Talk:United States/Archive 44

U.S. can dissolve 2013 PR like a 1774 Virginia
@TFD 8 January. 4:26. above. -- First, you say the U.S. holds 2013 PR as a colony just as U.K. held 1774 Virginia a colony. Second, you say, the U.S. can dissolve 2013 PR government just like U.K. did dissolve 1774 Virginia government.
 * (1) But in this, you assert again without a source that the U.S. government is not bound by its constitution, that it may dissolve the Puerto Rican government without due process “just as Britain has over her colonies”. But Buzity showed us sources that the U.S. CANNOT lawfully do so -- regardless of what you might otherwise imagine, and no scholar published in a reliable source supposes that such a development is at all likely. You (a) reassert a contrary idea, (b) dismiss the reader's competence to read statutory law, but still (c) you offer no source for this unconventional and unexpected assertion to justify your editorial position excluding PR from the extent of the U.S. federal republic.
 * (2) After referring to the relationship of (a) U.K. to a subject in the 1800s British Raj before independence as precisely the same as (b) the U.S. to a citizen in 2013 Puerto Rico. I briefly outlined the difference between a citizen and a subject (over which we fought the War of 1812). Your reply is, “I don’t know what the caste system has to do with anything” concerning comparing British administration of the Raj in comparison with U.S. administration of Puerto Rico.
 * -- But THAT is your initial point, the relationship between (a) sovereign national U.K. government and local citizen as a colonial subject in pre-independence India, which you say is that of (b) U.S. to 2013 PR. Why make your point here it if it has nothing to do with anything? I have tried to explain the subject is the United States, and your references to previous empires do not apply to this discussion by wikipedia standards.
 * (3) You say, Canadians and Indians “voted in Canada” as a colony for a Member of [British] Parliament, just as Puerto Ricans vote in the United States for a Member of Congress today. So you say, Puerto Rico is a colony? But you have no sources to say 2013 Puerto Rico is a colony, only reference to a pre-1952 UN status which has been withdrawn with the congressional organic act for PR that year, and global assertions that "all sources" conform with your point, there are no other. I must have lost your train of thought somewhere. Please repost for me. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Finally, I found it, the complete decision of the Incorporation of Puerto Rico!
 * CONSEJO DE SALUD PLAYA PONCE v. JOHNNY RULLAN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO 30 Pages--Buzity (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Quoting directly from the case:
 * The Court’s analysis of the issues presented, thus, must necessarily commence by determining whether Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory, or if Congress, on the other hand, post-Balzac, incorporated the territory.
 * At Present, Does the United States Constitution Extend Fully to Puerto Rico?
 * As such, the ties between the United States and Puerto Rico have strengthened in a constitutionally significant manner. Boumediene, 128 S. Ct. at 2255. Congress, thus, is no longer justified in treating Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory of dissimilar traditions and institutions, when the Constitutional reality is otherwise. Id. It is the judicial branch that determines when and where the full terms of the Constitution apply. Id. at 2259; see also Trailer Marine Transport Corp., 977 F. 2d at 8 n.4 (holding that the issue of extending the Constitution to Puerto Rico is for the courts to
 * decide). The Congressional incorporation of Puerto Rico throughout the past century has extended
 * the entire Constitution to the island, and today entitles the territory and United States citizens thereof
 * to full enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the Constitution.29


 * Let it be clear. The court today is in no way attempting to overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories — only the Supreme Court can. The court, rather, today holds that inthe particular case of Puerto Rico, a monumental constitutional evolution based on continued and repeated congressional annexation has taken place. Given the same, the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one. Congress today, thus, must afford Puerto Rico and the
 * 4,000,000 United States citizens residing therein all constitutional guarantees. To hold otherwise, would amount to the court blindfolding itself to continue permitting Congress per secula seculorum to switch on and off the Constitution.30 Boudemiene at 2259.--Buzity (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * But if this is the case and Puerto Rico is in fact incorporated, what of the other inhabited territories? --Golbez (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here at Talk, with headers beginning: “U.S. Congress express extension of the U.S. Constitution” …
 * to Guam, Buzity found 48 USC § 1421b as amended, Guam’s Organic Act. Provisions of the U.S. Constitution explicitly extended to Guam –- That is, the geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic extends to Guam. Congressional intent to extend the Constitution was upheld in appellate court in the 1992 Guam OBGYN case.
 * to U.S. Virgin Islands, Buzity found 48 U.S.C. § 1561 Congress extends the Constitution as enumerated to the Virgin Islands, with “the same force and effect” there as in the U.S. or any State of the U.S., with indictments as provided in local law. In the Virgin Islands, all inconsistencies with the enumerated Constitution in prior law from Congress or the territorial legislature “are repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.”
 * to Northern Marianas, Buzity found CNMI Covenant - In a covenant of political union, Congress extends the Constitution in enumerated provisions to the Northern Marianas Islands, as if it were one of the several STATES, with juries as provided in local law. Subsequent federal court cases 1990-1994 held that additional provisions of the Constitution applied to U.S. citizens there without explicit act of congress, including the 5th, 6th, 7th and 14th Amendments.
 * In Samoa, Buzity found from Downes (Supra) that “In all these cases (Florida, Louisiana and Mexico) there is an implied denial of the right of the inhabitants to American citizenship UNTIL Congress enacted it, the extension of U.S. Citizenship is essential, and by congressional organic act, Samoans may be U.S. citizens, and U.S. citizens do not lose their status by permanent residence there. [insert] "The extension of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution to the citizens in a territory produces its incorporation ... express or implied" [/insert]. "In the Rasmussen Insular Case, the Court ruled that in granting U.S. citizenship, Congress clearly extended the Constitution to the "unincorporated" territory of Alaska without explicitly declaring it "incorporated".
 * -- (1) Though they are not states, there are no sources reported here stating DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas or Samoa and their U.S. citizens are NOT a part of the U.S. --- (2) Negatively, there is no secondary source reported contrary to Professor Sparrow (Levinson 2005, p.232) who says that they ARE a part of the U.S. –-- (3) Affirmatively, there is no secondary source which uses the “incorporated” PLACES to define the U.S. as states, a federal district and Palmyra Atoll, regardless of U.S. citizens in the organized territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Provincial governors in North America had the power to dissolve legislatures and dismiss government officials, a power which they continue to hold in Canada, the Canadian provinces, and all other countries within the Commonwealth of Nations. I did not assert that the "U.S. government is not bound by its constitution" in fact I asserted the opposite. The U.S. government does not have the power to abolish a territorial government established by Congress, any more than the British Crown has the power to abolish a territorial government established by parliament.  But what does that have to do with anything?  The British colonies in the Americas have enjoyed increasing powers but that has not led to any of them becoming part of the U.K., but has had the opposite effect of independence in most cases - Canada, Jamaica, Barbados, etc.
 * Britain never had separate classes of subjects, any more than the U.S. had separate classes of nationals. And I did not say that Canadians in Canada could vote for a member of the Imperial Parliament.  Rather, British subjects could vote wherever in the Empire they lived.
 * TFD (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * TFD 9:57 am, 23 Dec 2012. says, (1) Do you think that Virginia used to be part of England and that Bermuda still is?” Then 12:46 pm, 1 January 2013, (2) “The legal relationship between the UK and the Raj and the US and Puerto Rico under common law is exactly the same.” Then 7:24 am, 13 Jan 2013, (3) “Britain never had separate classes of subjects, any more than the U.S. had separate classes of nationals. … British subjects could vote wherever in the Empire they lived.”
 * - ANSWER (1). Yes, Virginia was a part of England by charter, all its inhabitants guaranteed “the rights of Englishmen” as though they lived in England. It may be why Brits refer to the event as War of Independence and Americans call the event the Revolution: not sovereign government, servant people -- sovereign people, servant government. Still with the Canada, Bermuda, Raj, Iraq, Guantanamo elements –- all off topic. The subject is United States, the topic is geographic extent of the U.S. federal constitutional republic.
 * - ANSWER (2). No, residents in the British Raj could NOT vote for Members of British Parliament, while residents of Puerto Rico DO vote for a locally elected Member of the U.S. Congress. It is NOT “exactly the same” in this and many other respects between an empire of conquest and an empire of liberty. This includes untouchables, the lowest class in the British Raj of 1800s could not be freed as a slave in the U.S. -- to become sea port carpenters, nor their sons ship captains, ship owners and insurance company founders such as Paul Cuffee 1759-1817, a British colonial subject, then U.S. citizen abolitionist and co-founder of Sierra Leone.
 * - ANSWER (3). No, when Virginia was a colony for most of its history, those subjects not actively participating in the official Church of England services could neither vote nor hold office. This is what we mean by “separate classes of subjects”. Those in England could vote for Members of Parliament, those in Virginia could not vote for Members of Parliament.
 * -- Congress in the U.S. represents the sovereign people, and it is restrained both by the Constitution and frequent –direct-- local elections of representatives sitting in the national legislature -– even when territorial organic acts did not make them states, the Constitution is extended by law. Currently these Members of Congress, elected by the actual resident people governed, titled Congressman, Congresswoman at their official .gov sites are, (1) District’s |Norton, (2) Guam’s |Bordallo, (3) Northern Mariana’s |Sablan, (4) Puerto Rico’s |Pierluisi, (5) Samoa’s |Faleomavaega, (6) Virgin Islands’ |Christensen. They are not the British territory "virtual" representation of 1760s Virginia and 1960s Hong Kong. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Where does "unincorporated" come from -- according to a scholar?

