign States.

"Fuse into one nation..." and nations are made of people. Thus, the third requirement for the incorporation of Puerto Rico is found in 1947 when the Congress approved Public Law Num. 362 of 1947 for Puerto Rico and which states in one of its sections:

"Sec. 7. Section 2 of said Organic Act (48 U. S. C., sec. 737) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:

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."

This was, and is, an express declaration by Congress, that in 1947 the Jones Act of 1917 was amended to incorporate the citizens of Puerto Rico into the United States, placing them at the same level as the inhabitants of Tennessee, Florida, Louisiana and Alaska when these citizens were incorporated as indicated before.

Mr. Justice Brown, in Rassmussen v. The United States (197 U.S. 516, 533-534 (1905)), makes the following statement which is relevant to this issue:

"There are so many difficulties connected with the applicability of the Constitution that it has seemed to me that the only true test was whether Congress intended to apply it or not in the particular case."

...

Indeed, I regard the whole theory of the extension of the Constitution by the incorporation of territory as a new departure in Federal jurisprudence, and that the true answer to the question whether the Constitution applies to a territory is to be found in the fact whether Congress has extended the Constitution to it or not.

The privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution is its genesis; the reason why it exists. And it was so for the Articles of Confederation.

There is more, however, to this issue than meets the eye. Of extreme importance is following the court’s opinion in Rassmusen (supra). The opinion makes a distinction between the decision on the Philipines and that on Alaska:

“The treaty concerning Alaska, instead of exhibiting, as did the treaty respecting the Philippine Islands, the determination to reserve the question of the status of the acquired territory for ulterior action by Congress, manifested a contrary intention....”

Contrary to the Philipines (and Puerto Rico), in Alaska the intention was to incorporate it by stating:

The inhabitants of the ceded territory . . . shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion.' [15 Stat. at L. 542.] This declaration, although somewhat changed in phraseology, is the equivalent, as pointed out in Downes v. Bidwell, of the formula employed from the beginning to express the purpose to incorporate acquired territory into the United States, especially in the absence of other provisions showing an intention to the contrary."

The extension of the priviliges and immunities clause of the Constitution to Alaska had the purpose to incorporate it. But in the case of the Philipines such decision was postponed until further action by Congress. Following this reasoning in Rassmussen Vs The United States (197 U.S. 516, 522 (1905)) (Supra), it can be concluded that Public Law 362 of 1947 in effect incorporated the inhabitants of Puerto Rico and repealled the section of the Treaty of Peace with Spain in 1899 in which the “political status” of the inhabitants of Puerto Rico would be subject to ulterior action by Congress! The “ulterior action by Congress” took place in 1947 according to the court in Rassmusen, whose opinion was made in 1904, 43 years earlier!--Buzity (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In Martin v. Hunter, 4L. ed. 103, the court said:

"...In view of the adjudication of this court (it) cannot assent to the proposition, whether it be announced in express words or by implication, that the national government is a government of or by the states in union, and that the prohibitions and limitations of the Constitution are addressed only to the states.... ...If the National Government is in any sense a compact, it is a compact between the people of the United States among themselves as constituting in the aggregate the political community by whom the national government was established. The Constitution speaks, not simply to the states in their organized capacities, but to all peoples, whether states or territories, who are subject to the authority of the United States."

I expand further on this issue:

"The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces,--the people inhabiting them to enjoy only those rights as Congress chooses to accord to them,--is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius, as well as with the words, of the Constitution.". Downes, 182 U.S. at 380 (Harlan, J., dissenting)--Buzity (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You quoted Taft in "Balzac v. People Of Porto Rico" (1922), "Before that, the purpose of Congress might well be a matter of mere inference from various legislative acts; but in these latter days, incorporation is not to be assumed without express declaration, or an implication so strong as to exclude any other view." No such expression has been made and the U.S. and the rest of the world recognize U.S. overseas territories as lying outside the country. TFD (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

TFD please provide your reliable sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzity (talk • contribs) 14:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

We now move to the territory per se and its relation to the geographical boundaries of the United States. That Puerto Rico is part of the geographical United States is found in the official definition of the latter:

“The term United States, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.” 7 FAM 1121.4-2 Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA)

Under this federal definition, the provisions of the U.S. Constitution that relate to the geographical boundaries of the United States and their relationships within, apply to Puerto Rico as if it were a State, fully incorporated. The Nationality Act of 1952 reads as follows:

"All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth.”

This provision in U.S. Code 1402 is significant when compared with the first paragraph of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It reads: “Section. 1. All persons born or naturalised in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Has the Court recognized anywhere the applicability of the 14th Amendment to Puerto Rico? Yes and I quote Harris Vs Rosario (446 U.S. 651, 652-653 (1980)). Said Justice Marshall in a dissenting opinion:

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 .” --Buzity (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you need to provide a reliable source for your views. So far all you have provided is your original interpretations, now please provide the "express declaration" by Congress required to incorporate the overseas territories. TFD (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Congress has made an express declaration to incorporate Puerto Rico.

The extension of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution to Alaska had the purpose to incorporate it. But in the case of the Philipines such decision was postponed until further action by Congress. Following this reasoning in Rassmussen Vs The United States (197 U.S. 516, 522 (1905)) (Supra), it can be concluded that Public Law 362 of 1947 in effect incorporated the inhabitants of Puerto Rico and repealled the section of the Treaty of Peace with Spain in 1899 in which the “political status” of the inhabitants of Puerto Rico would be subject to ulterior action by Congress! The “ulterior action by Congress” took place in 1947 according to the court in Rassmusen, whose opinion was made in 1904, 43 years earlier! The extension of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution to Puerto Rico had the purpose to incorporate it. --Buzity (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Implied declaration

On the District Court of Puerto Rico from Rassmussen Vs The United States (197 U.S. 596, 524) v. U.S. (Supra):

In the course of the opinion it was declared (p. 352, L. ed. p. 186, Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 1119):

'Alaska is one of the territories of the United States. It was so designated in that order [referring to the order of this court assigning to the ninth circuit], and has always been so regarded. And the court established by the act of 1884 is the court of last resort within the limits of that territory. It is, therefore, in every substantial sense, the supreme court of that territory.'

According to the web site of the U.S. Judiciary System, on September 12, 1966, 80 Stat. 764, the District Court of Puerto Rico became a Constitutional Court: “This act granted life tenure during good behavior to future appointments to the two judgeships for the District of Puerto Rico, thus placing the court in the same status as other U.S. district courts.”

The importance of tenure is stated in GLIDDEN COMPANY v. ZDANOK ET AL. 370 U.S. 530 (1962):

Tenure that is guaranteed by the Constitution is a badge of a judge of an Article III court. The argument that mere statutory tenure is sufficient for judges of Article III courts was authoritatively answered in Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, at 459-460:

". . . the argument is fallacious. It mistakenly assumes that whether a court is of one class or the other depends on the intention of Congress, whereas the true test lies in the power under which the court was created and in the jurisdiction conferred. Nor has there been any settled practice on the part of Congress which gives special significance to the absence or presence of a provision respecting the tenure of judges. This may be illustrated by two citations. The same Congress that created the Court of Customs Appeals made provision for five additional circuit judges and declared that they should [370 U.S. 530, 597] hold their offices during good behavior; and yet the status of the judges was the same as it would have been had that declaration been omitted. In creating courts for some of the Territories Congress failed to include a provision fixing the tenure of the judges; but the courts became legislative courts just as if such a provision had been included."

In Balzac v. People Of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922), the court used, as an argument of non-incorporation, the following statement regarding the court in Puerto Rico:

The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court.

In Glidden, supra, the court made the following statement regarding courts in unincorporated territories:

Upon like considerations, Article III has been viewed as inapplicable to courts created in unincorporated territories outside the mainland, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 266 -267; Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 -313; cf. Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138, 145 , 149, and to the consular courts established by concessions from foreign countries, In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 -465, 480. 18

The District Court of Puerto Rico is now established under Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Needless to say the District Court of Puerto Rico belongs to the First District Court in Boston. Is it possible to have a Constitutional Court in an unincorporated territory? No, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Balzac and Glidden decisions.--Buzity (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your strained interpretation of those sources is (1) a crackpot reading that would get you laughed out of any real Article III court and (2) original research in violation of WP:NOR. You couldn't even get the name of the appellate court right. It's the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Coolcaesar please respect the following policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks!

Quoting TheVirginiaHistorian: "Common sense is not original research."

Please provide reliable sources not personal opinions or personal attacks!

The arribal of the 20th century witnessed the awakening of rampant racist and imperialist sentiment toward the inhabitant of the newly acquired island posesions. In a brief concurrence in the United States Supreme Court judgment of Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465 (1979), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brennan, argued that any implicit limits from the Insular Cases on the basic rights granted by the Constitution (including especially the Bill of Rights) were anachronistic in the 1970s.--Buzity (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Professor Christopher ColumbusLangdell (19th century):

He argued that application of the Bill of Rights to the newly acquired lands was inapposite because:

"these ten amendments as a whole are so peculiarly and so exclusively English that an immediate and compulsory

application of them to ancient and thickly settled Spanish colonies would furnish as striking a proof of our

unfitness to govern dependencies, or to deal with alien races... ."41 Later echoed in the Insular Cases, this

racist rhetoric would become a significant component of the mantra running throughout these cases and their

progeny. 42

Reference:

THE INSULAR CASES: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGIME OF POLITICAL APARTHEID Page 294

Please read the following references for additional information:

• The Insular Cases: A Comparative Historical Study of Puerto Rico, Hawaiʻi, and the Philippines, Gustavo A. Gelpí.
• The Insular Cases: A Comparative Historical Study of Puerto Rico and Others Overseas U.S. Territories, Gustavo A. Gelpí.
• United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico decision--Buzity (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Extent of federal republic -- by citizenship or incorporation?

Common sense is original research. If you want to claim that the unincorporated territories are parts of the U.S., rather than present your own arguments you need a reliable source that says those arguments have been accepted. TFD (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR "You must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are (a) directly related to the topic of the article", here, United States of America, "and (b) directly support the material being presented", here, geographical extent. How shall we describe the geographical extent of the U.S. federal republic? Let us consult sources, whether they refer to (a) U.S. citizens and nationals as “states, districts and territories”, or (b) incorporated territory as “states, DC and Palmyra Atoll”.

