Talk:U.S. state/Archive 3

Federal police?
To emphasize that the U.S., unlike most countries don't have federal police and take their boundaries seriously, this material was inserted:

"Borders are sacrosant among the states. A person wanted for civil or criminal court proceedings by another state must formally request judicial extradition from the state in which the wanted person resides."

An editor deleted all of it, without trying to amend it, because county sheriffs issue warrants for civil procedures without state court intervention. (Isn't the sheriff an officer of the court?), I think that people who don't live in the United States should be told that borders are respected by each state. Borders cannot be redrawn (as they are abroad) indiscriminately, without local approval. Nor can states cross the lines of other states to enforce the statutes of their state. Student7 (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That passage was full of grammatical and factual errors (it implies that a wanted person to be extradited needs to request his own extradition, which is laughably wrong), totally incoherent, and clearly written by someone who was either writing in a drunken stupor or never graduated from high school or both. The actual issues are federalism versus devolution, as well as whether the federal sovereign or its components is regarded as the plenary sovereign. Borders are a mere corollary to those core issues. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * tch. tch. Please avoid WP:ATTACK, which is also (BTW) ad hominem.
 * The attempted addition may be incoherent and laughably wrong. I agree that we would not want to mislead our readers. I do not drink nor drug and have several masters degrees. Unfortunately, these attributes do not render me infallible.
 * The article is supposed to be a joint enterprise. It is still lacking this information IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How about adding something like the following in the Relationships section:

"The Extradition Clause in Article Four of the United States Constitution requires that a person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. Resolution of jurisdictional issues between State courts in civil matters can be complex. The details of Civil procedure differ from state to state, and their resolution can be complex."


 * That can no doubt stand improvement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Extradition Clause has nothing to do with civil law, and any treatment of such issues shouldn't be run in with it in that way. In any event, the proposed sentence isn't correct. There is no such thing as "resolving jurisdictional issues between states". Also, a state either has jurisdiction over a suit or not, regardless of whether another state might also have jurisdiction. If it does, but it doesn't have jurisdiction over the people, the case can go to federal court in that state (see Article III of the Constitution), which will use the substantive law of that state in deciding the case. The complex issue you are talking about isn't exactly about civil procedure, but conflict of laws, which seems to be too far in the weeds for this section. The links provided are aren't exactly relevant since they are about when states are actually suing each other, which is one of the few situations where the Constitution grants original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. -Rrius (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Undue material on Puerto Rico
Currently we have two screens worth of material on Puerto Rico, which BTW, is not a state and (if they have any sense) may never be. We have a couple of lines on California, several times larger that PR with quite a few more people. This is clearly WP:UNDUE. This statehood issue has become a bit WP:SOAPBOX and more than a bit WP:UNDUE. It needs to be forked. Student7 (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Done, as it is also an unnecessary level of detail better covered in the specific articles. - BilCat (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's back, complete with erroneaus info on the referendum that's contrary to sources. I'm issuing a 3RR to the user. - BilCat (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Texas v. White
The Supreme Court case of Texas vs. White (1869) should have been specifically mentioned and wikilinked to in the text of this article. The article on that subject in the Wikipedia is a very good one.

That Supreme Court decision doesn't say ANYTHING about a state's leaving the Union being "unconstitutional". The decision states that there are only two ways to do this:

1. Leaving with the consent of the other states - with that method of consent being unspecified in the court's decisions. 2. Leaving by the carrying out of a successful rebellion.

As for the means of giving consent for a state to leave, we can guess at some possibilities: A. By a 2/3 vote of both Houses of Congress. B. By a unanimous vote of both Houses of Congress. C. By a unanimous vote of the Senate, and a majority vote of the House delegation from every State. It would be up to the Federal Courts to decide on the rules. D. By amending the Consitution in the usual way. For example:

AMENDMENT 31 By this amendment, the states of Alaska, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Texas are allowed to leave the United States within the five years following its ratification, upon the application of each state's legislature.

I don't know when or why, so that's why I made it the 31st Amendment. Remember that to ratify an amendment requires the votes of 3/4 of the states, so that alone sounds like "the consent of the other states". In any case, the Consitution will have been changed. 98.81.12.250 (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is amazing how little sense you made in all that. The text of the article does in fact mention Texas v. White (and note that it is "v.", not "vs."); mentioning the case by name in the lead is completely unnecessary. Also, the Court in Texas v. White did say unilateral secession is unconstitutional, which you would know if you'd read it. See, specifically, numbered paragraph 7: "Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union." As for the rest, your bizarro speculation on what "consent means" (ignoring the likelihood that a regular, old-fashioned bill would do the trick) is completely unhelpful, as is your eccentric proposed amendment. -Rrius (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Leverage by federal government over states
A legal way in which the federal government encroaches on states rights is by withholding federal funding for transportation/roads for the non-conforming state. This doesn't seem to be mentioned though it is routinely placed in statutes where the federal government knows in advance that it has no legal jurisdiction over the states. I thought I saw this once in Wikipedia but now can't find it. Student7 (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean the Taxing and Spending Clause. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I had thought that it was much more pervasive than South Dakota v. Dole.
 * On what I think is a similar vein, all states have Medicaid. But each state administers it differently. It is "partly" funded by the federal government, so the feds get to specify some of the policy. I wonder if a state can "opt out" of Medicaid (for example). I realize that this may be under "for the general welfare" which may be different. Student7 (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically, any state can withdraw from Medicaid if it wants to. That creates several problems, though.  First is Mathews v. Eldridge, which acknowledges a vested property right in Social Security benefits (remember, Medicaid was enacted as an amendment to the Social Security Act).  The state doesn't have to give pre-termination hearings, but it will be hit with a ton of class actions and preliminary injunctions from Medicaid recipients about to be terminated.  So it would take several years and several million dollars in attorney fees (or an equivalent amount of state deputy attorney general salaries) to actually accomplish such a withdrawal if at all possible.
 * The second major barrier is the unfunded mandate imposed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which was an incredibly stupid idea to begin with. That is, former Medicaid recipients would then join the uninsured hordes already crowding emergency rooms, which under EMTALA would have no choice but to stabilize them.  EMTALA has already driven a lot of hospitals into bankruptcy or forced them to convert into urgent care clinics (so they are not subject to EMTALA's mandate).  Withdrawing from Medicaid would just make that worse.  So a state withdrawing from Medicaid could look forward to driving the rest of its private hospitals into bankruptcy and having its public hospitals becoming insanely overcrowded and bleeding money like a sieve.
 * The underlying problem is that good healthcare costs money but no one wants to pay for it. On the one hand, you have libertarians who don't want single-payer health care because they see how in many other countries it results in price ceilings and salary caps that drive the most talented people away from entering healthcare careers in the first place (essentially a human capital strike).  So if you catch a super-rare disease like those seen on TV shows like House, in most countries you just die (whether you're rich or not).  They simply don't have the brilliant doctors and surgeons who can diagnose and treat such things, because all those people either became biomedical researchers (that is, not frontline healthcare professionals) or went into other fields like engineering, law, and business.  But on the other hand, if you're going to have a private healthcare system where people can charge what the market will bear, then you run into certain religious blocs that oppose euthanasia or letting people die in the street because they are clearly unable to pay.  (I'm referring to the famous "cycling" problem where homeless people flatline, cycle through an ER, get cleaned up and stabilized under EMTALA, then are discharged to the street and get all screwed up again within a few weeks.)  This is why U.S. healthcare policy is such a gridlocked mess. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rico
Changing the info box number of states from "50" to "50 + 1 Applicant" is appropriate as the President has already stated he will support a clear majority vote an the status of Puerto Rico statehood is now in the hands of congress. I disagree with the changes to the info box being reverted back when clear evidence exists to the contrary. Two references were cited to support this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:C:1D5:0:0:0:2 (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Two points: First, a vote in a referendum isn't an aplication. The government of Puerto Rico has to actually apply to the US COngress, and sumbit a state constitution. That hasn't occurred yet,and will take time.