 * The novel status of “unincorporated” meant that Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, and Samoa by implication, were “foreign in a domestic sense,” subject to the U.S. Congress but not protected by the American constitution. “None of the treaties in 1898 and 1899 made promises (implicit or explicit) that the inhabitants of seized lands would become citizens or that the new colonies would become territories or states.” These were matters left to Congress. (Julian Go in |Levinson, 2005 p.215). [tvh note-1. Congress has now extended U.S. citizenship and organic law in all inhabited territories.]
 * - Justice Brown of the Supreme Court clarified. The contiguous West had been “inhabited only by people of the same race, or scattered bodies of native Indians.” Territories from Spain showed “differences of race, habits, laws and customs”.  Dr. Julian Go at Boston University concluded, “the need to invent the new category “unincorporated” arose from the menace of incorporating difference…this emphasis on racial difference permeated all of the American’s discourse at the time.” (Julian Go in |Levinson, 2005 p.216). [tvh note-2. Organic law incorporating Virgin Islands accepts difference in indictment procedure, at Northern Marianas jury differences, at Samoa communal property not admitted by the constitution, etc. as local plebiscites required for political union and incorporation into the U.S. federal republic.]
 * - “By not formulating organic legislation for Guam and Samoa [into mid-20th century], … the result was an overseas empire remarkably continuous with America’s continental empire [in its forms], yet tragically distinct [in its practice]. (Julian Go in |Levinson, 2005 p.225).
 * --- Now that the Congress HAS formulated organic legislation providing for U.S. citizenship and constitutional protections in the inhabited territories of 2013, this scathing critique of pre-1950s American island imperialism no longer applies. That would explain why the UN does not restore Puerto Rico or Northern Marianas to the colony list. The extent of the U.S. federal republic is 50 states, a federal district, and five organized territories just at Congress says it is in the Homeland Security Act. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All of which means nothing regarding whether or not PR is part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The last decision in this first round of cases, Huus v. New York & Porto Rico Steamship Co. (1904), was an oddly unanimous holding in which the issue was whether the vessel Ponce, engaged in trade between Puerto Rico and the United States, had to pay pilotage fees upon entering the port of New York. Pilotage fees were only
 * required of vessels engaged in foreign trade. The Court thus ruled that the Ponce need not pay pilotage fees because Puerto Rico was not foreign territory but "properly a part of the domestic trade of the [United States] since the
 * treaty of annexation...."
 * THE INSULAR CASES: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGIME OF POLITICAL APARTHEID Juan R. Torruella

--Buzity (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the long run the Huus decision would have important economic consequences not only for Puerto Rico but also for all noncontiguous U.S. lands, including Hawaii and Alaska, in that it essentially required the application of the cabotage laws of the United States to all marine transportation between those U.S. areas and the U.S. mainland (or even between the U.S. mainland ports).
 * Thus, only U.S. flag carriers could engage in this "coastwise" trade, driving the cost of this interstate commerce high in comparison to foreign commerce. Reference:
 * THE INSULAR CASES: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGIME OF POLITICAL APARTHEID Juan R. Torruella

--Buzity (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is also interesting to noticed that beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments through the Incorporation doctrine. --Buzity (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