• Judge Charles S. Chapel in Murphy’s U.S. Practice in International Law, 2005, p.34, is quoted, that courts had agreed that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations "is binding on all jurisdictions within the United States, individual states, districts and territories."
• In the |Homeland Security Act of 2002, "The term 'State' means any State of the [U.S.], the District of Columbia, ... Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, ... the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the [U.S.]".
• Professor Bartholomew H. Sparrow in Levinson’s, The Louisiana Purchase And American Expansion, 1803-1898 2005. p.232. "At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states."
• State Department Consular Affairs Manual, | Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth in the U.S page 3, references Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), that “the term '[U.S.]', when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.” From 1986, “the Northern Mariana Islands have been treated as part of the United States” by the INA.
• |Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l) '[U.S.]' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace.”
• Congress says the extent of U.S. jurisdiction today' in the U.S. Code of Law (USC), Title 28, “Judiciary and judicial procedure”, the jurists read “state” as directed by law: | 28 USC § 3002 – Definitions that the word "State" -- in Title 28 -- means any of the several States, the District ... Puerto Rico, ... Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the [U.S.]. — Example. | 28 USC § 1251 - Original jurisdiction (a) The Supreme Court shall have ... jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States. (b) ... [jurisdiction of] all controversies between the [U.S.] and a State (i.e., states, district, territories and possessions).

- To date, there is no counter source referencing "incorporated territory" for the geographical extent of the U.S. federal republic as, "50 states, DC and Palmyra Atoll”, because (1) that concept does not apply to the 2012 U.S. except as original research anachronistically applying principles of U.S. 1901-1904 injustice, and (2) no citation contrary to the six above offers a reliable source quotation connected to the geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic entire. Interpreting charts and counting search engine hits is original research at best. References to the British Raj, the French Constitution, etc. fail the WP:OR test "directly related to the article" quoted above. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Golbez date stamp 4:26 pm, 8 January 2013 above,

- (tvh.a.1) The sovereign communities in Samoa which joined the U.S. did so on condition of traditional communal property which excludes non-tribal members. The congress is lawfully bound to that condition until released by the equal party – tribally qualified Samoans in plebiscite -- to the social contract. YOU may see native tradition as second-class, but THEY have not been persuaded to your point of view. It seems that the U.S. federal republic allows for more diversity, tradition and custom than the Constitution alone allows in this matter of communal property.

- It is “not the same” for populations in organized places, -- as it says in the French Constitutional Law of July 2008, “which have expressed the will to adhere to them new institutions”. In those places of U.S. territories, the State Department Manual notes in FAM Ch.7 the Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country.

- Relative to voting for President, DC is constitutionally limited to three electors unjustly, regardless of their population relative to smaller states. That population should predominantly be remanded to Maryland as Arlington was to Virginia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Is DC a state?

Is the District of Columbia a state? --Golbez (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

- No, DC is not a state, hence the "statehood" movement there. It has congressional organic act establishing citizenship, local three-branch government, delegate representation in Congress, a U.S. tax district, and Article III federal district courts just as the 2012 U.S. territories do. It has standing to sue other 'states' as defined in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, and dual U.S.-local natural-born citizenship as do the 2012 territories, but it has not the ability to promulgate its own republican constitution by convention as do states. DC's constitution is promulgated by Congress as are those of the U.S. territories. DC is not a state, but an official part of the country as are the 2012 territories.

- The supreme law of the land has three parts: Congressional statute, treaties and the Constitution. All the states, DC and the 2012 territories must conform to it, but for Congressionally-made exceptions related to federalism in Samoa, Hawaii and Indian reservations. Congress can redraw territory lines at the creation of a state, it can redraw state lines before state endorsement as in the case of Virginia and West Virginia when Congress determines it benefits the country.

- Congress is the agent of the sovereign people of the U.S. for the U.S. as a nation-state, "states, districts and territories" as our authorities say. It may limit extension of the Constitution in 'incorporated' Hawaii, as upheld in the Manichi case, it may close reopened federal courts in favor of military courts for reconstruction in the state of Georgia. Congress can extend 'incorporation' to Alaska Territory without explicit statute as ruled in Rasmussen -- by granting U.S. citizenship and a U.S. tax district instead. This is all explained in the linked reference above in the Ponce case ruling Puerto Rico 'incorporated' by favored trade agreements, local three-branch republican government, U.S. citizenship and an Article III federal district court replacing earlier Army-Navy Courts or Department of the Interior panels -- as Congress has done in all the other 2012 U.S. territories and DC. That is why two editors have quoted directly from it here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same arguments. Countries have the power to administer their colonies in any way they choose subject only to their own constitution. There is no difference under law between the relationship between the UK and Virginia before independence and the relationship between the US and PR. The is why both the UN and US recognize PR's right to independence which can be achieved through an act of Congress, while no state or DC enjoys that right and can only secede through a consitutional amendment. TFD (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

But if DC is not a state, then how can Title 28 and the Homeland Security Act define it as a state? --Golbez (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Title 28 says "As used in this chapter..."State” means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States." Its application is limited to that chapter and notice the definition would be unneccessary if PR were a state. And the wording of the definition distinguishes between the "several states" and territories or possessions. Notice also that the other definitions in the chapter must be read as applicable to that chapter only. For example, "debts" are defined only as amounts owed to the United States. Try telling a court that you do not owe a debt to a plaintiff because debts can only be owed to the U.S. government. TFD (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Precisely my point. Because something is defined for expedience within a particular section of the US code does not make that objective fact for the universe. Just because they CAN define DC as a state, or PR as part of the country, does not make it so, it simply means they have to type less. This has been pointed out at least a half dozen times, and this conversation should not progress until it is responded to specifically. To claim an interpretation of these definitions as meaning something beyond their chapters, THAT is original research. --Golbez (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The United States of America is not just composed of State Jurisdictions. It also have Non-State jurisdictions that are part of the country.

The United States District Court, District of Columbia already decided on "Alberto O. LOZADA COLON, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., Defendants" that Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands are part of the United States. Reference: Alberto O. LOZADA COLON, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., Defendants

Memorandum on the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico President George Bush, November 30, 1992, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Puerto Rico is a self-governing territory of the United States whose residents have been United States citizens since 1917 and have fought valorously in five wars in the defense of our Nation and the liberty of others.

...Because Puerto Rico's degree of constitutional self-government, population, and size set it apart from other areas also subject to Federal jurisdiction under Article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution, I hereby direct all Federal departments, agencies, and officials, to the extent consistent with the Constitution and the laws of the United States, henceforward to treat Puerto Rico administratively as if it were a State. Reference:Memorandum on the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico - President Bush

The United States of America as a country consisted of states and non-state areas or jurisdictions, i.e. areas under the sovereignty of the United States that are not States. Reference: MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR GUAM COMMONWEALTH--Buzity (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"The inhabitants of the ceded territory . . . shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States;"

This declaration, although somewhat changed in phraseology, is the equivalent, as pointed out in Downes v. Bidwell, of the formula, employed from the beginning to express the purpose to incorporate acquired territory into the United States, especially in the absence of other provisions showing an intention to the contrary.".Rassmussen v. U S, 197 U.S. 516 (1905) Here we see that the act of incorporation is on the people of the territory, not on the territory per se. --Buzity (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Express extension of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Congress to Puerto Rico - 48 U.S.C. § 737 - 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.--Buzity (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Original research and synthesis. TFD (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

@ TFD. Not original research and synthesis. Buzity presents direct quotations from public documents with the force of law -- they speak for themselves -- which you in turn dismiss without authority. Again, you have no counter reliable source published with any text directly applicable to the subject -- United States -- and the topic -- extent of the U.S. federal republic -- only a vague nihilism, which is current in textual criticism at university, but it is not constructive wikipedian here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Golbez. Each phrase is miscast, so to specifically answer,

• “Because something is defined for expedience within a particular section of the US code does not make that objective fact for the universe.” – (a) Title 28 defines law for the federal judiciary, not for your reductio ad absurdum “expedient” typesetting. (b) The section Title 28 applies to all federal courts for all U.S. law, not “a particular” section. (c) The U.S. Congress is the final arbiter of what is U.S. in any material, objective way for the “universe” of international community and humanity. You offer no alternative source, only your POV dismissal of the Congress as the authority for the extent of the U.S. federal republic -- in a U.S. country-article for a general readership encyclopedia.
• “Just because they CAN define DC as a state, or PR as part of the country, does not make it so, it simply means they have to type less.” (a) This is fundamental, whether we shall live under the rule of law. (b) When Congress invests -- DC and PR and their inhabitants -- with the same Constitutional protections and privileges of federal law as STATES throughout the entire U.S. Code unless specifically excepted, it is not “to type less”. (c) You merely dismiss the majesty of the law, and you offer no counter authority to Congress, federal courts, executive order, an international scholar and a geopolitical historian.
• The conversation cannot progress until someone of your persuasion can find a reliable source addressing (a) the United States, and (b) the geographical extent of U.S. federal republic. -- Six linked sources above show “states, district and territories.” Buzity has demonstrated the PR-not-U.S. is unjustified. So far, NOT ONLY are there no sources to the contrary, but editors assert original counter-formulations, and ad hominem appeals to "mainstream" and "consensus", without ANY research. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sources have provided that PR is not part of the US and all you have is offbeat theories that certain federal laws and actions have incorporated them. Go away and meditate on this. The same arguments you are using apply equally to the British Empire and her colonies, from Virginia to the Raj to the Falkland Islands, none of which were part of the United Kingdom. TFD (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Sources have provided" -- is not a reliable source. You name none here, how is anyone to know? There are no such scholars or law or jurisprudence addressing the 2013 U.S. and the geographical extent of its federal republic shared by anyone -- other that the U.S. federal republic extends to states, district and territories.