 * Second, this should be covered in the main text (and already is in the process of being added there), not the infobox. Once a new state is added, then we should update the infobox,number, but not before. - BilCat (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please refere to HR 2499 of 2009 enacted in 2010. It is arguable congress already voted to allow PR into the union by placing the wording and requirements in place for a referendum ballot vote in 2012.  US HR 2499 gave Puerto Rico the right to vote on their status.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vchapman (talk • contribs) 22:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The referendum is non-binding. There are many steps to statehood, and this is just the first one. At some point, the PR govertment itself has to apply for statehood, then Congress has to approve that. Then, PR has to draft a state constitution, the PR people have to approve it is some way, and then Congress has to approve the contitution. There's still a long way to go yet, especially given that the governor-elect hasn't appeared to support the statehood option to this point. - BilCat (talk)


 * Preamble of Puerto Rico Constitution. It was ratified by Puerto Rico's electorate in a referendum on March 3, 1952, approved by the United States Congress and the President approved an amended version by Pub.L. 82-447, 66 Stat. 327, enacted July 3, 1952, and on July 10, 1952 the Constitutional Convention of Puerto Rico reconvened and approved the conditions established by Pub.L. 82-447. On July 25, 1952, Governor Luis Muñoz Marín proclaimed that the constitution was in effect. adopted March 3rd, 1952.


 * We, the people of Puerto Rico, in order to organize ourselves politically on a fully democratic basis, to promote the general welfare, and to secure for ourselves and our posterity the complete enjoyment of human rights, placing our trust in Almighty God, 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:


 * The democratic system is fundamental to the life of the Puerto Rican community;


 * We understand that the democratic system of government is one in which the will of the people is the source of public power, the political order is subordinate to the rights of man, and the free participation of the citizen in collective decisions is assured;


 * 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 co-existence in Puerto Rico of the two great cultures of the American Hemisphere; our fervor for education; our faith in justice; our devotion to the courageous, industrious, and peaceful way of life; our fidelity to individual human values above and beyond social position, racial differences, and economic interests; and our hope for a better world based on these principles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:C:1D5:0:0:0:2 (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a US state constitution, though it probably be the basis for one. - BilCat (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico., which preamble in part reads: “We, the people of Puerto Rico, in order to organise ourselves politically on a fully democratic basis, ...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the commonwealth which, in the exercise of our natural rights, we now create within our union with the United States of America. In so doing, we declare: ... We consider as determining factors in our life our citizenship of the United States of America and our aspiration continually to enrich our democratic heritage in the individual and collective enjoyment of its rights and privileges; our loyalty to the principles of the Federal Constitution; ...

The Constitution was created "within our union" with the U.S.; with U.S. Citizenship and the enjoyment of its rights and privileges; and with loyalty to the Federal Constitution. The Puerto Rico Constitution was approved by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President on 1952.

Has the U.S. Supreme Court recognized anywhere the applicability of the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico? Yes and I quote Harris Vs Rosario (446 U.S. 651, 652-653 (1980)). Said Justice Marshall in a dissenting opinion: “The first question that merits plenary attention is whether Congress, acting pursuant to the Territory Clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const., Art. IV, 3, cl. 2, "may treat Puerto [446 U.S. 651, 653] Rico differently from States so long as there is a rational basis for its actions." Ante, at 651-652. No authority is cited for this proposition. Our prior decisions do not support such a broad statement. It is important to remember at the outset that Puerto Ricans are United States citizens, see 8 U.S.C. 1402, and that different treatment to Puerto Rico under AFDC may well affect the benefits paid to these citizens. While some early opinions of this Court suggested that various protections of the Constitution do not apply to Puerto Rico, see, e. g., Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244; Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, the present validity of those decisions is questionable. See Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 475 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in judgement). We have already held that Puerto Rico is subject to the Due Process Clause of either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment, Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 668, and the equal protection guarantee of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment, Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 599 .” (Our emphasis).


 * The preceding two paragraphs explicitly recognize, in the year 1980, that the fourteenth amendment already applied to Puerto Rico. That is only possible in an incorporated territory, though it has never been formally admitted. Justice Marshall continues in Harris Vs Rosario (446 U.S. 651, 653-654 (1980)):

“The Fourth Amendment is also fully applicable to Puerto Rico, either directly or by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Torres v. Puerto Rico, supra, at 471. At least four Members of this Court are of the view that all provisions [446 U.S. 651, 654] of the Bill of Rights apply to Puerto Rico. 442 U.S., at 475 (BRENNAN, J., joined by STEWART, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., concurring in judgement). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, that doesn't make the current constitution a US state constitution, just one of a defacto incorprated territory. I'm not saying it couldn't be accepted by Congess as-is, but it hasn't even been submitted yet. That has to happen and be approved as a state constitution by Congress. There are usually other issues that Congrees will address upon an actual application for statehood, and requirements they may set for entry. - BilCat (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Northwest Ordinance process (1787),

In practice, most of the states admitted to the union after the original 13 have been formed from Territories of the United States (that is, land under the sovereignty of the federal government but not part of any state) that were organized (given a measure of self-rule by the Congress subject to the Congress’ plenary powers under the territorial clause of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution).[10]

Generally speaking, the organized government of a territory made known the sentiment of its population in favor of statehood. Congress then directed that government to organize a constitutional convention to write a state constitution. Upon acceptance of that Constitution, Congress has always admitted that territory as a state. The broad outlines in this process were established by the Northwest Ordinance (1787), which predated the ratification.

Why the Puerto Rico section belong to this article: The Northwest Ordinance process (1787), which predated the Statehood ratification, was completed by Puerto Rico. 3.8 Millions of U.S. Citizens reside in Puerto Rico.