How is Puerto Rico related to the U.S.
TFD 11:52 am. 13 Jan 2013. “All of which means nothing regarding whether or not PR is part of the U.S.”- TFD.
 * (1) Citizenship in territory incorporated by plebiscite, awarding U.S. citizenship and with an organic act irrevocably establishing republican three-branch government makes the population in a place a part of the U.S. There is no source to say Puerto Rico is NOT a part of the U.S. -- excepting TFDs interpretation of an online digest which does not -- itself -- say anything on the matter.
 * -- Previous exclusion editor's references were to Insular Cases citations, establishing the judicial term of art, "unincorporated territory" which explicitly named Puerto Rico. Discussion of the Rasmussen case and "unincorporated territory" DOES have something to do with PR as a part of the U.S. -- it confirms inclusion. ‘Unincorporated’ Alaska territory was ruled by the Supreme Court as incorporated when Congress made U.S. citizens there. Puerto Rico has U.S. citizens by act of congress, Puerto Rico is a part of the U.S. But that inclusion is not what TFD wants.
 * (2) At the link that TFD represents as denying Puerto Rico as a part of the U.S., Factbook |United States, the Header “U.S. Government” has “Administrative divisions” with two subdivisions “states” and “district”. “Dependent areas” are occupied and unoccupied islands, with a note listing four places in political union with the U.S. At Factbook |Definitions -- administrative divisions -- are “first-order administrative divisions (BGN)”. For -- Dependent areas -- an alphabetical listing of all nonindependent entities associated in some way with a particular independent state. There is no scholarship to define what is "part of a country".
 * (3) Factbook does NOT define the things of interest here, to determine WHETHER a territory is part of the U.S., “incorporated territory”, “unincorporated territory”, “organic act”, not "political union" although four “entities associated” has one with natural-born U.S. citizens. Factbook does not define "first order" of places. But at At |IATI Standard we see the first order administrative division is a province, state or governorate, the territory ruled over by a governor. The second order a municipality governed by a mayor. The five U.S. territories with organic acts have governors, so Puerto Rico is one of those a part of the U.S. -- even at this level of look-em up desk-top general references.
 * (4) Factbook makes no determination of any distinction among states, non-state district, territories and political union by incorporation, organic acts, or unincorporated territories as to what is NOT a part of the United States, inhabited or not, with citizens or not, by international union or not. -- TFD imposes original interpretation without reference to scholars in published reliable sources to reach a conclusion unsupported by the text. The case that PR is not a part of the U.S. is NOT made based on the Factbook link shown here at Talk. But we know from scholars that "At present, the [U.S.] includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the [D.C.] and, of course, the fifty states." (Sparrow in Levinson 2005, p.232) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * * throws something across the room* --Golbez (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, please refresh me, which Supreme Court ruling was that? And did they specifically say, birthright citizenship equals incorporation? And, what of American Samoa? You keep saying being a national is a choice they make but that still doesn't change the fact that they do not have birthright citizenship. --Golbez (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * TFD exactly. WP:MADEUP. If Factbook has a section with Puerto Rico in the “U.S. government”, but it does not say, “PR is not in the U.S.”, then TFD cannot make something up – pretending without citation that Factbook says something it does NOT say -- and cannot be QUOTED as saying.
 * - Also, by the “geographical precision” at IATI Standard (that link should work) -- at the International Aid Transparency Initiative, “making data from different publishers comparable”, first-order territory with governors qualifies as “First order administration” places, while D.C. with a mayor must be “second order”. DC is in the U.S. federal republic by its congressional organic act, not by its "order of administration" used by scholars at IATI or the CIA databank at Factbook. The imprecise listing of places at Factbook -- with  a municipality-mayor administration among state-governor administrations – without any explanation for its deviance from convention --  indicates that it is not a scholarly source of academic standing.  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What makes people in places “a part of the U.S.”

 * The Congress. in its organic act incorporating Puerto Rico, August 5, 1947 - The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution regarding the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States was expressly extended to Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through the federal law codified on the Title 48 the United States Code as 48 U.S.C. § 737 and signed by President Truman. “… in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union.”
 * The Court. In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 -465, 480. 18, "The inhabitants of the ceded territory . . . shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States;" This declaration … is the equivalent, as pointed out in Downes v. Bidwell, of the formula, employed from the beginning to express the purpose to incorporate acquired territory into the U.S., especially in the absence of other provisions showing an intention to the contrary.”
 * - “[Note 6] Here we see that the act of incorporation is on the people of the territory, not on the territory per se, by extending the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution to them.”
 * - and many others above. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)


 * Organic acts do not turn incorporated territories into unincorporated territories they turn unorganized territories into organized territories. Territories may be unincorporated and organized or incorporated and unorganized.  TFD (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Organic acts by Congress turn places made "unincorporated" by Courts into "incorporated" parts of the United States. Court rulings ALL say it is for Congress to make laws, and ALL court rulings say once Congress makes U.S. citizens in an organized place, they are irrevocably a part of the United States in that place. -- The Constitution CANNOT be "turned on and off", once it is on, it is irrevocably on. -- That is what the sources say cited and linked here.
 * _ _ There is NO source edited by an academic publication from which TFD can quote "incorporated territories into unincorporated territories". There is no source of any description, again. More TFD MADEUP. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources, what sources?

 * TFD 4:59 pm, 21 Dec 2012. says, “[Sparrow] is the opinion of an expert arguing against consensus and therefore cannot be presented as a fact.” Then 3:06 pm, 22 Dec 2012. “Well of course we have a reliable source that Sparrow made that claim, but it does not elevate it to a fact.”
 * -- Note. reference is to a direct quote from a geopolitical historian from Texas University in an anthology edited by a noted constitutional scholar, Sanford Levinson, "At present, the [U.S.] includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the [D.C.] and, of course, the fifty states." (Sparrow in Levinson 2005, p.232)."
 * -- ANSWER: At WP:RELIABLESOURCES, it says, articles should be based on reliable, published sources, At WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it says, articles should rely on secondary sources. There are NO reported sources for the official United States of America being defined by incorporated PLACES, 50 states, a federal district and Palmyra Atoll. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sparrow is writing about the "American Empire". Empires of course consist of mother countries and possessions outside.  Do you think the U.S. is an empire?  TFD (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you have indeed read something, again I ask, where is the section you are addressing? Help kick off the discussion with a two-three line direct quote from the source with a link where we can go and search on a phrase.