- What is this -- Congressional provision for 2013 U.S. territories equal to the states (Title 28 U.S. Code) apply equally -- says TFD without citation -- (a) to [1700s] colonial Virginia, (b) to [1800s] Raj [Uttar Pradesh untouchables] and (c) to [1900s] Falklanders [-- 2,800 subjects ruled by an unelected governor representing the Queen, not the people, no direct-elected representation in Parliament, and a non-resident court which convenes once a year], but this assertion is to be accepted at Wikipedia -- without TFD citing any reference, authority or research?

- The status of a U.S. citizen does not admit to an off-handed and undocumented equivalence to (a) imperial subjects, (b) social and racial castes, or (c) colonial subordination. You have no source to say a U.S. citizen in 2013 Puerto Rico IS AS an untouchable in the British Raj without representation in Parliament. You have no source that says the U.S. is NOT states, districts and territories. -- There is again, only scattershot allusions to foreign governments in other centuries, without ANY research on your part relative to -- the subject of the U.S. or to -- the topic of the U.S. federal republic extent, encompassing its natural-born citizens in the U.S. territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Title 28 defines law for the federal judiciary, not for your reductio ad absurdum “expedient” typesetting" But Title 28 says that DC is a state. This is not true, in any sense of the word. Explain why they do this, please. --Golbez (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

- Title 28 does not declare DC a state. Definitions are provided in each section of the USC for the reader to determine the meaning of any Act of Congress. In the Title 28 | definitions section, it says where one reads (13) “state” means any of the several States…DC, PR, Northern Marianas, or “any territory or possession of the U.S.”

- This definition is used at 28 USC | Section 1251 to define the original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court. “The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.” That is, between (a) VT (state) v. NY (state) or (b) DC (DC) v. NY (state), or (c) PR (territory) v. NY (state).

- This is NOT an example of territories excluded from the extent of the U.S. federal republic. Instead it shows the U.S. extending uniformly to states, district and territories without distinction. Professor Sparrow says as a geopolitical historian, “At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [DC] and, of course, the fifty states.” (|Levinson, 2005 p.232). You challenge that I here explain how the U.S. Code works which I am happy to do, but you have no source disputing Sparrow as a reliable scholarly source, the extent of the U.S. federal republic is TODAY, states, district and territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Puerto Rico and independence

- @ TFD. You reason, (a) countries administer colonies by their own constitutions. (b) The UK to colonial Virginia is equivalent to the US to 2013 Puerto Rico. (c) That is confirmed, “both UN and US recognize PRs right to independence”, while the U.S. mechanism for state independence might be a constitutional amendment. First, none of these address the issue: the present U.S. federal republic extends to states, district and territories.

- (a) Empires administer colonies by their constitutions admitting of several classes of subjects. That does NOT apply to the U.S. in a federal republic of states, district and territories under its constitution -- uniformly administered over its citizens. You have no source that the U.S. in 2013 is an empire with different classes of citizens in its federal republic -- unless it is of their own personal, revocable choice in Samoa, Hawaii and on Indian Reservations, and the mechanism for attainment of U.S. citizenship from U.S. national status is in place for each.

- (b) You have no source that says colonial 1774 Virginia is like 2013 Puerto Rico. 1774 VA was -- without an elected governor –- without a representative in national legislature and –without a local legislature as it was dissolved. 2013 PR -- has an elected governor, -- has a popularly elected local legislature and – has a Member of Congress, |Pedro Pierliuisi.

- (c) You have no source that says the UN and the US recognize Puerto Rico’s right to independence – Congress has no mechanism providing 14th amendment due process for U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico in such an event. There is no reliable source suggesting its likelihood.

- (d) In three Puerto Rican plebiscites, "independence" vote has hovered at 3-4% of the total vote, all others of the 80% turnouts seeking some description of political union with the United States. The U.N. in no case to my knowledge has recognized 4% to overthrow 96% of the population in any place. You have no source purporting this sea-change in U.N. Assembly policy for the case of Puerto Rico. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

@TVH (a) - Or if you are a citizen of one of the territories, in which case you have no right to vote for the president or for a member of the Senate or for a voting member of the House. This is not a personal or revocable choice without moving, which indicates that, yes, people of these areas are second-class citizens as long as they remain there. This is the same for the unincorporated territories as well as the incorporated ones, with the constitutional exception of the federal district which receives votes for president. --Golbez (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

@TVH (c) - Article 4, Sec 3, clause 2 of the Constitution allows the U.S. to dispose of its territory, according to our article on the political status of PR, that is how the Philippines were released. Also, "Since 1972, the U.N. Decolonization Committee has called for Puerto Rico's decolonization and for the United States to recognize the island's right to self-determination and independence". --Golbez (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

@TVH (d) - No one is suggesting that the 4% overthrow the 96%. What they are suggesting is if the island had the right to self-determination and voted for independence, the UN would prefer that than them having no choice at all in the matter. You're drawing conclusions that are not being said. No one is saying, at all, that the island should be made independent regardless of its wishes; rather, people are saying that if those were its wishes, that they be recognized. Statehood is a form of self-determination, as is independence. The island has the right to independence - if it so wishes to have it. --Golbez (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The U.S. has the power to dissolve the Puerto Rican government, just as Britain has over her colonies. I don't know what the caste system has to do with anything. Virginia had slaves, that did not mean that they were not part of the U.S. And of course even today, Canadians, Indians, and anyone in the Commonwealth has the same right to vote in the United Kingdom as any UK citizen. The Falklands is not btw ruled by an unelected governor any more than the UK is ruled by an unelected queen. They have their own government but the UK government exercises the same control as does the US in PR. And of course the citizens (no longer "subjects") have access to British courts - the judge visits whenever needed. TFD (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The United States of America consist of States jurisdictions, the District of Columbia jurisdiction and Territory jurisdictions.

What is the different between a State and a Territory on the United States of America? The U.S. Supreme Court provide us the answer!

In Dorr v. USA (195 U.S. 138, 141-142 (1904)) Justice Marshall is quoted more extensively as follows:

{{quote|The 6th article of the treaty of cession contains the following provision:

The inhabitants of the territories which His Catholic Majesty cedes the United States by this treaty shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution, and admitted to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States. [8 Stat. at L. 256.]

[195 U.S. 138, 142] 'This treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States. It is unnecessary to inquire whether this is not their condition, independent of stipulation. They do not, however, participate in political power; they do not share in the government till Florida shall become a state. In the meantime Florida continues to be a territory of the United States, governed by virtue of that clause in the Constitution which empowers Congress 'to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States."

Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138 (1904)

In Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 256 (1901), Justice Brown says:Downes v. Bidwell

The same construction was adhered to in the treaty with Spain for the purchase of Florida (8 Stat. at L. 252) the 6th article of which provided that the inhabitants should 'be incorporated into the Union of the United States, as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution;

The U.S. Supreme Court clearly indicates that the inhabitants of a Territory do not participate in political power; they do not share in the government of the United States of America. The political power is for the inhabitants of the States.

A territory is part of the United States of America govern by congress through all needful rules and regulations , the sovereign of the territory is on the U.S. Congress by virtue of the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution. The sovereignty of a State belongs to the inhabitants of the State. In the United States of America the sovereignty of a State is shared with the sovereignty of the federal government. --Buzity (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Supreme Court has indicated that once the Constitution has been extended to an area (by Congress or the Courts), its coverage is irrevocable. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say "what the law is.".{{refn| group = lower-alpha |Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 261 (1901), commenting on an earlier Supreme Court decision, Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317 (1820); Rasmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516, 529-530, 536 (1905)(concurring opinions of Justices Harlan and Brown), that once the Constitution has been extended to an area, its coverage is irrevocable; Boumediene v. Bush - That where the Constitution has been once formally extended by Congress to territories, neither Congress nor the territorial legislature can enact laws inconsistent therewith. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply.--Buzity (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Supreme Court of the United States is unanimous in its interpretation that the extension of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution of the United States to the inhabitants of a territory in effect produces the incorporation of that territory. The net effect of incorporation is that the territory becomes an integral part of the geographical boundaries of the United States. Indeed, the whole body of the U.S. Constitution is extended to the inhabitants of that territory, except for those provisions that relate to its federal character (or political power).--Buzity (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Has the Court recognized anywhere the applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to Puerto Rico? Yes

Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of PR, 478 US 328 - Supreme Court 1986 [1] We have held that Puerto Rico is subject to the First Amendment Speech Clause, Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298, 314 (1922), the Due Process Clause of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment, Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U. S. 663, 668-669, n. 5 (1974), and the equal protection guarantee of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment, Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U. S. 572, 599-601 (1976). See generally Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U. S. 465, 468-471 (1979).

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 .”--Buzity (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Golbez. You say, “the UN would prefer [independence] than [Puerto Ricans] having no choice at all in the matter.“ -- Yes, the UN Charter is for independent nation states with populations living under a rule of law of guaranteed universal human rights. Still no source saying PR has no choice for independence, but for the sake of discussion: as of November 2012, 96% choose some form of political union with the U.S., 4% independence.

- On the other hand, the U.S. in Congress wants PR in the U.S., extends privileged trade, defense, and free travel without passport -- 3.5 million Puerto Ricans live in PR, 4.5 million on mainland U.S. The U.S. in Congress legislated Organic Acts of local three-branch government which include irrevocable Constitutional guarantees of citizenship rights. In the territory example of Samoa, it has not natural-born citizenship by the soil, only because their political community has not yet chosen it, but U.S. nationals there can easily gain permanent U.S. citizenship there -- by living a year in Hawaii. A Samoan is suing State Department in Supreme Court to change that to citizenship by petition in Samoa.

- And Samoa has the legal mechanisms to choose to be natural-born U.S. citizens were they to abandon communal property, but no source says the Congress has any interest in altering their current elective choice. Why spend time here imagining another universe? The extent of the U.S. federal republic is states, district and territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

@ TFD. You say, “The U.S. has the power to dissolve the PR government, just as Britain has over her colonies.” But you have no scholar published in a reliable source that says that. This is a fatal flaw in your opposition to the lead article sentence saying something similar to, “The U.S. is a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district, five territories, and nine uninhabited island areas.”