1. Puerto Rico residents are declared U.S. Citizens (1917)

2. Puerto Rico residents are declared U.S. Citizens at birth (1952)

3. U.S. Congress directed Puerto Rico government to organize a constitutional convention to write a constitution. (1952)

4. The organized government of Puerto Rico makes known the sentiment of its population in favor of statehood to the President and the U.S. Congress - November 2012.

Like the U.S. States, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution adopted by its people and a bill of rights. The Approval of that constitution by Puerto Rico's electorate, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. President occurred in 1952. The rights, privileges and immunities attendant to the United States Citizens are "respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a state of the union" through the express extension by the U.S. Congress in 1948 of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "The organized government of Puerto Rico makes known the sentiment of its population in favor of statehood to the President and the U.S. Congress." That's not happened yet, as the referendum onle "the sentiment of its population in favor of statehood", wihich is arguable to the pro-"expanded commonwealth status" side of the argument. The legislature of PR has to actually ask/apply for statehood, which thay haven't done yet, then Congress will decide what step is next. - BilCat (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This articlefrom Slate makes it clear this is only the first step, but that the next steps aren't that clear, espcially since the govornor-elect hasn't been pro-statehood in the past. - BilCat (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right! The Governor of Puerto Rico informed today that he will send a letter to the Congress and the President informing the result as soon the 100 % of the vote are counted and the official certification is submitted by the Puerto Rico State Election Commission. The legislature of Puerto Rico meeting should happened before the end of this month. As soon this happened I will post the reference here!

The general elections are every four year. This is just the third plebiscite on the last 60 years. These are two different processes, the general election and the plebiscite. On the last 40 Years, Puerto Rico had 4 Pro Statehood Governor and nobody could said that Puerto Rico has request the statehood for that reason however this time Puerto Rico on a different ballot for the Plebiscite decided to reject the current territorial status and request the statehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, a delegate to the U.S. Congress, that Support the Statehood, was elected on the general election. The responsibility to give follow up to this result belong to the Puerto Rico Congressman Pierluisi. He is the person that represents the 3.8 million U.S Citizens of Puerto Rico in the U.S. Congress. His new term is from 2013-2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Finally,

September 12, 1967

Article Three of the United States Constitution, was expressly extended to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through the federal law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, this law was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

August 5, 1947

The Privileges and Immunities Clause regarding the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States was expressly extended to Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through the federal law codified on the Title 48 the United States Code as 48 U.S.C. § 737 and signed by President Truman. This law indicates that the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"We made history with this plebiscite," said Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, the island's representative in Congress and a member of both the pro-statehood New Progressive Party and the Democratic Party.

The certified results will be sent to the White House and the congressional leadership, and it would be up to them to begin the process of possibly admitting Puerto Rico into the union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above comments are neutral and correct. Less neutrally (and from an analyst), the "application" is dead on arrival. Less than 50% of the Puerto Rican population approved it, hardly an overwhelming majority. IFF (and only if), the PR legislature applies for membership and the new governor approves it (unlikely), will the territory even be considered an "applicant." Congress will send it to a committee where it will die because of the multiplicity of choices and low voting on the ballot. Given two choices ("join" or "don't join") and more than 50% of the PR citizens supporting it, it might have a chance, though 60-70% would look a whole lot better. There is a clear indication of a lack of interest on the part of PRicans. Student7 (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Vote for statehood
Vote for statehood - This Information is directly related to Admission into the union section of this article.

In November 2012, Puerto Rico achieved a first clear electoral mandate rejecting the present form of territorial status, and requesting the U.S. Congress to admit Puerto Rico as the 51st State of the United States of America. In all earlier referenda, votes for statehood were matched almost equally by votes for remaining an American territory, with a small balance of votes cast for independence. Support for U.S. statehood has risen in each successive popular referendum until a clear majority of 61.15% was attained on November 2012. The most recent referendum process began in October 2011 when Governor Luis Fortuño proposed a bill, following the recommendation of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status to provide for self-determination. The proposed bill set the date of August 12, 2012 to hold the first part of a two-step status plebiscite. The first question on the plebiscite would ask voters whether they wanted to maintain the current commonwealth status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution or whether they preferred a non-territorial option. A second question on the plebiscite would offer three status options: statehood, independence or free association. This bill was brought before the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, then the Senate of Puerto Rico in 2011 to effect the governor's proposal. The bill passed on December 28, 2011. The date was revised such that both steps were voted on in a single ballot on November 6, 2012. As a result of that ballot, 54% of the population voted to change the territorial status quo, with 61.2% of the population voting for statehood as the preferred change from the status quo.

The Plebiscite proposal and guidelines was recommended by the following U.S. Government Reports:


 * Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2005) - President William J. Clinton.
 * By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2007) - President George W. Bush.''
 * Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (March 2011) - President Barack Obama.
 * Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress - Congressional Research Service (CRS Report)
 * Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions - Congressional Research Service (CRS Report)

The Democratic Party platform of 2012 says:

As President Obama said when he became the first President to visit Puerto Rico and address its people in 50 years, Boricuas every day help write the American story. Puerto Ricans have been proud American citizens for almost 100 years. During that time, the people of Puerto Rico have developed strong political, economic, social, and cultural ties to the United States. The political status of Puerto Rico remains an issue of overwhelming importance, but lack of resolution about status has held the island back. It is time for Puerto Rico to take the next step in the history of its status and its relationship to the rest of the United States. The White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico has taken important and historic steps regarding status. We commit to moving resolution of the status issue forward with the goal of resolving it expeditiously. If local efforts in Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of clear status options, such as those recommended in the White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico, which the United States is politically committed to fulfilling. The economic success of Puerto Rico is intimately linked to a swift resolution of the status question, as well as consistent, focused efforts on improving the lives of the people of Puerto Rico. We have made great progress for Puerto Rico over the past four years, including a sharp, historic increase in Medicaid funding for the people of Puerto Rico and fair and equitable inclusion in the Recovery Act and the Affordable Care Act. Going forward, we will continue working toward fair and equitable participation for Puerto Rico in federal programs. We support increased efforts by the federal government to improve public safety in Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, with a particular emphasis on efforts to combat drug trafficking and crime throughout our Caribbean border. In addition, consistent with the task force report, we will continue to work on improving Puerto Rico's economic status by promoting job creation, education, health care, clean energy, and economic development on the Island.

The Republican Party platform of 2008 and 2012 says:

We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk • contribs)


 * It's still a non-binding referendum. Yes, the vote was passed to request statehood, but it doesn't become a state until Congress makes it so.  -- Jayron  32  06:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * User:24.54.198.59 is advocating for including this large amount of information in several articles besides this one, including Talk:Political status of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico, and Puerto Rican statehood movement. None of the info is edited in a form usable on WP as-as. As noted above, this is far too much information or an artticle about US states in general. I'm trying to keep my WP involvement to a minimum of articles due to non-WP-life issues, so I'm not trying to keep track of the discussions of the other articles, just this one. Political status of Puerto Rico is probbly the correct article for most of the backgound info on this issue, and already appears to cover most of this in greater detail (so much that the detail is being questioned there too!).


