Talk:Commonwealth (U.S. state)/Archive 1

Kentucky
I believe the information here on Kentucky is not correct. I don't have the book before me, but I recall in a book on Kentucky Constitutional that the first constitution, the one which took effect upon statehood, called it the "State of Kentucky" and that the style "Commonwealth of Kentucky" was only adopted with the current Constitution, which took effect in the late 19th century. PedanticallySpeaking 18:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that if that is true than you should put in under the Kentucky heading, since it is only a small stub there. --Kiki 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Article name
While this article provides interesting information on why some places use "Commonwealth" rather than "State", I can't find any real "debate" in it. Are there those who argue that "Commonwealth" should never (or always?) be used, or that it creates constitutional difficulties? As the article currently stands, there's no real mention of any controversy or disagreement. I'd suggest that unless there's some more information to be added, we might want to change the name, although I'm not sure what to. Perhaps just something like "Commonwealth (United States)". -- Vardion 01:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Vardion. This article is misnamed, since there is no "debate".  --JW1805 (Talk) 18:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest we merge Commonwealth and State naming debate and Commonwealth (U.S. insular area) into a new article called Commonwealth (United States), or something like that. That would be more logical, and would simplify links to these now separate pages in articles like Commonwealth,  --JW1805 (Talk) 19:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Vardion as well. If the state's constitution defines it as a commonwealth, then that's what it is.  there's not really any plank for debate.  I disagree with JW1805 though.  I don't think a new article is called for, but I would support merging this information into Commonwealth (U.S. insular area).  Stubblyhead 18:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is clear that people have not read both articles. They should do so. It will then become apparent to them that the articles talk about two entirely different uses of the same term. Those who simply assume a merge is appropriate because the same word is used in two different places are mistaken. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 19:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we agree that there are two separate usages of the term in the US. But, as it stands now, both articles contain both definitions (the State usage and the insular area usage).  So why not just combine them into one article?  --JW1805 (Talk) 00:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They talk about two different institutions. They only mention eachother to say that they are not to be confused with eachother. REwhite 04:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with renaming it to "Commonwealth (United States)". But "Insular area" doesn't really apply.  This article was first created by extracting parts from the articles on the four U.S. states that call themselves Commonwealths.  The point of this article is about the name itself, not the legal or practical distinction.  The four states use the name for historic purposes only.  It shouldn't be confused with Puerto Rico's use of the term is different.  I suppose I could agree to combine the two articles Commonwealth and State naming debate and Commonwealth (U.S. insular area) into a new single article, Commonwealth (United States). &mdash;Mark Adler (markles)  19:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the suggestion of moving the two to Commonwealth (United States). Sahasrahla 22:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that Commonwealth_or_State%3F ought be renamed Commonwealth (United States), and that Commonwealth (U.S. insular area) ought be maintained as it is. It makes little sense to merge articles simply because they are homophones used in the context of the same nation. Additionally, an Otheruses disambiguation ought be at the top of each article. REwhite 04:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with this suggestion. As long as we can minimize the duplicated content in each article (a disamb at the top should do the trick).  --JW1805 (Talk) 22:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

''I can't find any real "debate" in it. Are there those who argue that "Commonwealth" should never (or always?) be used, or that it creates constitutional difficulties?'' If there ever was a survey to come out I'm sure there could be some debate found. Whether people actually would I don't know but if they are like me, then there would be. I'm from a commonwealth state and I don't like the term. Not because of the state I'm from, it's because of the state that I am in. I have no option other than to be here because of my job let that be known before someone makes a comment "well then move". When one person complains about the taxes or other charges this state puts on you and another person replies with "it's because it's a commonwealth" always seems to come out! So, because it's a commonwealth that is the right to charge more in taxes etc? I think not. Sorry, had to vent just some. Like I said before, I'm from a commonwealth and things are very different there from here. Thats also why I hate the term, just doesn't make any sense to me to make it an excuse is all.


 * In the case with Kentucky it was called Commonwealth of Kentucky and adopted all the laws of the Commowealth of Virgina except those changed by Kentuck's constitions and legislature. The process and mandates were styled as "State of Kentucky" until the 1850 constitution where it was changed to "Commonwealth of Kentucky", however, certain lingering "State of Kentucky", useages occur and this is at least a curiosity legally. It has been suggested that it is "two doing buissness as" names and one was captured or reorganised so as not to default on debts in the past. The Rumor is State of Kentucky tends to operate out of Louisville, instead of Frankfort, the legislative capitol. Im not shure if this is what you meant by debate, but there are plenty of theorists on such legal issues not just the Montana Freemen

Confusing
Cwolfsheep 12:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The article uses unbracketed sources that blur the line between original content & citation.
 * The intro rambles into several different topics.