 * The U.S. is now an "Empire of Liberty", which you deny extends to islanders. Even Jefferson dreamed it might be inclusive of Amerindians after the passing of his generation. That required mitigating the racism of the Insular Cases (Julian Go in |Levinson, 2005 p.216), a formulation that you insist on imposing on the article -- without reliable scholarly sources.
 * The U.S. acquisition of territory was seen historically by conquest and purchase, such as Rome -- NOT voluntary political union of pre-existing states, such as Switzerland. Beyond intro texts, see Amitai Etzioni online at |Political Unification. The U.S. in its territories is UNLIKE Rome, whose honorary citizens did not transfer the status to their children.
 * The U.S. is different by Jus soli as an ancient Greek democracy, citizenship by the soil. As cited in U.S. Census | Community survey reports. The term -- native born American -- refers to "anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area, ... [including] Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands”.
 * Historically the U.S. expanded as an empire. As noted in the Federalist Papers, conquered territory from George III held Amerindians who had NOT been subjugated by any empire. The people in places George wrote off on a map were not PLACES as Guantanamo is a U.S. possession, without resident population.
 * Sometimes the U.S. dodged war-of-conquest with European Empires -- French, Spanish, British, Russian -- by “purchases” of land and non-consenting residents from Europeans under the same conceit held by George III. Louisiana, Florida, Oregon and Alaska were all had this way relative to European Empires, but not relative to the resident population.
 * - Since the end of World War II, and the passing of the Jim Crow-Insular Cases generation, the U.S. has chosen to incorporate people in places by (1) plebiscite for local consent – AND THEN – (2) organic acts of Congress irrevocably uniting the U.S. citizens there under the Constitution into the U.S. by its law and its jurisprudence. These include Northern Marianas, Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. You have no scholar anywhere published in a reliable source of academic credibility to say otherwise. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to distinguish between facts and opinions in reliable sources. In this case Sparrow says that territories lie outside the republic (fact) but are part of the empire (opinion).  TFD (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The Sparrow quote “fact” is, "At present [2005], the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories…” On the same page, Sparrow asks “How is it” that territory outside the 1803 federal republic comes to be incorporated in the U.S., which “at present … includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories…”
 * _ _ TFD interprets this rhetorical question as a statement that all territory incorporated into the U.S. such as Arizona and Guam after 1803 is not NOW "a part in the United States", including the Caribbean and Pacific territories, according to Sparrow. But how can words discussing incorporating territory since the "Louisiana Purchase" into the U.S. federal republic -- the title and point of the book -- be so misread?
 * (1) _ _ Sparrow: At present, the U.S. INCLUDES territories acquired since 1803, "including the Caribbean and Pacific territories” -- now,
 * (2) _ _ TFD: At present, the U.S. includes NO territories acquired since 1803, "including the Caribbean and Pacific territories”? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sparrow's answer is that the U.S. became an empire. Compare with the British Empire where laws of the imperial parliament extended to Virginia, prerogative writs from English courts ran to Virginia, the executive authority of the Crown extended to Virginia, yet Virginia was not part of the United Kingdom.  Now find proof that Sparrow's view of the U.S. as an empire has consensus support in the literature.  TFD (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It is disheartening that despite getting more voices into this, the conclusions are still the same: Brick walls on both sides. I'm starting to think this requires a site-wide discussion rather than four people talking at each other, because it has implications wide beyond this article, to all the territory articles, listing articles (if the territories are part of the country then we'd have to change the country's population, area, etc. in the related articles, or at least add footnotes explaining), etc. --Golbez (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @ TFD. Sparrow's answer is that the U.S. grew to incorporate places and citizens as citizens by "democratic empire" in such a way that in the 2005 present, the U.S. federal republic "includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, District of Columbia and of course the fifty states".
 * _ _ You have no quote from a scholar comparing the incorporated status of five organic territories in the U.S. of 2013 with colonial Virginia of British 1776 Empire, only uninformed, unsourced argumentation. There was no MP from 1776 Virginia on the floor of Parliament, voting or otherwise, there is not from 2013 British Virgin Islands. But there is from 2013 U.S. Virgin Islands, and there-is-no-scholar-to-say as you have, that SOMEONE credentialed on the floor of the national legislature from a territory is "exactly the same" as NO ONE credentialed on the floor of the national legislature from the territory. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @Golbez. There is no need for original research aggregating U.S. Census data. Go with the databases readily available. Please note,
 * _ _ | Title 13 of the U.S. Code states that each of the censuses it authorizes “shall include each State, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands [of the United States], Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”
 * _ _ Beginning 1990, "the Bureau of the Census enumerated and tabulated data for the following entities, and treated each as the statistical equivalent of a State for consistency in its data presentations and tabulations [in the (1) decennial census]: the states, District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, The Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico and The Virgin Islands of the United States.
 * _ _… all except Palau also are included in the (2) Census of Agriculture, and all except American Samoa and Palau are included in the (3) economic censuses. [For historical comparisons], Table 7-1 shows the first year each entity participated in the decennial, agriculture, and economic censuses. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have never called for original research, far from it, so I know not of what you speak. --Golbez (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I speak to your concern, date stamped 15:57, 18 January 2013. "If the territories are part of the country then we'd have to change the country's population, area, etc. in the related articles, or at least add footnotes explaining."
 * _ _ Beginning 1990 census, the five organic act * territories are in report data for population *, agriculture and economy. They are treated as the "statistical equivalent of a State for consistency in its data presentations and tabulations." -- American Samoa is in the census for population and agriculture. Palau is in census for population. --
 * _ _ * Footnotes must be added only if * an editor were to choose to illustrate text with a report excluding them. See Census reporting category, "Puerto Rico and outlying areas" | tabulated data. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Either the census figures in this article include the territories, meaning the article is currently incorrect, or they don't include the territories, meaning you'd have to transplant the proper values if and when the definition of the country were changed. You claim that no facts and figures need to be analyzed. That is simply untrue. --Golbez (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * U.S. Census data includes the territories since 1990. I claim that (1) an encyclopedia is primarily text, (2) images are meant to support that text, (3) text and images of facts and figures should be related.
 * _ _ In * U.S. census data * beginning in 1990 for reports of population, economy and agriculture, 50 states, the District, and five incorporated territories are reported statistically as states.
 * _ _ Facts and figures are analyzed to ensure they properly relate to article text. Nothing has changed for U.S. Census and the many institutes using its data since 1990 regarding territories. Editors pick a report for an image to illustrate a text. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "U.S. census data includes the territories" But our article's census data does not: It mentions multiple times a population projection that, according to its source, specifically only includes the fifty states and district. So, if you were to change the definition of the country, you would be doing a disservice to our readers if you continued to use that number without adding an explicit note that it didn't include the whole country as defined. This is only one of many facts and figures that would need to be checked and either changed or noted. Not all, of course, but many. --Golbez (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But the U.S. government has said that PR is a state in free association. What is more authoritative - what they told the UN or a DHS handbook?  TFD (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @ Golbez. The text should be illustrated with relevant data. Favorite data can be shown adjacent relevantly worded text which an editor may supply to connect it. If text refers to the "Lower Forty-eight" and a chart shows 50 states and the district, the text should be amended to say 50 states and the District, and so on. This is just the ordinary burden of editing at Wikipedia.
 * _ _ The official extent of the U.S. federal republic to be found in the introduction is illustrated by the Infobox. Both summarize the country at a sort of 50,000-foot flyover. Narrower scope and greater detail is relegated to text under major headings and subsections. If a section is titled "territories" we would expect subdivisions of organized and unorganized, with related data, NOT data related to the introduction, 50 states, the district and five territories of the U.S. federal republic. Administration of an uninhabited guano pit by the Interior Department is not "part of the U.S. federal republic", and sea gulls are not U.S. citizens.
 * _ _ There are entries in this article from before 1990. Of course they should be looked at again in light of the new data bases published by the U.S. Census department since then. In a general way, I would expect U.S. tables in the country article to reflect 2000, 2003, and 2005 census data relative to population, economy and agriculture by all editors with that interest and proclivity, that is what Wikidom is about. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @ TFD. The U.S. territories are a part of the U.S. That is what USG told UN and that is what is in the DHS handbook. (1) There is no contradiction, nor is there a source that says there is one. (2) There is no source to say what was said to the U.N. (3) There is no source saying Free Association by international law does not make the people in a place "a part of" the country in political union. More TFD MADEUP. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2013
Please add the name of Patrick Leahy, Democrat, the current President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate below John Boehner. The president pro tempore is third in the line of succession to the presidency, after the Vice President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Following the death of Daniel Inouye on December 17, 2012, Patrick Leahy, a Democrat and senior senator from Vermont, was elected to the position by unanimous consent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Leahy