 * As such, I'm being bold and again removing the detailed history section as undue weight from the article. Further reversions by the IP user will be handled as appropriate for WP, as will further bulk posrts of quoted info on the talk page, which may violate fair use. - BilCat (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The information has been on this article by more of two years. That means a more than two years consensus to get that information there by a lot of editors. You can not delete all that information just because you dont like it. The great mayority of the editors understand that this information belong here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the long, detailed information about the history of PR is more than is necessary on this page. The information is adequately covered in other articles.  This article as it stands is on the longish side, but kept to a reasonable length by using  and  in many places.  The PR statehood discussion should follow this same pattern.  Keep the discussion to 2-3 paragraphs, at most 4, and refer the reader to the main articles for further information.  YBG (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Justify that sometime does not belong to an encyclopedic article with a Personal Opinion like this: "statehood is at least a decade or more away or never" is not encyclopedic. It tries to impose a personal opinion over encyclopedic historical facts!

Wikipedia is not a place for Personal Opinion! It is a place to a holistic cover the issues related to the article. Buzity (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There are 50 existing states, one district and several other territories that don't have the same level of detail here. That is undue weight. Other articles exist on each of the stsates and territories, and are sufficient for details. Same with Puerto Rico. This level of detail doesn't need to be here. - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus Proposal submitted! Buzity (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What does that even mean? The fact is, this article is a long article on the states and, to a lesser extent, the other subdivisions. An extensive discussion of any one of them—state, district, commonwealth, etc.—is simply not appropriate at this article. That is not to say it doesn't belong somewhere. There is Puerto Rico. Undoubtedly there is at least one article out there about its relationship to the rest of the US where this information actually would me more appropriate. Here, something in the neighborhood of one to three sentences is more appropriate. -Rrius (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the other editors, but apologize to ....59 for my use of "a decade away." That was my own interpretation and was out of line. The rest was from a political analyst, however. Student7 (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think ...59 says himself that Congress must initiate the process. Stuff sent from states (and I suppose, territories) are routinely thrown into the wastebasket (quite literally) by the federal Congressional bureaucracy - hundreds if not thousands of unwanted "resolutions" annually. Congress must enact a formal process for admission, the President must sign it, and PR must respond to it in a prescribed fashion. Anything else is dross. Student7 (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not really true. Admission acts tend to be prompted by a request from the territory, so the request (and any decision to ignore it) has some meaning. -Rrius (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, this particular result shows a plurality for statehood, but not even close to a majority. -Rrius (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the following statements:


 * November 13, 2012 Letter of the Governor of Puerto Rico to the U.S. President related to this Plebiscite:

Governor of Puerto Rico Letter to the President - Official Results of the 2012 Puerto Rico Political Status Plebiscite


 * Letter of


 * U.S. Congress Video:

Congressman Pierluisi on the Congress oficially informing the results of the 2012 Plebiscite Buzity (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In terms of what is included, it doesn't really matter what you agree with. The fact is, what you propose to add is way to much for this article. Even if Puerto Rico is admitted, it should not receive a huge amount of treatment here. -Rrius (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the "way to[o] much" comment. I think that a summary style approach would be more appropriate here, with a main link to the Puerto Rico (proposed state) article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As has been mentioned multiple times before, the details do not belong in this article. There has in the past been controversy about the admission of various states -- consider Alaska and Hawaii, not to mention Missouri/Maine, Oregon and Utah. All of these are notable, and are adequately discussed in other articles. As the issue is current, it certainly deserves a paragraph or so in this article, but no more. What would this article look like if every controversial statehood proposal were given the same weight in this article as is being suggested for Puerto Rico? I think there has been enough discussion now and I believe a consensus. I'm not sure what the protocol is, but can someone propose a way of closing this discussion? YBG (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus Proposal:

Puerto Rico
The most likely candidate for statehood is generally thought to be Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. The island’s ultimate status has not been determined. As with any non-state territory of the United States, its residents do not have voting representation in their federal government. Puerto Rico has limited representation in the U.S. Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a delegate with no voting rights.

Like the U.S. States, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution adopted by its people and a bill of rights. U.S. Congress in 1948 extended the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico.

In a plebiscite held on November 6, 2012, following the recommendations of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status reports, 54% of the ballots were cast against the continuation of the the island's territorial political status in favor of a new status, and 61.2% choose statehood as the preferred, international recognized, constitutionally viable non-territorial options to the current territory status. The task force direction is to "report on its actions to the President ... on progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status."

President George H. W. Bush issued a memorandum on November 30, 1992 to heads of executive departments and agencies establishing the current administrative relationship between the federal government and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and directs all federal departments, agencies, and officials to treat Puerto Rico administratively as if it were a state, insofar as doing so would not disrupt federal programs or operations.
 * Oppose This is still too long. What is currently there is more than sufficient for this article. -Rrius (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I also think this is too long. YBG (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

2nd Consensus Proposal:

The most likely candidate for statehood is generally thought to be Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. The island’s ultimate status has not been determined. As with any non-state territory of the United States, its residents do not have voting representation in their federal government. Like the U.S. States, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution and a bill of rights adopted by its people and accepted by U.S. congress. Puerto Rico has limited representation in the U.S. Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a delegate with no voting rights.

In a plebiscite held on November 6, 2012, following the recommendations of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status reports, 54% of the ballots were cast against the continuation of the the island's territorial political status, in favor of a new status, and 61.2% choose statehood as the preferred, international recognized, constitutionally viable non-territorial options to the current territory status. The task force direction is to "report on its actions to the President ... on progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status."
 * Much more concise. Two clear paragraphs (1) historical context and current status (2) ongoing discussion about change.  The second could still be improved ...
 * by mentioning the task force in a sentence separate from the plebiscite.
 * by distinguishing between the two separate questions in the plebiscite
 * by removing some of the adjectives
 * I think this could be done without significantly increasing the length. YBG (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The length is better. I'll read the content later, but I can already say the first sentence has to go. It is unsourced and, I would, argue completely false. -Rrius (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * First Sentence Sources (not limited to the ones mentioned below)Encyclopedic content must be verifiable:

--Buzity (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2005) - President William J. Clinton.
 * By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2007) - President George W. Bush.''
 * Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (March 2011) - President Barack Obama.
 * Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress - Congressional Research Service (CRS Report)
 * Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions - Congressional Research Service (CRS Report)
 * 1940 Democratic Platform, July 15, 1940
 * 2012 Republican Party Platform
 * 2012 Democratic National Platform
 * Thomas – The Library of Congress
 * S.1936, Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007
 * H.R. 2499
 * HR 2499 Puerto Rico Democracy Act Website
 * Puerto Rico Democracy Act
 * Democratic Party Platform 2000
 * Puerto Rico Democracy Act
 * Democratic Party Platform 2000
 * You can't possibly think that is good enough. Also, I am not going to read through all that crap, none of which seems even remotely competent to support the claim. In fact, you don't seem to know what makes the claim controversial. You claim that it is "generally thought" that Puerto Rico is the most likely next state. The crux is "generally thought". Most of those things listed couldn't possibly support that claim—legislation, party platforms, etc. One could just as easily provide a list of items related to the push for DC statehood, and they would grant no more or less insight in to the general thinking on which of the two is more likely to become a state first. And simply removing "generally thought" is not good enough. Once removed, the statement is merely an opinion (your opinion), which is not what Wikipedia is for. You will not get me or anyone else familiar with Wikipedia's most basic guidelines to agree to inclusion of the sentence unless and until you can provide reliable sources actually stating that the vast majority of people think PR will be the next state. I find it exceedingly doubtful you will find any such source (since who would bother polling on such a question?), so you may as well just give up on that sentence. -Rrius (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Congress is also under no obligation to admit states even in those areas whose population expresses a desire for statehood. The possibility of a territory become a state is not just express a desire. The Philippines or Cuba, just for said some hypothetical examples, could have a referendum tomorrow and they majority of the votes cast favored statehood. Still the possibility is none!  However the reports that you call crap are the official reports, and the official positions of the U.S. Government during the last administration and the current administration supporting end the territorial status and the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status!


 * The U.S. Constitution indicates "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union". The CRS reports indicate that Statehood is one of the options of the Congress.  In addition, the United States House of Representatives have had approved two project of law with the statehood as an option to the U.S. Citizens of Puerto Rico.  This does not happened with any other District, Territory or Republic. HR 2499 Puerto Rico Democracy Act & HR 856 United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.

The project of law of the Congress are neither crap! --Buzity (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the proposed material either, but please. Be WP:CIVIL. The editor has spent quite a bit of time developing it. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That was completely pointless. The discussion has moved on in the last few days, and anyway, the "crap" wasn't what he spent time writing, but the list of meaningless refs he couldn't possibly expect to back up the contention at issue unless he completely misunderstood what was going on, which appears to have been the case. In any event, the claim that was being debated isn't even part of the discussion anymore, so you'd be much better off picking up the discussion at my version of proposed text. Buz countered with his own version of that version, and I responded and provided a diff to allow comparison of the two. -Rrius (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Rrius's version
Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty since the late 19th century, and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. As with any non-state territory of the United States, its residents do not have voting representation in their federal government. Like the U.S. states, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution, with a bill of rights, adopted by its people and accepted by Congress. Puerto Rico has limited representation in Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a delegate with no voting rights on the floor of the House, and no representation in the Senate.

President Bush created the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status with the mandate to "report on...progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status." The report recommended that two questions be put to the people of Puerto Rico: whether to retain the current status and which of a list of alternatives they preferred.

In light of the report, a plebiscite was held on November 6, 2012, in which 54 percent of the ballots were cast against the continuation of the the island's current political status. On the second question, that of alternatives to the current status, 61.2 percent choose statehood, though a large number who answered the first question cast blank ballots for the second, casting some doubt on the outcome.

Discussion
This version does a number of things. First, it retains the form of the current "See also:" link. Those are not supposed to be piped. Second, it gets rid of the unsupportable sentence about "general thought". I take back what I said earlier about that being Buzity's opinion. It was in fact User:Coolcaesar's change, made amongst many others, on 28 August of last year. He changed it from "might", by the way. In either case, the sentence is unnecessary, unsupported, and unhelpful. It also puts together the sentences about sovereignty and citizenship, which are logically and syntactically parallel, to avoid starting the section with two similar sentences. My version also removes the "currently...as of" business. There is no reason for that. If Puerto Rico becomes a state, or even gets closer to becoming a state, there is no danger of this article falling behind. It is simply watched by too many people for that to be a risk. This version also briefly expands the bit about the task force, separating it from the bit about the referendum as suggested by YBG. Finally, it cleans up some WP:MOS issues. -Rrius (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)--Buzity (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please provide just one document or source related to a U.S. Party platform, Official Presidential Report, Congress, CRS Report, U.S. Government that mention the possibility and support the possibility of D.C. become a State. I just want one document.  Are there any other candidates with real possibilities?


 * Just one example of the possibilities of D.C. versus Puerto Rico:
 * Republican Party Platform 2012:

The Republican Party’s platform was not so kind to the District, flatly stating: “We oppose statehood for the District of Columbia.”


 * The Republican Party Platform 2012:

We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state if they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a State, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government. --Buzity (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Blank ballots (in this case, leaving the second question blank) cannot invalidate the choice that trumped among all three status choices (nor can they nullify votes cast, period: this is the case in any election). If you had an election between two candidates in a congressional district, 10 people showed up, but only three actually marked a choice on the ballot, then whichever candidate for Congress got two votes in that election would win. You can't penalize those that decided to make a democratic choice on account of those that decided not to - regardless of their reasoning. Only 38% of the voting population in the United States voted in the 2010 election: this doesn't render any of the elections that took place that year invalid. In an election a blank vote is meaningless, and the reasons behind can be nothing but speculative. People regularly under vote or blank vote in all american elections for a wide variety of reasons. There should be no specific meaning listed in the article regarding the blank votes.


 * Since when, a mark or a left blank vote means whatever a blogger wants to make believe? That is the question!


 * You can make a multiples Interpretation about blank ballots, the one that you propose is just one of the original research of a blogger or an editorial position trying to impose their personal opinion over the facts!


 * The Puerto Rico Supreme Court declared in 2009 on the case Cáceres v. Comision Estatal de Elecciones CEE:


 * Indeed, in that case ordered that blank ballots as votes were awarded not favoring any political status options for Puerto Rico. In doing so, we rely on the fundamental right and preeminent suffrage, recognized both in our constitutional order as in the United States of America. At that time, we also note that that universal suffrage was protected constitutionally both in the general election as in referendums and plebiscites. Reference:Caceres v. CEE


 * It not feasible an interpretation without entering on Original Research or Personal Opinion of what the blogger want us to believe! The article must include just reliable sources! Bloggers are not!


 * A blank vote is meaningless in the United States of America!

--Buzity (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an advisory referendum only, so that isn't really true. It is not as simple as saying that a majority of those voted did so one way. The fact is that there is something there for members of Congress to see as casting doubt on the strength of feeling on the part of Puerto Rico. I have to say that at this point I am beyond tired of your obvious efforts to push a particular perspective on this referendum. You can push, and push, and push, but the fact is that the article must reflect a neutral point of view. -Rrius (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding DC, that is a stupid request. Party platforms and CRS reports do not in any way tell us a thing about what is "generally thought" about which state will first attain statehood. But here is a CRS report: . As for parties, how about this resolution from the DNC: ? That is surely more direct than the mealy-mouthed support for self-determination we see with Puerto Rico. -Rrius (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The Democratic party platform of 1940 said:

"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."