- Buzity shows us sources of U.S. jurisprudence with directly applicable text explaining (a) in Dorr, territories are a part of the U.S. -- just as Professor Sparrow instructs us. (b) in Downes, the sovereignty of a territory [and DC] is Congress, the sovereignty of a state is Congress and the State – the extent of the U.S. federal republic includes territories “by virtue of the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution”, -- just as Sparrow said, the U.S. has never been a nation of states only.

- As a matter of law and practice, the U.S. has NOT the power to dissolve the PR government. in Downes -- citing Rasmussen in the ‘unincorporated’ Alaska case – “once formally extended by Congress to territories, neither Congress nor the territorial legislature can enact laws inconsistent therewith.” -- Editors can search on a quoted phrase at the link to find it in the text. -- The extension of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution in effect produces incorporation of that territory, leading us to the inevitable conclusion, The U.S. federal republic extends to 50 states, a federal district and 5 territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

VH, you are misreading Downes. It only says that Congress may not pass laws that violate the U.S. constitution. Otherwise, it says, Congress is able to pass any laws whatsoever regarding the administration of her territories. In fact Congress is allowed to pass any laws whatsoever that the constitution allows.

We keep seeing the same evidence and the same arguments but no (secondary) sources that support them. And all the sources show that the United States stands in exactly the same position regarding her possessions as does any other nation. Two basic arguments have been presented, that in adminstering those territories, the president is obligated to observe the laws of the United States and that Congress is able to extend privileges to their inhabitants. However the president is always obligated to obey the law and Congress is able to extend privileges to any people outside the United States. In recent case involving Guantanamo Bay, which everyone agrees is not part of the United States, it was found that the president could not establish courts without legislation and that detainees had access to U.S. courts. In recent years, the House of Lords made similar decisions regarding the UK government in the British Indian Ocean Territory and Pitcairn Island. Under common law citizens of those territories are British subjects with the right to apply to English courts and have the right to vote, and the UK has the right to establish local courts and government. The BIOT and Pitcairn Island cases were even presented in arguments in the Guantanamo Bay cases. Under public international law, unincorporated territories such as PR are recognized as separate states administered by the United States. Only an act of Congress can incorporate these territories into the U.S. One could argue of course as does Sparrow that the United States is an empire that includes the US and overseas territories in the same way the British Empire contained the UK and overseas realms. But even if one does, the 50 states plus DC remains a unit within that empire separate from the territories.

TFD (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

@ TFD, I quote Downes, not misread it. You make only vague allusion. The point of Insular Case judge-made ‘unincorporated’ is that the Constitution does not apply to inhabitants of non-Anglo-Saxon traditions during the Philippine Insurrection 1899-1902. You -- now -- admit that today Congress CANNOT pass any laws at will as an empire can for its subjects -- or as the U.S. did for Philippines Territory such as military courts. But now Congress is restrained to pass only those “the constitution allows” for its citizens in the states and equally, irrevocably, in DC and the territories with Organic Acts. That is the point for U.S. extent, there is no ‘unincorporated’ territory with an Organic Act in 2013. The U.S. federal republic extends to its CITIZENS in organized places, 50 states, a federal district and five of its territories.

- Two secondary sources are posted for a month now, and again two days ago, (1) Judge Charles S. Chapel in Murphy’s “U.S. Practice in International Law”, 2005, p.34, is quoted, “the United States, individual states, districts and territories." -- No source uses "incorporated territory" without regard to citizens, the U.S. as merely the PLACES of 50 states, DC and Palmyra Atoll. And (2) Professor Bartholomew H. Sparrow in Levinson 2005. p.232. "At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states." -- You have no quote, you have no counter source but your own construction of my source. Can you find the passage? Can you not see there are two “(secondary) sources”?

- You say, “All the sources show the U.S. stands in exactly the same position regarding her possessions as does any other nation.” You name none of “all the sources”. The issue is the extent of U.S. federal republic, that extends to its citizens in places where constitutional law is irrevocably fixed, incorporated. You have no quote in Downes that the Constitution does not extend to the territories. Will you not read my quote?

- It may be as you say that the U.S. administration of Guantanamo Bay is “in exactly the same position regarding her possessions” as Britain has to an outlying island of 54 subjects. But there is no congressional Organic Act extending the rights of the Constitution, so it is -- as you say -- Guantanamo Bay is not incorporated. Are we then agreed to omit Guantanamo Bay from the extent of the U.S. federal republic of 50 states, a federal district and five territories: Northern Marianas, Guam, Samoa, Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious: If the U.S. is made up of those specific territories, then what status do places like Palmyra Atoll and Midway Island have? --Golbez (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Golbez date stamp 8 January 2001, 4:26 pm above,

- The sovereign communities in Samoa which joined the U.S. did so on condition of traditional communal property which excludes non-tribal members. The congress is lawfully bound to that condition until released by the equal party – tribally qualified Samoans in plebiscite -- to the social contract. YOU may see native tradition as second-class, but the U.S. federal republic allows for more diversity, tradition and custom than the Constitution by itself allows in this matter.

- It is “not the same” for populations in organized places, -- as it says in the French Constitutional Law of July 2008, “which have expressed the will to adhere to them new institutions”. In the U.S. territories the State Department Manual notes at |FAM Ch.7, that the Court also concluded: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country.

- Relative to voting for President, DC is constitutionally limited to three electors, regardless of their population relative to smaller states. That population should predominantly be remanded to Maryland as Arlington was to Virginia. -- But DC is still a part of the U.S. though not voting for president as smaller states, with a constitution approved by Congress, as are the organized territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"YOU may see native tradition as second-class" That's not necessary, is it? It's entirely possible to get through this without insulting one another.

To be specific, DC is constitutionally limited to the same electors as the smallest state, which may not always be three.

DC is part of the country, yes, as functionally an incorporated territory. Citizenship is a constitutional, rather than legislated, birthright, and being able to vote for president is an elevated privilege that other territories, incorporated or otherwise, do not enjoy. --Golbez (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

- I apologize, I mean no offense. You denominated the self-determined U.S. national status of inhabitants in Samoa Territory as "second-class" and you choose to exclude their U.S. citizens from its geographic extent at Wikipedia. I did not use the term, and I would not exclude them from the extent of the U.S. federal republic.

- The smallest state always has three electoral votes, two for their senators, and one for the Representative in the House. That is the limit for DC. California has 55 electoral votes. It is possible to imagine the states such as Montana finding a mean population equal to California in the future, but we should not make editorial decisions here based on that abstract possibility.

- Citizenship is given by Congress using due process under the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the grant of citizenship by statute in organic acts extends the constitution irrevocably to the populations in the places it makes citizens and organizes them in republican three-branch forms of government. The Supreme Court upholding Jim Crow laws in 1901-1904 did not imagine citizenship without statehood for Guam, the Philippines and Puerto Rico. But Congress made citizens in territories without making them states, extending the Constitution irrevocably there. Congress cannot constitutionally -- as the Supreme Court has since ruled the application of the 14th Amendment -- cannot lawfully create a mechanism to remove U.S. citizenship from those to whom it has granted it in Northern Marianas, Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"The smallest state always has three electoral votes". Not necessarily. That's just how the math has always borne out in the past. No one has remotely suggested making an editorial decision on this. At all. --Golbez (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

- No, it is not just because you say so. The U.S. is a nation of laws. |Article. II. Section. 1. “Each State shall appoint, … a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. Each state has two senators (Art.I.Sec.3), each state must have at least one representative (Art.I.Sec.2). 2 + 1 = 3. It does not matter how small a state gets, it always has three presidential electors -- that is the constitutional minimum.

-You propose making an editorial decision to exclude territories of the U.S. federal republic because the republic has three kinds of polities -- but all alike have with natural-born citizens, under the Constitution, with local three-branch government, electing their own governor and legislature, with local courts under an Article III federal court, paying U.S. taxes, and represented by a Member of Congress in the House of Representatives. It is true that DC and territories do not have U.S. Senators, and Congress promulgates their constitution, not a state convention.

- The editorial grounds for accepting DC and not territories? Regardless of sources from an international law scholar, a geopolitical historian, Congressional INA statute, Executive orders, and federal court holdings. -- DC has three electoral votes and the five other non-state territories do not. That is the editorial decision you would make that I do not agree to on the basis of DC electors, that you suppose you do not make. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course all states have at least three electors. As I merely said as an aside, that doesn't need to be the *maximum* for the smallest state. It is merely the minimum.

You said: "It is possible to imagine the states such as Montana finding a mean population equal to California in the future, but we should not make editorial decisions here based on that abstract possibility." Well, no one remotely suggested that the number of electors that the smallest state receives has any bearing on this, so you again are reading into something that is not there and then spending multiple paragraphs backing it up. No editorial decision has been proposed based on the conceivable number of electors the smallest state might have, so stop attacking on that front. It's not a straw man but it comes close. --Golbez (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

you again are reading into something that is not there and then spending multiple paragraphs backing it up -- seems like this is the story for this entire discussion. This might be challenging a record for inconclusive verbosity. older ≠ wiser 17:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

- Welcome back older≠wiser. Was your dictum: organization has nothing to do with governance, and vice versa, governance has nothing to do with organization? I forget. Still no sources from you, only personal attacks. Golbez always stretches me with serious probing questions, then slams me with a logical extension to the string. Take a look at our dialogue in archive 42. Now that was verbosity.

- While unflinchingly disputing me, he counselled me to shorten my posts to improve my performance as an editor. We learn from one another collaboratively here at wikipedia in some surprising ways. Though Golbez and I have not been agreeing much over the last three months, Golbez is a fair exemplar of what is good here. I don't know what else to say to your last post. I was agreed with Golbez to suspend for a month until your personal attack, and Buzity joined.