107.47.151.76 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The infobox contains the president, VP, the chief justice, and speaker of the house. These are, respectively, the heads of the executive, the Senate, the judicial, and the House. I don't see a compelling argument to go one more and put the second ranking member of the Senate. If it's about secession then that seems both excessive and not enough; we've never gone past VP so it's academic to list beyond Speaker in the infobox, and why stop at third? --Golbez (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Discussion can continue without the edit request remaining open, but I'll say I agree with Golbez. There's a balance to who's listed, and adding pro tem would give extra weight to the Senate. (I realize the VP wears two hats, as it were, but still . . .) Rivertorch (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I can agree Infoboxes should be kept economically compact. BUT, if it is not about secession, if the infobox is about "how things work" -- Patrick Leahy is the legislature's elected leader. The U.S. president and two-thirds the Senate make treaties, the supreme law of the land, without the vice president. The vice president only votes in a tie, that is not an "academic" difference.
 * _ _ At Great Britain, the Queen can veto any and all passed law without a constitutional recourse to override. The prime minister, the elected leader in one half of the national legislature -- might, by an "academic" criteria, be omitted. But by "how things work" criteria, the House of Commons "prime minister" AND the U.S. Senate "president pro tempore" SHOULD be in their respective infoboxes.
 * _ _ Are edit requests open for a limit of four hours, how is that supposed to work? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The edit request was shut down because it was done out of process. You gain consensus, then you use the edit request template. You don't do it to signal you want an edit made, unless the edit is entirely uncontroversial like fixing a typo. We're having the discussion now; if we come to the consensus that the edit should be made, then the template would make sense. --Golbez (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the infobox might not be primarily about either succession or how things work but rather about how things are structured. In terms of how things actually work, the president pro tempore position is probably more ceremonial than anything else. In theory, it carries some power; in practice, how often is the power really wielded, and is it very significant? Meh. Edit requests are open until someone decides to close them. I don't see much value in leaving one open when a potentially productive discussion has begun on a much-watched page like this one, but of course you are absolutely free to reopen the request if you'd prefer. Rivertorch (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. As for relative significance, is not the office of the vice president, "not worth a bucket of warm spit"?
 * _ _ I do agree that the Majority Leader has more "how it works" clout than the senate president pro tempore in modern times. But since the infobox has a line for
 * (a) the two constitutional executive officers, president and vice president, it may be that it should report
 * (b) the two constitutional legislative officers, Speaker of the House AND Senate President Pro Tem. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