 * The Democratic Party platform of 2012 says:

"As President Obama said when he became the first President to visit Puerto Rico and address its people in 50 years, Boricuas every day help write the American story. Puerto Ricans have been proud American citizens for almost 100 years. During that time, the people of Puerto Rico have developed strong political, economic, social, and cultural ties to the United States. The political status of Puerto Rico remains an issue of overwhelming importance, but lack of resolution about status has held the island back. It is time for Puerto Rico to take the next step in the history of its status and its relationship to the rest of the United States. The White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico has taken important and historic steps regarding status. We commit to moving resolution of the status issue forward with the goal of resolving it expeditiously. If local efforts in Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of clear status options, such as those recommended in the White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico, which the United States is politically committed to fulfilling. The economic success of Puerto Rico is intimately linked to a swift resolution of the status question, as well as consistent, focused efforts on improving the lives of the people of Puerto Rico."


 * D.C. Statehood CRS Report that you provide information:


 * The first of these two bills was introduced by Delegate Walter E. Fauntroy in 1987 to create a state that would have encompassed only the non-federal land in the District of Columbia.19 While the bill was reported out of the House District Committee, no vote was taken on the House floor. On the second such statehood bill, introduced by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton in 1993, a vote was held that year, and the House voted 277-153 against passage.


 * Puerto Rico Democracy Act, H.R. 2499 bill, was approved by the House of Representatives on April 29, 2010 by a recorded vote of 223–169.
 * Are you being deliberately obtuse? How the hell can you fail to see that none of that supports the claim you are trying to support? These may, I repeat, may provide support for you opinion that Puerto Rico is the most likely next state. They do not in any way establish as a fact that it is "generally thought" that it is. I have said it multiple times, and you have failed each time to understand the point, so I will put it yet another different way: Whether Puerto Rico is the most likely next state is a matter of opinion, so cannot be asserted in Wikipedia article without attributing that opinion to someone. Whether Puerto Rico is "generally thought" to be the next state is a question of fact that must be established by a reliable source. Marshaling supporting the opinion that Puerto Rico will be next does not accomplish that task. You must provide evidence of "general thinking", not likeliness. -Rrius (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the referendum won, regardless of how few supported it. But Congress must look at overall support for this sort of thing. I agree that this is not generally done for most votes. It has to be done here. PR-ers cannot be "fence-sitters" for this important a question. Congress will want to see enthusiasm for statehood. What we are seeing with the vote is some enthusiasm from a large minority of people. And no interest or disinterest by the majority. This is a permanent "marriage" as it were. When the preacher asks, "Do you.." he doesn't want to hear (nor does the groom want to hear!), "I suppose so." PR needs to demonstrate more enthusiasm. Student7 (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus Proposal (Using Rrius's version)
Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty since the late 19th century, and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. As with any non-state territory of the United States, its residents do not have voting representation in their federal government. Like the U.S. states, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution, with a bill of rights, adopted by its people and accepted by Congress. Puerto Rico has limited representation in Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a delegate with no voting rights on the floor of the House, and no representation in the Senate.

President Clinton created the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status with the mandate to "report on...progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status." The Task Force reports recommended that two questions be put to the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico: whether to retain the current territorial status or not and which of a list of constitutionally viable non-territorial options, they preferred to the current territory status.

In light of the reports, a plebiscite was held on November 6, 2012, in which 54 percent of the ballots were cast against the continuation of the island's current territorial status. On the second question, that of alternatives to the current territorial status, 61.2 percent choose statehood; though a large number who answered the first question cast blank ballots for the second, casting some questioning on the second question outcome. --Buzity (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Consensus Proposal using Rrius's version and some minor updates related to accuracy with the December 2005, December 2007 and March 2011 reports recommendations of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status. In addition is followed the User talk:Wtmitchell recommendation. Finally, mentioned that the Task Force was created by President Clinton instead President Bush. --Buzity (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sick of repeating this as well: You do not pipelink the hatnote to what you wish the article was called. The article is not "Puerto Rico (proposed state)", so that should not be the display text. I am also sick to death of reading your attempts to sneak the most statehood-biased version through you can, So I doubt I'll read the text tonight. -Rrius (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Skimming through though, I can tell you've take competent writing and made a hash of it, inserting unnecessary punctuation and unnecessary capitalization and awkwardly breaking up a sentence for no apparent reason. -Rrius (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just quoting: "I agree with the "way to[o] much" comment. I think that a summary style approach would be more appropriate here, with a main link to the Puerto Rico (proposed state) article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)"

--Buzity (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I didn't realize that article had been created (it's rather new). Though that does raise the question of why that article exists. It seems to be so similar to "Political status" that it should be merged into it. I will compare your version later, but the changes that stand out are not improvements. -Rrius (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be opposed to increasing this article further with PR speculation. History (reality) seems to have been skipped with regards to former applicants that were controversial: Vermont, Kentucky (first two), Missouri (split for slavery), West Virginia (taken away from Virginia in violation of the Constitution), Nevada (below threshold for a real state, but Lincoln thought he needed their two Senators' votes), Utah (polygamy), and Hawaii (non-European majority). And probably others. PR is a yawner by comparison and supported only with idle WP:OR. Let's wait for reality to set in. Student7 (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've read it and I accept none of your substantive changes and only one of your minor ones (i.e., "the the" to "the"): Three presidents have authorized the Task Force, but it is Bush who gave it the specific mandate that led to the specific report at issue. All of the other changes are mistakes. The links are unnecessarily repetitive given the rest of the article. It should be "report", not "reports" because we are talking about and backing up what one report said, not all of them. It is unnecessary to say "The Task Force report" because the previous sentence already says exactly what report we are talking about. "U.S. citizen's of Puerto Rico" is a clunky phrase that seems calculated to underscore your own political leanings more than anything else. The phrase "people of Puerto Rico" makes more sense and is simpler. Using "people" doesn't ignore their citizenship in any way; it would be just as reasonable and natural to say "people of California" or "American people". "Territorial" is the wrong word. We are talking about the political status. If we were talking about territorial status, we would be talking about borders. Introducing "constitutionally viable" is just weird. Your string of extra modifiers does absolutely nothing to improve the sentence. In the last paragraph, "territorial" and "reports" are wrong for the same reason as explained above. Your punctuation change is just flat wrong. A semi-colon separates two independent clauses. The clause "though a large number who answered the first question cast blank ballots for the second" is a dependent clause, so it should be preceded by a comma, as I wrote it. The proper English phrase is "some question on"; what you wrote, "some questioning on", is a nonsense phrase. Finally, the citation to the Governor's letter is unnecessary as it backs up nothing and is really only a reliable source for what he believes. Since his beliefs aren't mentioned in the passage, it serves no purpose. -Rrius (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If anyone wants to see a diff comparing my version to Buz's edit, here it is. -Rrius (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am just based the updates on the Reliable Sources not a personal opinion! Please review the reliable sources, taking out your personal opinion!  Please let get the article updates directly based on the reliable sources and not by personal opinions!  Please!