- *What sources* have you found for the U.S. federal republic as (1) in the negative, sources to say only sovereign STATES -- to dispute Sparrow, or (2) in the affirmative, sources to say (disregarding U.S. citizens under organic constitutional law), the official U.S. is only 'incorporated' PLACES -- the various states, a federal district and Palmyra Atoll? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

PR international status

You are using the logical fallacy of accident. Because PR citizens share rights of Americans then PR must be part of the US. You reject the comparison with Britain because there were untouchables in India, which btw is a lesser evil than slavery, and that the UK parliament has the power to change the British Consitution, while in the US Congress shares that power with the states. And you misrepresent sources. Can you explain why no country in the world recognizes PR as part of the US and any steps that are being taken to remedy that? TFD (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole world recognizes Puerto Rico as part of the United States. The consulates and consulates jurisdiction on the United States of the different countries throughout the world recognize Puerto Rico as part of the United States of America.

Consul (representative) - The political title Consul is used for the official representatives of the government of one state in the territory of another, normally acting to assist and protect the citizens of the consul's own country, and to facilitate trade and friendship between the peoples of the two countries. A consul is distinguished from an ambassador, the latter being a representative from one head of state to another. There can be only one ambassador from one country to another, representing the first country's head of state to that of the second, and her or his duties revolve around diplomatic relations between the two countries; however, there may be several consuls, one in each of several main cities, providing assistance with bureaucratic issues to both the citizens of the consul's own country travelling or living abroad and to the citizens of the country the consul resides in who wish to travel to or trade with the consul's country.

The office of a Consul is termed a Consulate, and is usually subordinate to the state's main representation in that foreign country, usually an Embassy, or High Commission between Commonwealth countries, in the capital city of the host state. Like the term embassy, the word consulate may refer not only to the office of consul, but also to the building occupied by the consul and his or her staff. In capital cities, the consulate may share the premises with the embassy itself.

Consular rank

A consul of higher rank is termed a consul-general, and his or her office a consulate-general. He or she typically has one or several Deputy Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls and Consular Agents working under the consul-general. Consulates-general need not have their offices in the capital city, but rather could have then in the most important/appropriate cities in terms of bilateral relations (commerce, travel, etc.). In the United States, for example, most countries have a consulate-general in New York City (the home of the United Nations), and some have consulates-general in several major cities (e.g., Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco). The same is the case for other large countries like Germany - where many consulates-general are located in cities such as Bonn, Frankfurt, Hamburg, and Munich; the Russian Federation - where many consulates-general are located in St. Petersburg, Vladivostok, etc.; Canada - where many consulates-general are located in Toronto and Vancouver; Brazil - where many consulates-general are located in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo; and Australia - where many consulates-general are located in Sydney and Melbourne.

References: U.K. in the U.S. U.K. in the U.S. There are currently 19 British Honorary Consuls in the US: UK consulates in the United States of America: Anchorage, Charlotte, Cleveland, Dallas, Detroit, Las Vegas, Minneapolis, Nashville, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Juan, Seattle, Tallahassee, Tulsa.

The following is a list of consulates located in Puerto Rico, USA as per the U.S. Department of State:

Austria, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Georgia, Guatemala, Holland, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Venezuela.

ITALY CONSULATES IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Washington, D.C. - Embassy of Italy, Consulates New York, BOSTON (MASSACHUSETTS), CHICAGO (ILLINOIS), HOUSTON (TEXAS) - General Consulates: LOS ANGELES (CALIFORNIA), MIAMI (FLORIDA), PHILADELPHIA (PENNSYLVANIA), SAN FRANCISCO (CALIFORNIA), DETROIT (MICHIGAN), SANTA BARBARA (LOS ANGELES), NEWARK, ATLANTA (GEORGIA), BALTIMORA (MARYLAND), MINEOLA, NEW ORLEANS, NORFOLK (VIRGINIA), PITTSBURGH (PENNSYLVANIA), SAINT PAUL (MINNESOTA), SAN JUAN DE PORTORICO PORTORICO). Reference: ITALIAN CONSULATES IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

German Missions in the United States - Consul General Miami - The Consulate General is headed by Consul General Eva Alexandra Gräfin Kendeffy, Germany's representative to the State of Florida, The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands in the United States of America. References: German Consulate General Miami. German Consulates General — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzity (talk • contribs) 03:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want you could search for each one of them on the Official U.S. Department of State, Foreign Consulates in the United States of America!Foreign Consular Offices in the United States. This publication contains a complete and official listing of the foreign consular offices in the United States, and recognized consular officers. Compiled by the U.S. Department of State, with the full cooperation of the foreign missions in Washington, it is offered as a convenience to organizations and persons who must deal with consular government agencies, state tax officials, international trade organizations, chambers of commerce, and judicial authorities who have a continuing need for handy access to this type of information. Note: Changes occur daily. Status of persons listed in this publication should be verified with the Office of Protocol. 2012 Consulates in the USA List - 2012 Consulates in the USA

All the Austria consulates in the U.S.A. is here: Austria Consulates in the U.S.. Belgium, Belize, Bolivia Consulates in the U.S.A. Canada Chile Colombia Costa Rica Czech Republic Consulates in the U.S.A. The whole World and the United States Government recognize Puerto Rico as part of the U.S.A. Please notice this is the official list and Web page of the U.S. Department of State. --Buzity (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Southwest Territory. In Downes v. Bidwell supra at 321–322, the first mention of incorporation is made in the following paragraph by Justice Brown:

In view of this it cannot, it seems to me, be doubted that the United States continued to be composed of states and territories, all forming an integral part thereof and incorporated therein, as was the case prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Subsequently, the territory now embraced in the state of Tennessee was ceded to the United States by the state of North Carolina. In order to insure the rights of the native inhabitants, it was expressly stipulated that the inhabitants of the ceded territory should enjoy all the rights, privileges, benefits, and advantages set forth in the ordinance 'of the late Congress for the government of the western territory of the United States.

Louisiana Territory. In Downes v. Bidwell supra at 252, it was said:

Owing to a new war between England and France being upon the point of breaking out, there was need for haste in the negotiations, and Mr. Livingston took the responsibility of disobeying his (Mr. Jefferson's) instructions, and, probably owing to the insistence of Bonaparte, consented to the 3d article of the treaty (with France to acquire the territory of Louisiana), which provided that 'the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the meantime they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess.' [8 Stat. at L. 202.]

--Buzity (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Answering your question: Midway Atoll is a small Insular Area under the Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction since October 31, 1996. 55Exec. Order No. 13,022, 61 Fed. Reg. 56,875 (1996). The Fish and Wildlife Service now has sole federal responsibility for the atoll.--Buzity (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No overseas territory, colony or dependency exchanges ambassadors with any other country, because their foreign policy is controlled by the mother country, although in some cases they may be represented by consulates. For example, until 1926, the U.S. did not exchange envoys with any countries in the British Empire except the U.K. and conducted all diplomacy through the U.K. ambassador. So again, PR is in the same position as British colonies and realms. BTW Downes says (speaking about D.C.) that the U.S. congress has no power to remove any area from the U.S., yet congress has the power to grant PR independence. TFD (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Territories foreign policy? Like the States, Puerto Rico lacks "the full sovereignty of an independent nation," for example, the power to manage its "external relations with other nations," which was retained by the Federal Government. Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus,368 F.2d 431, 435 (3d Cir.1966).

Puerto Rico possesses "a measure of autonomy comparable to that possessed by the States." Examining Board, 426 U.S. at 597, 96 S.Ct. 2264; see also United States v. Acosta-Martinez,252 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir.2001) ("Congress maintains similar powers over Puerto Rico as it possesses over the federal states."). Like the States, it has a republican form of government, organized pursuant to a constitution adopted by its people, and a bill of rights. E.g., 48 U.S.C. §§ 731b-731e. This government enjoys the same immunity from suit possessed by the States, Ramirez v. Puerto Rico Fire Service,715 F.2d 694, 697 (1st Cir.1983). Like the States, Puerto Rico lacks "the full sovereignty of an independent nation," for example, the power to manage its "external relations with other nations," which was retained by the Federal Government. Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus,368 F.2d 431, 435 (3d Cir.1966). As with citizens of the States, Puerto Rican citizens are accorded United States citizenship, id., at 434, and the fundamental protections of the United States Constitution, supra, at 720. The rights, privileges, and immunities attendant to United States citizenship are "respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union." 48 U.S.C. § 737. Finally, Puerto Rican judgments are guaranteed the same full faith and credit as are those of the States. 28 U.S.C. § 1738; Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc., 368 F.2d at 437.

It is thus not surprising that "although Puerto Rico is not a state in the federal Union, `it ... seem[s] to have become a State within a common and accepted meaning of the word.'" United States v. Steele,685 F.2d 793, 805 n. 7 (3d Cir.1982) (quoting Mora v. Mejias,206 F.2d 377, 387 (1st Cir.1953)); see also Calero-Toledo, 416 U.S. at 672, 94 S.Ct. 2080 (quoting the same passage with approval). Consistent with this common and accepted understanding, Congress frequently uses the term "State" to refer also to Puerto Rico. Indeed, it did so in the section at issue here, § 922(a)(2)(c). See also, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 1171(b) (transportation of gambling devices); 16 U.S.C. § 3371(h) (transportation of illegally taken wildlife); 18 U.S.C. § 891(8) (extortionate credit transactions); 18 U.S.C. § 1953(d)(1) (interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia); 18 U.S.C. § 1955(b)(3) (illegal gambling); 18 U.S.C. § 1961(2) (racketeering influenced and corrupt organizations); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (defining "state" for purposes of diversity jurisdiction).

More significantly, when Congress fails explicitly to refer to Puerto Rico, courts must nonetheless inquire whether it intended to do so. E.g., Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (P.R.), Ltd.,302 U.S. 253, 58 S.Ct. 167, 82 L.Ed. 235 (1937) (determining a statute's applicability to Puerto Rico is a question of congressional intent); Acosta-Martinez, 252 F.3d at 18 ("When determining the applicability of a federal statute to Puerto Rico, courts must construe the language ... to effectuate the intent of the lawmakers." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Conducting this inquiry, courts routinely conclude that Congress intended to include Puerto Rico even when a statute is silent on that front. E.g., Examining Board, 426 U.S. at 597, 96 S.Ct. 2264 (defining "State" to include Puerto Rico for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3)); Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc., 368 F.2d, at 437 (federal statute that referred to the proceedings of any "State, Territory, or Possession," applied to Puerto Rico even though Puerto Rico was not a State, Territory, or Possession); U.S.I. Properties Corp. v. M.D. Constr. Co.,230 F.3d 489, 499-500 (1 st Cir.2000) (defining "State" to include Puerto Rico for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332); Cordova & Simonpietri Insurance Agency Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank N. A.,649 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir.1981) (treating Puerto Rico as a "State" under the Sherman Antitrust Act).