U.S. extent by two .gov sources
In the light of some editor reluctance to use academic scholars in published reliable sources, let me restate two .gov sources published by the Government Publishing Office contributed to date. on the Subject: United States. Topic: extent of the U.S. federal republic.
 * (1) _ _ CIA factbook, a U.S. government database updated weekly. Article: United States. Section: U.S. Government. Subsections, with no sentences, paragraphs, or academic citation.
 * _ _ Country name (long, short, abbreviations), Government type (two fragments), Capital (name, location, time zone), Administrative divisions (list), Dependent areas (list), Independence (date), National holiday (date), Constitution (date), Legal system, sentence fragment, International law organization participation (two sentence fragments), Suffrage: 18; universal, Executive branch (list), Legislative branch (list), Judicial branch (six fragments), Political parties and leaders (four), International organization participation (list), Flag description (longest section), national symbol(s) bald eagle, national anthem (name, tune, sentence and fragments)
 * (2) _ _ Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants. Published by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. (p.77). The information is sourced, "This is the Official U.S. Government edition of this publication and is herein identified to certify its authenticity."
 * _ _ “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District of Columbia (a special area that is the home of the federal government), the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico."
 * _ _ This second source is consistent with the |Homeland Security Act of 2002, "The term 'State' means any State of the [U.S.], the District of Columbia, ... Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, ... the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the [U.S.]". Editors earlier voiced concern about possible challenges of "original research", were the statute to be cited directly for reference in the first sentence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * While the 2nd source is useful, your citation of the Homeland Security Act is not, as it is not relevant, it includes the uninhabited territories in its definition. It works counter to you, you should not include it. You should only bring up sources that back up your specific argument, that the five inhabited territories are part of the country but the minor outlying islands are not. --Golbez (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The CIA factbook correctly describes the overseas territories as "dependent areas" in the "Government" section, while the citizenship handbook incorrectly describes them as part of the U.S. Generally we should use secondary rather than tertiary sources.  TFD (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Both are primary sources, though, aren't they? --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And, CIA FACTBOOK says "first-order" administration (governors) is states and (mayoral) district of columbia, which is academically sloppy. But then, it is not academic, its a database digest. Then it lumps the five "first-order" governorates in the organic act territories with the Department of Interior-administered, habited and uninhabited.
 * And, the U.S. state department does not refer "overseas territories" as in the non-extent of other countries. State Department | Consular Affairs Manual, refers to INA statute, "Outlying possessions of the United States" restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island (page 6), without referring to the organic act territories.
 * TFD cannot properly assert "incorrect" description at a .gov cite without a counter source. And there is always Sparrow and two others never countered or impeached to admit as scholarly published reliable sources referenced here at Talk, concerning the United States, geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * They are tertiary sources. This is a good example of why secondary sources are preferred.  TFD (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate; isn't a product of the CIA, an agency of the U.S. government, a primary source of the U.S. government? Likewise, a product of the State Department? What IS a primary source, a direct statement from Congress or the President? --Golbez (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They are tertiary because the writers are presumably summarizing information that they have taken from secondary or sources. U.S. laws, judgments, and treaties and U.N. resolutions are primary sources. TFD (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * “Welcome to the United States” is an official government publication reviewed by Homeland Security lawyers. It informs prospective naturalized U.S. citizens of the geographic extent of their country, including five organically incorporated territories with representation in Congress.
 * _ _ We have three scholarly secondary sources from academically edited publications affirming the inclusion of U.S. territories as a part of the U.S. federal republic. We have primary sources stipulating territories as a part of the U.S. in statute law from Homeland Security Act and Immigration and Naturalization Act, and presidential executive orders post 9-11 and for incorporating individual territories.
 * _ _ We have federal rulings from district, circuit and Supreme Court showing incorporation of territories following the temporary judicial fiat for ruling places without citizens in 1904, now superseded in law, court rulings and practice.


 * CIA Factbook is a terciary source, a weekly updated database of sentence fragments from multiple sources without scholarly editorial direction. Under the heading “U.S. government” there are equal headings for “administrative divisions” and “dependent areas”, “executive branch” and “legislative branch”.
 * _ _ Factbook’s branches of government are out of order, placing the second constitutional branch (executive) section in front of the first branch (legislative) section. “Administrative divisions” confuses first order governor-places with second order mayor-places and uninhabited places. The Factbook digest lists without discussion or context “dependent areas”, and “legislative branch”, and the longest “national flag”, all equally titled, all equally a part of the U.S. government.
 * _ _ Yet TFD asserts Facebook excludes dependent areas from the U.S. Government, not by a source statement “dependent areas are not a part of the U.S. government”. Only by TFD original extension of a digest sentence fragments and phrases. The editorial guide at Wikipedia should be reliable secondary sources and scholarly academic publication. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ACT OF 1949 - U.S. law CIA Primary Source
 * CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ACT OF 1949


 * (3)(A) Order to any of the several States of the United States of America (including the District of Columbia, the
 * Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States) on leave of absence each officer
 * or employee of the Agency who was a resident of the United States (as described above) at time of employment, upon completion
 * of two years’ continuous service abroad, or as soon as possible thereafter.


 * (B) While in the United States (as described in paragraph (3)(A) of this section) on leave, the service of any officer
 * or employee shall be available for work or duties in the Agency or elsewhere as the Director may prescribe; and the time of such work or duty shall not be counted as leave.