 * Three presidents have authorized the Task Force, but it is Bush who gave it the specific mandate that led to the specific report at issue
 * Not accurate Statement here is the Source: Executive Order 13183 - Establishment of the Presidents Task Force on Puerto Ricos Status December 23, 2000 Order 13183 has been edited but is in place today!
 * Sec. 4. Report. The Task Force shall report on its actions to the President not later than May 1, 2001, and thereafter as needed but not less than annually on progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status.


 * The three reports recommend the two question plebiscites performed:
 * Source Page 10 of http://charma.uprm.edu/~angel/Puerto_Rico/reporte_status.pdf Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2005) - President William J. Clinton.]

Pages 10 and 11 of By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2007) - President George W. Bush.'' and Pages 26, 27 and 28 of *Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (March 2011) - President Barack Obama. The H.R.2499 and the 3 reports recommendation were followed on the Puerto Rico Plebiscite.


 * Constitutionally Valid Option and Territorial Status - This is the exact wording used on the 3 Presidential Reports and also on the 2 CRS reports.


 * For example: March 2011 report Page 24

Recommendation # 2: The Task Force recommends that the permissible status options include Statehood, Independence, Free Association, and Commonwealth. Prior Task Force reports have identified and discussed constitutionally permissible status options. As discussed above, the Task Force took a fresh look at the issues, including the constitutional questions central to prior reports, and concluded that the permissible status options include Statehood, Independence, Free Association, and Commonwealth. Each status option is discussed below, along with a brief mention of some of the issues that would be raised by a choice of that option.


 * December 2005 report Page 5, 6 and 7
 * LEGAL ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS FOR PUERTO RICO’S STATUS
 * The U.S. Constitution allows for three options for the future status of Puerto Rico: continuing territorial status (including the current Commonwealth system), statehood, and independence. This section

briefly explains the possibilities and major issues under each option. December 2005 report Page 10: Therefore, the following are the recommendations of the Task Force: 1. The Task Force recommends that Congress within a year provide for a Federally sanctioned plebiscite in which the people of Puerto Rico will be asked to state whether they wish to remain a U.S. territory subject to the will of Congress or to pursue a Constitutionally viable path toward a permanent non-territorial status with the United States. Congress should provide for this plebiscite to occur on a date certain. 2. The Task Force recommends that if the people of Puerto Rico elect to pursue a permanent non-territorial status, Congress should provide for an additional plebiscite allowing the people of Puerto Rico to choose between one of the two permanent non-territorial options. Once the people have selected one of the two options, Congress is encouraged to begin a process of transition toward that option. 3. If the people elect to remain as a territory, the Task Force recommends, consistent with the 1992 memorandum of President Bush, that a plebiscite occur periodically, as long as that status continues, to keep Congress informed of the people’s wishes.


 * December 2007 Report
 * Page 9
 * A third category would combine elements of the first two categories. an example of such legislation is h.R. 900 (sponsored by Representative Serrano), which was passed by the house natural Resources committee on October 27, 2007. as amended, h.R. 900 would direct Puerto Rico to hold a plebiscite by december 31, 2009, in which voters would be asked to decide whether Puerto Rico should “consider a constitutionally viable permanent non-territorial status” or “continue to have its present form of territorial status and relationship with the united States.” if voters favor the first option, the bill would recognize the right of the people of Puerto Rico either to conduct an additional plebiscite “to consider a self-determination option with the results presented to congress” or to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing a “self-determination option” to the Puerto Rican people.

December 2007 Report Page 10:
 * The following are the recommendations of the Task Force:
 * 1. The Task Force reiterates its prior recommendation that congress provide for a Federally sanctioned plebiscite as soon as practicable in which the people of Puerto Rico will be asked to state whether they wish to maintain the current territorial status or to pursue a constitutionally viable path toward a permanent non-territorial status. congress should provide for this plebiscite to occur on a date certain.

--Buzity (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The three all mention plebiscites, but only the last one appears to recommend the two-question approach. It is completely unnecessary to use the "constitutionally viable" language. It adds precisely nothing positive and adds an element of uncertainty. -Rrius (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I don not have a personal opinion, but it is abundantly clear that you support statehood. -Rrius (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * After making this edit, I recalled having made this edit to another article. That led me to this source, which points up an assertion that the percentages depend on whether or not ballots cast as blank are counted in the total number of cast ballots (asserting that they were not counted) for purposes of calculating percentages. I think that all this is too much detail about the plebiscite results for the "U.S. State" topic of this article, and that the final sentence giving details (and details which vary between outside sources at that) should be excluded. If the details are not excluded, all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, should be included in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published reliable sources -- per WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree to eliminate the last sentence on the consensus jorney!


 * Related to the Task Force reports, the 2005 and 2007 reports also recommended the two question.


 * First Plebiscite Recommendation: The people of Puerto Rico elect to pursue a permanent non-territorial status, and the second plebiscite recommendation, to allow the people of Puerto Rico to choose between one of the permanent non-territorial options permitted by the U.S. constitution.


 * Sources: Page 10 and 11 of December 2007 reports

The following are the recommendations of the Task Force (December 2007):


 * 1. The Task Force reiterates its prior (December 2005) recommendation that congress provide for a Federally sanctioned plebiscite as soon as practicable in which the people of Puerto Rico will be asked to state whether they wish to maintain the current territorial status or to pursue a constitutionally viable path toward a permanent non-territorial status. congress should provide for this plebiscite to occur on a date certain.


 * 2. The Task Force reiterates its prior (December 2005) recommendation that if the people of Puerto Rico elect to pursue a permanent non-territorial status, congress should provide for an additional plebiscite to allow the people of Puerto Rico to choose between one of the permanent non-territorial options permitted by the constitution: statehood or independence. Once the people of Puerto Rico have selected one of the two options, we would encourage congress to begin a process of transition consistent with that option.


 * 3. if the people elect to maintain Puerto Rico’s current status, the Task Force recommends, consistent with the 1992 memorandum of President George h.W. Bush, that a plebiscite occur periodically as long as that status continues, to keep congress informed of the people’s wishes.  --Buzity (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources: CONDICIÓN POLÍTICA TERRITORIAL ACTUAL (English:Actual Territorial Political Condition). Government of Puerto Rico. State Electoral Commission. Nov 16 2012 9:59PM. Retrieved 24 November 2012

[http://207.150.251.12/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#es/default/OPCIONES_NO_TERRITORIALES_ISLA.xml ''OPCIONES NO TERRITORIALES. (English: Non-Territorial Options).''] Government of Puerto Rico. State Electoral Commission. Nov 16 2012 9:59PM. Retrieved 24 November 2012. --Buzity (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of listing extended quotations and summaries, how about you actually make your points? As best I can tell, you can't tell the difference between the two separate plebiscites recommended in the earlier reports and the two-question plebiscite recommended by the last one. Even if your understanding were perfectly sound, your version is still wrong. We are trying to minimize the amount of content we are devoting to this. The simplest way of dealing with this is to link the recent plebiscite to the report. It is not a question of how many reports over how long a period recommended a thing. The only thing that matters is that the last report was followed relatively quickly by action. Any more is just extra fluff we don't need. And your version which changes "report" to "reports" muddies the point that the passage is making.