...they argued that the provision's reference to "the laws of the State in which [the bribery was] committed" could not be understood to encompass Puerto Rican antibribery laws because Puerto Rico is not a "State." Ibid. Reviewing the purpose and history of the legislation, we had "no difficulty rejecting [that] argument." Id. at 804-805. Reference: U.S. v. LABOY-TORRES 553 F.3d 715 (2009) United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit --Buzity (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Foreign Embassies in Washington, DC, and the foreign Consulates troughout the United States are they help to promote the foreign country-US relations while also assisting US and foreign citizens in matters related to the respective foreign country. The States or the territories does not have the power to manage its "external relations with other nations," which was retained by the Federal Government.--Buzity (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In 1904 the U.S. Constitution has not been extended to Puerto Rico. The express extension of the priviliges and immunities clause of the Constitution tto Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress occurred on 1947.--Buzity (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Is part of the argument here that since there are consulates in Puerto Rico, that means those countries think it's part of the United States? There are at least two consulates (French and Maltese, from what I've found so far) on the Isle of Man, which is universally regarded as not part of the United Kingdom. Your argument, absent specific third-party statements to the contrary, is invalidated. The Isle of Man is a possession of, not part, of the UK, and I would say Puerto Rico has a similar (though not equal, due to the matter of the Crown) status.

"Answering your question: Midway Atoll is a small Insular Area under the Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction since October 31, 1996." But is it part of the country? Or is it a possession? That was my question. Is it a possession, meaning we still have the two-tiered incorporated/unincorporated system, or is every area under U.S. sovereignty a fundamental part of the country, like Hawaii is?

Also, neither of you have said you're willing to put in the effort to fact check the entire article for the change in definition created by this. That appeared to be a major sticking point with VH last time; if you change the definition of the country but don't verify which definition the facts and figures correspond to, and fail to note those that correspond to the different/wrong definition, you are essentially rendering the article useless. This is more than just changing the intro, the entire article has to be audited. If you just change the intro and say, "Wikipedia, you do the rest", it will simply be reverted for creating an internal inconsistency. This is not an argument against doing it; it's a challenge to see if you're prepared to do what would need to be done. This is far more than a single-sentence change, it requires evaluating the entire article. --Golbez (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(1) Every organically incorporated place irrevocably united into the U.S. federal republic under the Constitution governing U.S. citizens is a part of the country. The places such as Palmyra and Midway are unpopulated possessions administered by the Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), unorganized (no act making them organically incorporated into the U.S.), and under international law and Supreme Court dicta, “non-citizen, U.S. nationals -- Ref. State Manual of Foreign Affairs - Consular Affairs, Ch. 7. p. 6 as before.

- However, at |Status of Inhabitants of Territories Not Mentioned in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the State Department Manual observes, “because the INA defines "outlying possessions of the United States" as only American Samoa and Swains Island, there is no current law relating to the nationality of the inhabitants of those territories [not mentioned] or persons born there who have not acquired U.S. nationality by other means.” Good line of questioning, thanks to Golbez. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(2) The facts and figures for each table describe the data base. Regardless of how you view the merits of tables published at Bureau of Census, editors here need not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by re-aggregating Census data with innovative charts and graphs. In the France article, data applies primarily to mainland France and Corsica, in the U.S. article data applies primarily to mainland U.S. and Hawaii. No need to reform U.S. or European reporting systems here at Wikipedia for now. Charts in a census report do not govern the official extent of a country. The Census Department defines "natural-born citizens" in U.S. census reports to include all those born in the land of the U.S. -- including the places by name, Northern Marianas, Guam, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You have now twice conflated organization and incorporation; do you have a source stating that these are the same things? Because according to our articles here they are two different concepts. You can be organized and unincorporated (Puerto Rico), unorganized and incorporated (Palmyra), and unorganized and unincorporated (American Samoa).

What do you mean by "facts and figures for each table"? And yes, you *do* have to make the article internally consistent. I spent a week arguing this with you before, I won't do it again, simply know this: If you think you have consensus (which is not yet apparent) but change only the intro without auditing the rest of the article, I will revert you and move up the chain of dispute resolution as necessary. So be prepared with a wholesale drop instead of one sentence. And don't bother working on that until you have consensus, which still needs a wider audience. --Golbez (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Relative to the SUBJECT United States, and the TOPIC geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic, let me offer three sources: (1) Congressional Statute Homeland Security, (2) geopolitical historian Sparrow, (3) State Department manual relating to U.S. citizenship by INA statute. These and several more are found in multiple places above, archive 42 and archive 43. Please stop referencing wiki-links. They are not admissible as article sources, they are used at Talk as a kind of glossary note in the discussion. We do not have to fix all sub articles before correcting an undocumented mistake here.

(1) in the |Homeland Security Act of 2002, "The term 'State' means any State of the [U.S.], the District of Columbia, ... Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, ... the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the [U.S.]". -- (2) Professor Bartholomew H. Sparrow in Levinson 2005. p.232. "At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states." -- (3) State Department Consular Affairs Manual, | Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth in the U.S page 3, references Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), that “the term '[U.S.]', when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.” From 1986, “the Northern Mariana Islands have been treated as part of the United States” by the INA.

• Relative to the SUBJECT country-articles, and the TOPIC graphs, tables and charts, (1) at the France article, the European Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reports USUALLY "Metropolitan France", continental France and the island of Corsica. In the official extent of the Republic of France, the article includes other French "overseas regions and territories". (2) at the United States article, the U.S. Census Department reports USUALLY continental United States and the island state of Hawaii. The official extent of the U.S. federal republic is 50 states, a federal district and five territories.

- The hypothetical impact of reporting on the first line of a country-article, the official United States of America as completely as is now done for the official Republic of France, will be no more disorienting to the general reader than that suffered presently at the France article. There is no practical effect in the comparative assessment of each country in its international rank -- either next higher or next lower -- by any parameter we investigated, whether for the U.S. territories, or for the French territories; they present no "facts and figures" hurdle to reporting "official" extent. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I can reference wiki links all I want. I'm not providing them as authoritative sources, I'm providing them as gateways to information, which is why they are generally used anyway. If the other articles are incorrect, I encourage you to go to them and find consensus to correct them.

The rest of these three paragraphs, I don't see what it has to do with examining the article and ensuring all facts and figures match the changed definition of the country. Perhaps you could concisely express what you propose instead of hiding it in repetitious, flowery language.

A curiosity, though: At one point in the US Code, the country is said to include PR, VI, GU, AS, and the CNMI. In another part, it is said to include PR, GU, and the VI. And then was added the CNMI. If your reading of the code is that these areas are part of the country, then our own government seems confused on the matter.

As another aside: Please stop posting that third party source. If I see "and, of course, the fifty states" one more time I fear I will throw something across the room. Yes, we know you have that source, and yes, we know you think it's more important than all other possible sources; you have reminded us of it eight times on this page alone, and that's omitting the archived conversation. By continuing to post it you either think us idiots with no attention span or you are simply trying to hammer your point in with repetition rather than with discussion.

"The U.S. Census Department reports USUALLY" Where in the article does it say this and, if not, where would you suggest we add it in the event that the definition of the country in the lede is changed? You say there is no practical change, and you are probably right - but we still have to be clear to our readers. If some facts and figures don't change (like, the bulk of the Geography section would not change, nor Economy, nor Politics, etc.), then that's fine. But if some WOULD be changed by it - after all, the population figures given would all now be around 4 million less than proper, right? The GDP would now be short about $110 billion, which is not insignificant. Then we need to either change the figures to a new sourced version that accounts for our new definition of the country, or we need to make it explicit that they only apply to part of the country. The fact that this is apparently so difficult to do maybe says something about how our own government sees the territories. --Golbez (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

- There is no confusion on the part of the government concerning the territories. Time passes, more territories are incorporated by acts of congress – in accordance with Article IV. Sec. 3. Once the Organic Act makes natural-born citizens of a territory, the Supreme Court says 14th Amendment due process makes that grant irrevocable. The point of the references is to get beyond the U.S.-as-sovereign-states, and DC cut out of two states. The constitution does not follow the flag, it follows U.S. natural-born citizens organized into three-branch republican governments like the constitutions says it should.

- The U.S. is a federal republic where the Congress organizes governments with U.S. citizens. The point of the “unincorporated” ruling of a court was to allow Congress to organize a Guam, a Philippines, a Puerto Rico territory WITHOUT making U.S. citizens. But Congress has now explicitly made U.S. citizens in the territories, and even the 1904 judges said Congress could do it one day, just not while they were alive, as it turns out.

– TFD argues if a sovereign Russian Tsar can dissolve a territorial legislature, then Congress can. He imagines a U.S. without law -- the Constitution did not stop a Tsar, did it? and Congress must have all the unrestrained power of every other sovereign -- so why have an article in the first place if all is uncomprehendible chaos -- outside of sovereign (sic) state borders? Well, it seems as though people act together over substantial periods of time in predictable, repeated ways as though they were living together as equal citizens under a Constitution in the sovereign U.S., that’s why.