 * (C) Where an officer or employee on leave returns to the United States (as described in paragraph (3)(A) of this section),
 * leave of absence granted shall be exclusive of the time actually and necessarily occupied in going to and from the United
 * States (as so described) and such time as may be necessarily occupied in awaiting transportation. --Buzity (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * TheVirginiaHistorian misquotes me. Obviously the government of  the United States has authority over its dependent territories and possessions, otherwise they would not be dependencies.  TFD (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District of Columbia (a special area that is the home of the federal government), the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico."
 * “Welcome to the United States”: a guide for new immigrants is an official government publication that has the U.S. Government Official Edition Notice. This is Authenticated U.S. Government Information. --Buzity (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A statement in government document does not override the U.S. constitution or public international law as explained in court cases, American presentations to the U.N., U.N. announcements and textbooks.  And even if it did we would have to resolve the conflict between the CIA and DHS sources.  TFD (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The "Welcome to the United States" guide for immigrants is supported by all sources cited to date. TFD MAKEUP says there are sources to the contrary. But there none cited by TFD, only argumentative assertion. As a matter of WP:GOODFAITH, please provide one source for "U.S. territories are not a part of the U.S. federal republic for each of the following claims in your last post:
 * _ _ (a) "U.S. constitutional ruling" in federal court, district, circuit or Supreme Court that applies to U.S. territories in 2013, on what grounds (textual, not original research)? -- (b) "textbooks", "territories not a part of the U.S.federal republic" applies in 2013, on what grounds (textual, not original research)?
 * _ _ (c) "U.N. Announcements" of General Assembly resolutions -- not panel reports never placed on a general assembly session agenda for a vote. --  (d) "American presentations to the U.N.", for U.S. territories in 2013, to contradict inclusion as found in U.S. State Department Manuals.
 * _ _ Editors do not need to resolve any perceived contradiction, when we can rely on the Wikipedia hierarchy of authoritative sources, the lowest to highest being (1) terciary references and textbooks for stub articles, (2) primary sources used to illustrate a scholar's point, (3) secondary sources from reputable publishers in the field, and (4) scholars in academic publications as the preferred sources for established feature articles. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"Exclude territory" sources
They have been provided above: (a) insular cases, (b) Levinson & Sparrow, p. 89, (c) UN resolution 748 (1953) recognizing PR as an associated state. Your hierarchy of sources means that we can safely ignore your tertiary sources in favor of secondary sources. It does not help that your two tertiary sources contradict each other. Here is a link to an article in the Boston College Law Review explaining the constitutional status of PR. TFD (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * TFD argument fails on all three counts. (1) TFD’s CIA Factbook is the only tertiary source introduced into the discussion, an index of primary and secondary sources, in this case a weekly updated database of lists written in sentence fragments. (2) The “Insular Cases” are superseded by statute and jurisprudence, a shown in Buzity's many citations above, and (3) the “associated state” of Puerto Rico chose in 2012 for the THIRD time in plebiscite with 80% participation -- 4% independence versus 96% to be "a part of the U.S."
 * _ _ The apartheid of 1901-1904 Insular Cases as described by federal Judge Juan Torruella, even then could be justified only as a temporary colonial measure to rule non-U.S. citizens, until their congressional incorporation by citizenship, as held in Rassumussen Case. This was explained by Torruella in the U. of Pennsylvania “J. of International Law” 2007, as linked above.
 * _ _ Professor Sparrow of U. of Texas described the incorporation process beginning in 1803 to the “present [2005] United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories”. (Sparrow, in Levinson, p.89, 232). Others in Levinson such as Dr. Julian Go of Boston University show us the race-based injustice of delaying U.S. citizenship. Though not within the federal republic in 1803, both Arizona and Guam are now incorporated into the U.S. (Jullian Go in Levinson, p.215).
 * _ _ Editors are mistaken to say there is "exactly the same" answer for all territories everywhere for all time. What was once truly an injustice in some places sometimes, is no longer the same anywhere in today's U.S. The U.S.G. "Welcome to the United States", p.77 says, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District …, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, this is your personal opinion not supported by any secondary sources. TFD (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not my opinion that 96% is greater than 4%. It is not my opinion that U.S. territories in 2013 are incorporated into the federal republic of the United States of America. It is that of Judge Torruella, Professor Sparrow, Dr. Julian Go, the U.S.G, and others.
 * _ _ Torruella, Sparrow, Julian Go and U.S.G. publications are, here at Wikipedia, secondary sources. What does it mean to the Wikipedia process if TFD sources Lawson and Sloane, do not support TFD unsourced assertion? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The 96% vs 4% has no impact whatsoever, at this present moment, if PR is part of the country. (and if it did then I'm guessing you're saying Guam, Am. Samoa, etc. aren't?) --Golbez (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "It has no impact" ONLY because there is no material voice for change. Self-determination according to TFD's source, Lawson and Sloane, is that the population has a voice in choosing their constitutional government. PR said in 2013, "no majority for any change", not statehood petition, not independence which was on the ballot.
 * _ _ The impact of three plebiscites, both under the auspices of the U.S. and without congressional approval -- including a two-tiered U.N. format. -- is, that in 1952, 1993 and 2012, Puerto Ricans have always freely chosen some form of U.S. incorporation 96%. Furthermore, more than half have freely migrated to U.S. states, not to Spanish-speaking Ecuador, because PR citizens are a part of the U.S.
 * _ _ The District of Columbia, Northern Marianas, Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands ALL had referendums to approve the congressional organic acts establishing their constitutional local three-branch government, federal judiciary (Article I courts for DC --  territories approved Article III courts with more authority), and direct representation in congress for all. TFD's sources, Lawson and Sloane in a journal of international law, say U.S. territory vote for president is not required for incorporation.
 * No, it literally has no impact on this discussion. That 96% over 4% voted for whatever doesn't, in itself, change anything about its status within the country, and is thus not a valid argument for anyone to make. You may notice I've retired from arguing and have taken up a referee role, trying to reign in spurious arguments. Maybe we'll someday get to a core without tons of froofery. (It's a word.) And of course U.S. territory vote for president is not required for incorporation, because no territory - internal or external - has ever had a vote for president, with the constitutional exception of the federal district. This doesn't require sourcing, it is simple fact. Same deal with representation in congress, though slightly altered; all internal territories (excepting the federal district) have always sent a delegate, whereas only some external territories have (CNMI only got one a few years ago, Canal Zone never had one, but the Philippines had two for a period) --Golbez (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * _ _ That is why an official publication of the U.S.G. by the Government Printing Office CAN say -- NOT for colonial “Insular Cases” of 1904 apartheid, BUT for U.S. territories in the year 2007 -- “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District of Columbia [and the five organically incorporated territories enumerated]."
 * _ _ WP article should conform to the PR plebiscite until a change, then footnote any counter U.S. claim. Until there is a popular expression from the Puerto Rican people OTHER THAN Puerto Rico as "a part of the U.S.", the article should reflect the will of the people voting in an 80% turnout. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The U.S. freely added PR to the list of non-self-governing territories (i.e., colonies) and successfully applied to have it removed in 1952, saying that there was an agreement between the U.S. and PR that PR was a separate state in free association with the U.S., even though it did not meet the criteria normally required for free association. Both the U.S. and U.N. agree that full sovereignty has not been achieved and can only be achieved in one of three ways:  statehood, independence and association.  BTW, WP:MADEUP refers to cases where someone makes up a story, e.g., if someone claimed that Lilliput was a U.S. territory.  TFD (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To restate with some fewer adverbs, The U.N. removed PR from the colonies list in 1952 by majority Assembly vote. The U.S. and U.N. agree that "full autonomy" in self-government can be achieved either by (a) association, (b) statehood or (c) independence, and "self-determination" requires participation in constitutional status.
 * _ _ Puerto Rico has chosen in 2012 plebiscite, as in 1952 and 1993, the association course of autonomy in self government as described in TFD source, Lawson and Sloane -- a status in which Puerto Rico is "virtually equivalent" to that of a U.S. state, but with some economic advantages over statehood, as referenced in Lawson and Sloane.
 * _ _ PR is accepted into the U.S. irrevocably by congressional organic act, and affirmed incorporated by U.S. federal court. To say the PR union in self-government is NOT so in the U.S. federal republic -- without sources to contradict TFD's Lawson and Sloane -- is to make up a story. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Lawson and Sloane