 * Incidentally, how is it that you capitalize "federally" (which is incorrect), but don't capitalize "Congress", which is a proper noun? -Rrius (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fully concur with Rrius' cogent and correct analysis of what's wrong with Buzity's position. It looks like Buzity may not have (yet) graduated from college.  Developing and presenting a coherent argument is a basic point taught in all freshman English composition courses at reputable universities. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * How is it that you capitalize "federally" (which is incorrect), but don't capitalize "Congress"?
 * Easy, I just copied and pasted directly from the Task Force (December 2007) report!

--Buzity (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * March 2011 reports page 27
 * Two Plebiscites. In response to concerns about the potential for uncertainty that may result from a single plebiscite, many advocates have supported an approach with two plebiscites, the first of which would narrow the options and the second of which would make a final decision.


 * The report not said one Plebiscite with two questions, it is said two Plebiscites, the first of which would narrow the options and the second of which would make a final decision.


 * The plebiscite followed the HR 2499 approved by the U.S. House on April 2010, the HR 2499 followed the recommendations of performed two Plebiscites or the two separated questions. The Puerto Rico government instead of performed the two questions or plebiscites on August 2012 the first one and on November 2012 the second one, like the original plan, did both questions on the same day.

This opinion from The New York Times maybe could help to reach a consensus:

Will Puerto Rico Be America’s 51st State? --Buzity (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am well beyond tired of you doing this. Stop giving us links and long passages. Simply tell us why you think it is relevant from the piece, perhaps with a short (repeat, short) quotation. If you want to make an argument, make it; don't expect us to follow your tracks. While you are at it, explain why an opinion piece will help at all. -Rrius (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus Proposal 4 (or is it 5)
Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty since the late 19th century, and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. As with any non-state territory of the United States, its residents do not have voting representation in their federal government. Like the U.S. states, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution, with a bill of rights, adopted by its people and accepted by Congress. Puerto Rico has limited representation in Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a delegate with no voting rights on the floor of the House, and no representation in the Senate.

President Clinton created the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status with the mandate to "report on...progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status." The report recommended that two questions be put to the people of Puerto Rico: whether to retain the current territorial status and which of a list of non-territorial alternatives they preferred.

In light of the task force recommendations, a plebiscite was held on November 6, 2012, in which 54 percent of the ballots were cast against the continuation of the the island's current territorial political status. --Buzity (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Well? What have you changed this time? It is usual to explain such things instead of making everyone else figure out for themselves what's going on. -Rrius (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again concur. At this point it looks like Buzity is basically trolling and picking fights in bad faith (i.e., to get a rise out of people) rather than engaging in a good faith attempt to improve the article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * --Coolcaesar (talk) please read this policy, No personal attacks!
 * ---Rrius (talk) the changes were eliminated the last sentence as recommended, clarify that the Task Force was created by President Clinton as per Executive Order 13183 - Establishment of the Presidents Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status December 23, 2000 and clarify the plebiscite was held in light of the task force recommendations.
 * --Do not mention any specific report. Include the word territorial status like the ballot, the 3 Task Force reports, the 2 CRS report others Congress and federal courts files do.  No more changes to your recommendations. --Buzity (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Territorial status" is not the best term. First, while it seems to be trying to say "status as a territory", it could also mean something else. Also, "political status" is more inclusive of the various options. Only the first question actually has to do with the "territorial status"; the being a territory isn't one of the options that the second question presented. -Rrius (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Areas of western Virginia
Regarding this edit, areas of western Virginia did not rejoin the union. There were two state governments, a Unionist one and a Confederate one, both claiming to be the legitimate state government of Virgina. The Unionist government didn't recognize the Confederate government's secession of Virgina, and the Confederate government didn't recognize the Unionist government's creation of West Virgina.

It is true that some areas were under (and came under) union control, and some were under (and came under) Confederate control, but that's just armies moving around. That is not the same thing as areas joining the Union or the Confederacy.

Unless you count the creation of West Virgina, areas of Virginia never joined the union; it was simply disputed weather Virgina was a Union or Confederate state. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

History
I think we could use a "history" subsection here. The problem for foreigners is often "why doesn't the federal government dictate standardization for the states." It makes no sense to them. The 13 colonies each developed separately with close ties, not to each other, but to Great Britain. Ties to each other came late in the 18th century along with a lot of suspicion as to the motives and culture of the other states. A constitution was based on that. And it continued over to new states, despite the fact that the new states did, indeed, have close ties with the federal government, though did want to establish their own identify. This is why Normandy and Brittany are long gone, Quebec redefines it's municipalities with regular confusion every few years, but we still have Rhode Island! A "bottom up" government, rather than "top down." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs) 15:40, October 21, 2014‎ (UTC)


 * Not sure Quebec is a good example, as it's the equivalent of a state, not a country (Quebec seperatism notwithstanding). I think most US states can do that at will with their cities/counties also, unless forbidden by their respective constiturtions. As to having a history section, a lot of that is covered in Federal government of the United States. Perhaps we can link to that in the orticle, or summarize the relevant points here. - BilCat (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Article rename
I propose renaming this article to States of the United States. The name "U.S. state" does not sound like a very thorough or official name and the proposed name brings in continuity with many other articles such as Provinces of Indonesia, States of Germany, States and territories of Australia and Provinces and territories of Canada. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Simple common name. No continuity between other articles is required by WP policies and guidelines. Please note that the other articles you mentioned are combination descriptive and list articles. This article is just descriptive, with the list at List of states and territories of the United States. (They used to be one article, but the list was split off by me a few years ago, as the list itself is quite long.) States of the United States used to redirect here, but currently redirects to List of states and territories of the United States. - BilCat (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Rico
The statements on the result of the 2012 referendum ("61% of voters") appear to contradict Proposed political status for Puerto Rico where it appears to show only 61% of 54% (i.e. 33% of voters) actually voting for statehood. --PeterR2 (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be 61% of the second tier ballot, a UN design for referendums. Once again, for the fifth time in five decades, votes for independence from the US amount to 3-5% of the voters in Puerto Rico, this time with 80% eligibility turnout -- even after there is so much out-migration from Puerto Rico that more self-identified "Puerto Ricans" live within the continental US than within Puerto Rico itself. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)