-The American colonial-minded clique began to loose serious ground with the 1952 INA statute. As of 2013, the issue is decided. The U.S. citizens in the territories shall have all the protections and immunities of the Constitution, even if that was beyond the imagination of 1904 judges who upheld Jim Crow laws. Times change. There is no confusion in this. Our own government does not deny rights to its citizens for the sake of a wikipedia chart, What are you saying? The official geographical extent should not be limited in the first-sentence of a country-article by a statistical convention for database footnotes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, you just wrote four paragraphs that have absolutely nothing to do with what they're purportedly responding to. --Golbez (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

- okay, four sentences. (1) You are not following the time line of sources. (2) Congress makes citizens irrevocably without making states. (3) Congress is restrained by the Constitution, not over territory in the abstract, it has not unlimited power over its CITIZENS in territories. (4) Americans who would have colonies died off and the WWII generation began their own anti-colonial policy of either incorporation of U.S. citizen islanders in the Northern Marianas, Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands by plebiscite and act of congress, or freeing islanders of the Philippines and the Ryrukus by plebiscite and act of congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologize; earlier I had forgotten that I had spoken of things other than just the sourcing issue, and you responded to things other than that, so my tone was curt. --Golbez (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to remedy in U.S.-PR union

@ TFD, you say “Can you explain why no country in the world recognizes PR as part of the US and any steps that are being taken to remedy that?” – ANSWER: You have no source for your assertion. Lets look at some sources.

• 18 June 2012. The |General Assembly press release dated 18 Jun 2012. The Special Committee on Decolonization is also called the Special Committee of 24. Petitioners pressed the international community to recognize Puerto Rico’s colonial status, Puerto Rico must be decolonized via the United Nations. Petitioners were denied.

- The Special Committee of 24 approved a draft resolution by consensus. A mechanism should ensure full participation and include all decolonization alternatives recognized in international law, and the U.S. should “expedite a process that would allow Puerto Ricans to fully exercise their right to self-determination and independence”. But the Special Committee of 24 resolution stated, “It was aware that any initiative for the solution of the political status should originate from the people of Puerto Rico.”

• 9 August 2012, the U.N. General Assembly did not “consider the question of Puerto Rico comprehensively in all its aspects.” |General Assembly 67th Session Agenda Item. 69. Right of peoples to self-determination. Section. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination. Doc. Report of the Secretary General (resolution 66/145), 9 Aug 2012. Human rights --addressed Ethiopia and Guatemala. Economic, social and cultural rights -- addressed Argentina, New Zealand and Peru. Special procedures address – Norway, Sweden, Finland, Congo, New Caledonia, and Palestine, NOT Puerto Rico.
• 6 November 2012. Puerto Rico held a plebiscite which followed the Special Committee of 24 recommendation: a self-determination on independence, originating “from the people of Puerto Rico”, using a two-step ballot including “all decolonization alternatives recognized under international law”. The London Guardian reported | “Puerto Rico Vote” included “commonwealth” (Puerto Rico status quo) “sovereign free associated state” (Northern Marianas), or enhanced commonwealth), “statehood” (Hawaii) or “independence” (The Philippines). -- The Guardian article linked to ABC-Univision article | “Puerto Rico Plebicscite” noting the Congress did not sponsor the plebiscite, which does not recognize its incorporated places to vote on either sovereign free association or independence as |Texas secessionist petitioners pretended to do in 2012. The Puerto Rican independence vote was about 4% of the total, 5.5% of the second smaller vote, about the same as in 1967 and 1993. The plebiscite was not binding, it was only to be reported to Congress.
• There is no problem in the world with Puerto Rico’s irrevocable political union, incorporation into the U.S. Puerto Rican petitioners to the contrary have motions tabled at U.N. hearings. U.N. special committee cannot get the subject on the General Assembly agenda. When local Puerto Rican government puts the Special Committee of 24 recommendations to a plebiscite -- without congressional approval -- the people with an 80% voter turnout vote 95% for political union with the U.S. If there is no WP:NOTABILITY problem internationally, nationally or locally, among governments or people with PR as a part of the U.S., there is nothing to remedy with the extent of the U.S. federal republic extending to states, federal district and five organically, irrevocably incorporated territories. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • As explained in Associated Statehood in International Law, pp. 44 ff., PR was recognized as a non-self-governing territory (aka "colony") until it was removed in 1952 and is now recognized as a "commonwealth" or Estado Libre Asociado (Spanish for free associated state).[6] The dispute at the U.N. is whether PR is still a colony. TFD (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    • See America the Beautiful Quarters - There will be five new reverse designs each year (one in 2021) each depicting a national park or national site in the United States of America. --Buzity (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Display of flags by the United States of America Armed Forces. — The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that, whenever the official flags of all 50 States are displayed by the armed forces, such display shall include the flags of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.’’. National Defense Authorization Act 2013--Buzity (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The White House stance related to the November 2012 plebiscite said that the results were clear, the people of Puerto Rico want the issue of status resolved, and a majority chose statehood in the second question,". "Now it is time for Congress to act and the administration will work with them on that effort, so that the people of Puerto Rico can determine their own future." Reference: White House clarifies Puerto Rico stance --Buzity (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I hope the people of Puerto Rico choose either statehood or independence, so we can stop this silly discussion. TFD (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
        • 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."
        • 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.
        • 'The inhabitants of the ceded territory . . . shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion.' [15 Stat. at L. 542.] This declaration, although somewhat changed in phraseology, is the equivalent, as pointed out in Downes v. Bidwell, of the formula, employed from the beginning to express the purpose to incorporate acquired territory into the United States,-especially in the absence of other provisions showing an intention to the contrary. RASSMUSSEN v. U S, 197 U.S. 516 (1905) --Buzity (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

@ TFD. Thanks TFD. We are agreed that a polity of U.S. citizens under the constitution larger than twenty existing states should have not just one Member of Congress, but five House Representatives and seven presidential electors. I would go further, and say, Puerto Rican statehood, even if that means increasing the House to 441 so the smaller states don’t loose a seat with the proportional reapportionment that would otherwise cost them.

- Good source that the concern for PR colonial status was dropped from the UN list in 1952. And we have the UN Special Committee of 24 saying the UN will not compel the U.S. to grant PR independence, and any further movement on the subject must be from the people of Puerto Rico. Then the UN General Assembly did not act to reconsider. Then the plebiscite last year, and independence gets 5% of the vote, even with over half Puerto Ricans living in the U.S. – one would expect those not wishing U.S. citizenship would not move there.

- Thanks to Buzity, -- we have substantial documentation that congress can in no wise create a lawful mechanism to dis-establish the local republican government of U.S. citizens under the constitution, nor to strip those who now hold U.S. citizenship of their status. I do not anticipate advocates for independence beginning a trust fund to relocate all those who would not wish to live on an independent island were it to come about. So statehood it should be, because PR and its citizens are an irrevocable part of the U.S.

- QUESTION: If the UN says PR is a commonwealth, but the Spanish translation is "free associated state", does not the Congress have a concern (obligation) under international law to enhance Puerto Rico's status to that of the "Commonwealth" of Northern Marianas -- now in free-associated-state political union with the U.S. -- if they are not now equal in all respects? Forgive me, during the U.S. 1920s occupation in Nicaragua U.S. Marines were accused by the U.S. State Department for "going native" because they believed contracts written in Spanish there should be enforced by their meaning in Spanish, and not by contradictory usage in English translation and jurisprudence. This problem was exacerbated by English mis-translations of the Nicaraguan Constitution, which I have read in the published State Department cables -- I know, original research, not for use in a wikipedia article. State Department won that one in the 1920s -- long story.

- Please don't call me on WP:SOAPBOX, especially if you are connected with the State Department. I'm just asking about the moral authority of the Spanish language as it can be used to legally bind a Spanish speaking community, in this case, relative to the English term, "Commonwealth" as promulgated for Puerto Rico, a part of the U.S. In earlier cases, the U.S. has chosen to acknowledge the need for multiple translations of government documents and election ballots -- unlike 1970s Mexico which disenfranchised 80% of its southern state populations on the grounds of no Spanish fluency, which sounds to an American ear like 'literacy test' for 1920s southern blacks. Again and again, the U.S. idea of 'citizen' carries special meaning for privileges and immunities not practiced elsewhere, and we've got more to do. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

July 25, 1952 Puerto Rico became a Commonwealth of the United States, with the ratification of the Puerto Rico constitution by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President and the people of Puerto Rico. The framers had to follow only two basic requirements established under Pub.L. 81-600. The first was the document must establish a republican form of government for the island. The second was the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that the purpose of Congress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with a State of the Union. The 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 of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is a federal law, it has been approved by the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States of America in the english version of the Constitution.

United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico - All official business of the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico is conducted in English not in Spanish.

It is important to consider that a common misconception have been led to believe that in the Act of U.S. Public Law 600 of 1950, a "new political status was created" in which Puerto Rico ceased to be a territory of the United States. The term "commonwealth" was substituted by the Spanish phrase "Estado Libre Asociado," which translates in English to "Free Associated State." This new name helped to emphasize the "new political status," as separate from the United States, though in association with "them" through common U.S. citizenship, common defense, common market and common currency, even though these conditions had been in Puerto Rico prior to 1952 as citizens of the U S. (In 1952, the Congress in addition to the Puerto Rico Constitution also approved the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act.) --Buzity (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

- okay, see if I got this. In 1950 the pre-WWII “territorial” status of Puerto Rico was found to be inadequate to a new world of anti-colonial United Nations Charter, etc. which the U.S. had sponsored. The previous term “commonwealth” was substituted in Publ.L. 81-600 with the Spanish, “Estado Libre Asociado”, or “Free Associated State”, in a style akin to the Northern Marianas. Then in 1952, Puerto Rico organized itself into a republican form of government with a Bill of Rights and “union with the United States of America”, a constitution duly accepted by Congress as it does at the admission of a state. So we don't have to recycle that evolution again.

- In 1976 the Supreme Court confirmed that the intent of the people of Puerto Rico and Congress was to accord to PR the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with a STATE in the union., without addressing presidential electors or members of congress. This may explain why the UN Special Committee of 24 says that any change in PR status must initiate with the PR people themselves, and why the UN has not take further action on the subject of PR independence “for over 40 years”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I concurred in part, dissent in part.

Yes, In 1952, Puerto Rico organized itself into a republican form of government with a Bill of Rights and “union with the United States of America”, a constitution duly accepted by Congress as it does at the admission of a state.

Why the U.S. Congress did that? 1940 Democratic Party Platform

The Democratic party platform of 1940 said:

{{quote|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.1940 Democratic Platform, July 15, 1940

No, The term “commonwealth” was created on the Puerto Rico constitutional convention ordered by U.S. congress by Publ.L. 81-600 to be the official name of the government of Puerto Rico in the English version of the constitution. It was translated to Estado Libre Asociado in the Spanish version of the Constitution. It is just a name. The name of the territory of Puerto Rico since 1952 or the name on the constitution.