Editing
This is the boldest I've ever been so far. I've removed a lot of the quotations, and a lot of repetition. I hope it's OK. RupertMillard (Talk) 16:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico state of United States
Also Puerto Rico is an US Commonwealth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.112.96 (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Different kind of Commonwealth; there is a separate article: Commonwealth (United States insular area). Peter Grey (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Vermont
While Vermont is normally referred to as the "State of Vermont", its Constitution in at least a couple of places refers to "The Commonwealth or State of Vermont" (Chapter 2, Sec. 1) or simply as a "Commonwealth" (Chapter 2, Sec. 8). I suspect there are probably similar limited examples from other states as well. These should probably be noted somewhere in the article, though I don't think there needs to be a whole section for Vermont alone (as there are for the states that actively use the term).Cbvt (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have entered the info on Vermont, and also added Delaware. I am not aware of other states that might also employ the term to refer to themselves. --75.37.19.115 (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wording
Four of the constituent states of the United States officially designate themselves Commonwealths Perhaps this would be better worded as "...officially use the name 'Commonwealth' rather than 'State'" It should be more obvious that there is no distinction, aside from the name, between a state that uses "State" and one that uses "Commonwealth". Archons (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Move explanation
I moved Commonwealth (United States) to Commonwealth (U.S. state) last week. While there has been no objection so far, I thought an explanation was still in order. Commonwealth (United States) left the impression that the article was about the use of the word Commonwealth in the US, or that the use of commonwealth by states was the only usage of the word in the US. Previous dicussions from 2006 focused on merging Commonwealth and State naming debate and Commonwealth (U.S. insular area) into a new article called Commonwealth (United States), which would cover both uses. In the end, the former aticle was renamed, but the article on insular areas remained separate. As such, I felt that renaming the current title was in order, and was BOLD in moving it to Commonwealth (U.S. state), emphasizing the usage. I then converted Commonwealth (United States) to a set index article (a type of DAB page), as both senses are used in the US. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Independent cities
"Some vestiges of the influence of common law can still be found in some legal concepts and principles in the Commonwealths, particularly in Virginia with its independent cities, which have their origin in the old English shire system, which was a part of how early Virginia was organized." I'm questioning this. How can the system of independent cities be a vestige of English common law when their independence from the counties with which they had been associated was an innovation that didn't go into effect until 1871? —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

John Adams
As I recall from reading David McCullough's book John Adams, Thomas Jefferson looked for a large amount of assistance from John Adams when drafting the original Virgina Constitution. Given that the argument in this article (and I've not read any of this previously so I would have to actually resaerch) that Kentucky uses the phrase in part due to its succession from Virginia it would appear that three of the four states mentioned here owe at least some credit to Adams for the adoption of the phrase. Is this an idea should be expanded at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.254.4.4 (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Commonwealth (U.S. state). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060403052349/http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/pahist/symbols.asp?secid=31 to http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/pahist/symbols.asp?secid=31

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

the word "state" has more than one meaning, and this article is not precise about that
The United States has a State Department that has nothing to do with the 50 states. Affairs of state are the business of the administrative branches. Separation of church and state. The word "state" has more than one meaning, and this article is not precise about that. I'm pointing it out because the fact that Massachusetts has a State House and a State Police doesn't necessarily impact the question as to whether it's 100% Commonwealth or whether the words are interchangeable. Not that this Commonwealth/State distinction is particularly important, but if you're going to pontificate about it, be precise. 68.175.11.48 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

clarify federal criminal prosecutions
The section currently reads
 * In Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the "Commonwealth". In California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, and New York, they are brought in the name of the "People". In all the other U.S. states, criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the "State" while federal criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the "United States of America".

Nominally this does not specifically say anything about federal criminal prosecutions in Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, and New York.

A reader could however infer all criminal prosecutions (in those states) including federal ones are brought in the names of the commonwealth or people. But a reader could also think nothing is said for the opposite reason, that all federal criminal prosections are brought in the name of the US of A, regardless of state.

I propose this is made clear. The answer doesn't matter, just as long as the reader is helped to not draw the wrong conclusion. I suggest either


 * In Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, criminal prosecutions including federal prosecutions are brought in the name of the "Commonwealth". In California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, and New York, they are brought in the name of the "People". In all the other U.S. states, criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the "State" while federal criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the "United States of America".

or


 * In Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the "Commonwealth". In California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, and New York, they are brought in the name of the "People". In all the other U.S. states, criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the "State". Regardless of state, federal criminal prosecutions are always brought in the name of the "United States of America".

CapnZapp (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * CapnZapp, I have edited the page employing language from your second suggested text. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Flags
Why are set state flags relevant here?

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)