U.S. Secretary of the Interior Oscar L. Chapman, under whose Department resided responsibility of Puerto Rican affairs, clarified the new commonwealth status in this manner, "The bill (to permit Puerto Rico to write its own constitution) merely authorizes the people of Puerto Rico to adopt their own constitution and to organize a local government...The bill under consideration would not change Puerto Rico's political, social, and economic relationship to the United States.

In Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 u.s. 663, 672-674 (1974) , we find the following:

“These significant changes in Puerto Rico's governmental structure formed the backdrop to Judge Magruder's observations in Mora v. Mejias, 206 F.2d 377 (CA1 1953):

"[I]t may be that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico - `El Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico' in the Spanish version - organized as a body politic by the people of Puerto Rico under their own constitution, pursuant to the terms of the compact offered to them in Pub. L. 600, and by them accepted, is a State within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2281." (My insert - Section 2281, act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 968, provided that an interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of a State statute on grounds of unconstitutionality should not be granted unless the application has been heard and determined by a three-judge district court).--Buzity (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Congress express extension of the U.S. Constitution to Guam

48 USC § 1421b u - 1968 amendment by the Congress to Guam’s Organic Act.

U.S. Congress express extension of the U.S. Constitution to Guam

(u) The following provisions of and amendments to the Constitution of the United States are hereby extended to Guam to the extent that they have not been previously extended to that territory and shall have the same force and effect there as in the United States or in any State of the United States: article I, section 9, clauses 2 and 3; article IV, section 1 andsection 2, clause 1; the first to ninth amendments inclusive; the thirteenth amendment; the second sentence of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment; and the fifteenth and nineteenth amendments.

All laws enacted by Congress with respect to Guam and all laws enacted by the territorial legislature of Guam which are inconsistent with the provisions of this subsection are repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.

In 1992, a federal appeals court rejected the contention of the government of Guam that the

1968 amendment did not extend substantive due process guarantees to Guam. The local government had argued that there was no clear congressional intent in the amendment to extend due process. The court strongly disagreed.

Guam Society of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Ada, 962 F.2d 1366, 1370 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

506 U.S. 1011 (1992): “It may be true, as Guam argues, that the Supreme Court requires a clear indication of congressional intent before interpreting a congressional action as extending a right to the people of Guam. . . . We can scarcely imagine, however, any clearer indication of intent than the language of the [1968 amendment].” The court affirmed a decision invalidating Guam’s anti-abortion statute, as violative of substantive due process rights under the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

- To recap: 48 USC § 1421b as amended, Guam’s Organic Act. Provisions of the U.S. Constitution explicitly extended to Guam –- and, to the extent they have not previously applied -- “shall have the same force and effect there as in the United States or in any State of the United States.” That is, the geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic extends to Guam.

- And, all prior acts inconsistent -- by Congress or the territorial legislature -- with respect to Guam are repealed -- to the extent of the inconsistency" with provisions of the Constitution. Congressional intent to extend the Constitution was upheld in appellate court in the 1992 Guam OBGYN case.

- By law in 1968 and on appeal in 1992, Guam is explicitly incorporated into the U.S., extending the Constitution to U.S. citizens by statute enacted, just as the Jim Crow 1904 Supreme Court required of Congress. There are no sources stating Guam is not a part of the U.S., and Professor Sparrow (Levinson 2005, p.232) says that it is, as previously referenced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Congress express extension of the U.S. Constitution to U.S. Virgin Islands

48 U.S.C. § 1561 The following provisions of and amendments to the Constitution of the United States are hereby extended to the Virgin Islands to the extent that they have not been previously extended to that territory and shall have the same force and effect there as in the United States or in any State of the United States: article I, section 9, clauses 2 and 3; article IV, section 1 andsection 2, clause 1; article VI, clause 3; the first to ninth amendments inclusive; the thirteenth amendment; the second sentence of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment; and the fifteenth and nineteenth amendments: Provided, however, That all offenses against the laws of the United States and the laws of the Virgin Islands which are prosecuted in the district court pursuant to sections [2] 1612(a) and (c) of this title may be had by indictment by grand jury or by information, and that all offenses against the laws of the Virgin Islands which are prosecuted in the district court pursuant to section 1612 (b) of this title or in the courts established by local law shall continue to be prosecuted by information, except such as may be required by local law to be prosecuted by indictment by grand jury. All laws enacted by Congress with respect to the Virgin Islands and all laws enacted by the territorial legislature of the Virgin Islands which are inconsistent with the provisions of this subsection [2] are repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.

- Congress extends the Constitution as enumerated to the Virgin Islands, with “the same force and effect” there as in the U.S. or any State of the U.S., with indictments as provided in local law. In the Virgin Islands, all inconsistencies with the enumerated Constitution in prior law from Congress or the territorial legislature “are repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.” (48 U.S.C. § 1561) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Congress express extension of the U.S. Constitution to Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands

CNMI Covenant Provisions of the Constitution of the United States will be applicable within the Northern Mariana Islands as if the Northern Mariana Islands were one of the several States: Article I, Section 9, Clauses 2, 3, and 8; Article I, Section 10, Clauses 1 and 3; Article IV, Section 1 and Section 2, Clauses 1 and 2; Amendments 1 through 9, inclusive; Amendment 13; Amendment 14, Section 1; Amendment 15; Amendment 19; and Amendment 26; provided, however, that neither trial by jury nor indictment by grand jury shall be required in any civil action or criminal prosecution based on local law, except where required by local law. Other provisions of or amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which do not apply of their own force within the Northern Mariana Islands, will be applicable within the Northern Mariana Islands only with the approval of the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands and of the Government of the United States.

Case Annotations: In re "C.T.M.", 1 N.M.I. 410--413; Commonwealth v. Peters, 1 N.M.I. 466--473; Commonwealth v. Hanada, 2 N.M.I. 343--348; Commonwealth v. Oden, 3 N.M.I. 186 (1992), aff'd, 19 F.3d 26 (9th Cir. 1994); Santos v. Nansay Micronesia, Inc., 4 N.M.I. 155 (1994), appeal dismissed, 76 F.3d 299 (9th Cir. 1996); Sablan v. Tenorio, 4 N.M.I. 351--358.

U.S. Law, Applicability of

—Constitution: Particular Provisions Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, concerning right to jury trial in civil actions, applies within the Commonwealth. Covenant § 501(a). Santos v. Nansay Micronesia, Inc., 4 N.M.I. 155 (1994), appeal dismissed, 76 F.3d 299 (9th Cir. 1996).

Double Jeopardy Clause of Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, providing that no person shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, is applicable to the Commonwealth. Covenant § 501(a). Commonwealth v. Oden, 3 N.M.I. 186 (1992), aff'd, 19 F.3d 26 (9th Cir. 1994).

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is made applicable to the Commonwealth by Covenant § 501(a). Commonwealth v. Hanada, 2 N.M.I. 343 (1991).

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been made applicable to the Commonwealth pursuant to Covenant § 501(a). In re "C.T.M.," 1 N.M.I. 410 (1990).--Buzity (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

- In a covenant of political union, Congress extends the Constitution in enumerated provisions to the Northern Marianas Islands, as if it were one of the several STATES, with juries as provided in local law. Subsequent federal court cases 1990-1994 held that additional provisions of the Constitution applied to U.S. citizens there without explicit act of congress, including the 5th, 6th, 7th and 14th Amendments. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Smaller insular areas

TERRITORY OF HAWAII DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244, 305 (1901)

Statement by Mr. Justice Brown:

"Thus, during the administration of President Pierce, in 1854, a draft of a treaty for the annexation of Hawaii was agreed upon, but, owing to the death of the King of the Hawaiian islands, was not executed. The 2d article of the proposed treaty provided as follows (Ex. Doc. Senate, 55th Congress, 2d sess., Report No. 681, Calendar No. 747, p. 91):

Article 2.

The Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands shall be incorporated into the American Union as a state, enjoying the same degree of sovereignty as other states, and admitted as such as soon as it can be done in consistency with the principles and requirements of the Federal Constitution, to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of a state as aforesaid, on a perfect equality with the other states of the Union.

In 1900, in a law that remains in force, the Congress extended the Constitution in its entirety to the ninth area, Palmyra Atoll. Palmyra was

once part of the Territory of Hawaii, but was expressly excluded when Hawaii became a state. The Constitution continues to apply in its entirety." :Once extended, the Constitution cannot be withdrawn as per the U.S. Supreme Court.

The other eight territories not organized of the United States to which only “fundamental” personal rights under the Constitution applies since Constitution extended ex proprio vigore (by its own force) to the territories as per the U.S. Supreme Court. Supreme Court held that fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution are extend to the territories under the sovereignty of the United States of America. Reference Boumediene v. Bush --Buzity (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

- These “smaller insular areas” with only fundamental personal rights under the Constitution applicable, would be those UNINHABITED nine acquired by the U.S. mostly for navy coaling stations or guano production, now administered by the Interior Department: Howard, Baker, Jarvis, Navassa, Johnston, Midway, Palmyra, Wake, Kingman Reef. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

TIME OUT for housekeeping

Dear, dear lawyers of all persuasions, please collapse the text of each post so that it can be read on one screen. single line {{collapse top}} return: ''Text.'' return: single line: {{collapse bottom}} -- which appears as

"My lawyerly killer citation |Pedro Pierliuisi.

Extended content
Text. Text. Text.

-- What he said, so there."

- We are impressed with the citation conventions that three years of law school have girded about you. AND – forgive us run-of-the-mill sorts pushing humbly along below you big wheels at wikipedia -- we ALSO want to know what you think. Give us the cite, then collapse the verbiage so we can have ready access to what YOU are contributing to the discussion. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My dear blogging friends, here at Wikipedia, please do not post to break in-between another editor's post continuity. Recap their point in italics, then reply. It's not real time here, nor should it become so. Thanks to all. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)