 * TFD now introduces an article by professors Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review. Gary Lawson and Robert D. Sloane, Puerto Rico’s Legal status reconsidered Boston College Law Review, 2009. They ask on page 1137, “What, then, is an associated state?” On page 1159, By international law, “states are generally free as to the manner in which, domestically, they … meet their international obligations”, whether “direct reception” by free association, … "legislation, common law, or administrative action as the means. These are matters for each state to determine for itself according to its own constitutional practices.” –.
 * _ _ Lawson and Sloane show Puerto Rico is a part of the U.S. by Res. 567 first two tests. FIRST, the authors stipulate “Puerto Rico manifestly … enjoys virtually complete autonomy over its local affairs (p.1160). SECOND, “Resolution 567 does not purport to require complete equality in constitutional guarantees”. In practice -- whatever the theoretical scope of the Insular Cases doctrine -- the U.S. “has in FACT vested Puerto Ricans by statute or judicially, "virtually the same constitutional rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens of the several states. The consistent trend since 1952 … has been to expand this category.” (p.1162)
 * _ _ The third condition set forth in Resolution 567, regards the equal participation "in any changes in the constitutional system of the State,” Puerto Ricans lack a vote in federal elections while in Puerto Rico except their restricted Member of Congress. “But in terms of associated statehood, it is not clear that the absence of the franchise per se constitutes a violation of U.S. international obligations under the 1952 bilateral compact" (p.1163)
 * _ _ In Lawson and Stone, we see the people of Puerto Rico deliberately chose NOT to become a state, which would have entailed federal voting rights and effective participation in Congress, mainly because of the socioeconomic circumstances of the island … and in substantial part, it drove Puerto Rico’s decision to forego both statehood and independence in favor of the intermediate status of associated statehood (p.1164-5).
 * _ _ Subsequent to the 2009 article, in 2012 a third plebiscite on political union with the U.S. was held with 80% participation. Puerto Rico held the plebiscite without consent of Congress in a two-step format recommended by the U.N. Special Committee of 28. The ballot included provision for commonwealth, statehood, free association and independence and 96% chose some form of UNION to be “a part of the U.S.”, only 4% chose INDEPENDENCE by the U.N. ballot guidelines. WP article should reflect official U.S. government publications and the self-determination of 96% of the people of Puerto Rico in 2012, until their vote changes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Associated states are not part of the major state. As you correctly state, Lawson and Sloane explain why PR can be seen as an associated state of the U.S., which is the same status the Philipinnes held and Palau and two other countries still do.  It is your own opinion that this status means they are part of the U.S.  TFD (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Again TFD MAKEUP without sources, a wikilink is not a source. "Associated states" according to our Lawson and Stone source, may or may not be incorporated into the major state, "each state to determine for itself according to its own constitutional practices.” In a federal republic, they need not be made into municipalities, “Puerto Rico manifestly … enjoys virtually complete autonomy over its local affairs ... [with] virtually the same constitutional rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens of the several states". (Lawson and Stone, 2009).
 * _ _ Within the federal republic of the U.S., both (1) the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas and (2) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, are both acknowledged as being a part of the U.S., with native-born U.S. citizens living in local self-governance irrevocably protected under the constitution. They are a part of the U.S. by statutory organic law, they are by adjudication of common law, and they are by administrative presidential executive order, a part of the United States -- though only one element is required for incorporation by Lawson and Stone analysis, all three are present for Northern Marianas and Puerto Rico into the U.S. in 2013.
 * _ _ We do have a SOURCE which says, The U.S. "now consists of 50 states, the District …, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico." TFD MAKEUP without sources asserts the Northern Marianas and Puerto Rico stand in the same status to the United States as the Philippines. There is not an organic act of congress incorporating the Philippines in 2013, there is in 2013 for Northern Marianas and Puerto Rico. Editors are mistaken to say there is only one answer for all territories everywhere for all time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lawson and Sloane say that both the metropolitan and the associated state retain their international status of statehood (p. 1137). While Sparrow and the Cubans argue that PR is not an associated state, but a colony or non-self-governing territory within the American empire, neither argues that PR does not have a separate international identity or right to self-determination.  TFD (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Facts About Free Associated States
 * A Free Associated State is an independent nation with a treaty‐based association with the U.S. Limited access to U.S. government protections and federal programs. The only states currently associated with the U.S. are Palau, The Marshall Islands, and The Federated States of Micronesia.
 * Four states in the United States officially designate themselves as "commonwealths" in their constitutions. All four were original colonies (Kentucky was originally a part of the land grant of the Colony of Virginia) and share a strong influence of colonial common law in some of their laws and institutions.
 * Despite Puerto Rico oficially designate itself as "commonwealth" in their Constitution in english and translated this as “Estado Libre Asociado” or “free associated state,” in the Spanish version of the Constitution, Puerto Rico does not fall under the same category as states currently “freely associated” with the U.S.
 * Another interesting point Lawson & Sloane "Associated Statehood:..." p. 1161 - As to the first, recall that under the Insular Cases doctrine, the people of so-called unincorporated territories, which according to the federal government, Puerto Rico remains, may be denied the full panoply of rights, privileges, and immunities enjoyed by citizens and the inhabitants of incorporated territories.
 * Well, the statement is not accurate. On August 5, 1947 - The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution regarding the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States was expressly extended to Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union.”  by the U.S. Congress through the federal law codified on the Title 48 the United States Code as, and signed by President Truman.“… --Buzity (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that the purpose of Congress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with a State of the Union. Reference: Examining Board v. Flores de Otero
 * It was not to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of sovereignty and independence normally associated with a separate international identity. --Buzity (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth as colony

 * The term "commonwealth" does not imply that a territory is a subnational state, (see Commonwealth of Nations, Commonwealth of Australia, English Commowealth, cooperative commonwealth). There is of course a dispute whether PR has become an associated state or remains a colony, but no sources claim it has been incorporated into the U.S.  Had PR been a part of the United States, there would be no need for legislation to extend the Privileges and Immunities Clause because it would already apply. TFD (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Your statement is inaccurate. .  Puerto Rico is part of the United States of America.  Puerto Rico is a self-governing territory of the United States.  The express extension of the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico and the other territories by the U.S. Congress and the Federal Courts were required because there are not States. There are inhabited territories that are part of the United States of America.
 * The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States was expressly extended to Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union.” by the U.S. Congress.  -- Memorandum on the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico November 30, 1992 President George H. W. Bush
 * Puerto Rico is a self-governing territory of the United States whose residents have been United States citizens since 1917 and have fought valorously in five wars in the defense of our Nation and the liberty of others.


 * On July 25, 1952, as a consequence of steps taken by both the United States Government and the people of Puerto Rico voting in a referendum, a new constitution was promulgated establishing the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth structure provides for self-government in respect of internal affairs and administration, subject to relevant portions of the Constitution and the laws of the United States. As long as Puerto Rico is a territory, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained periodically by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored either by the United States Government or the Legislature of Puerto Rico.


 * Because Puerto Rico's degree of constitutional self-government, population, and size set it apart from other areas also subject to Federal jurisdiction under Article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution, I hereby direct all Federal departments, agencies, and officials, to the extent consistent with the Constitution and the laws of the United States, henceforward to treat Puerto Rico administratively as if it were a State, except insofar as doing so with respect to an existing Federal program or activity would increase or decrease Federal receipts or expenditures, or would seriously disrupt the operation of such program or activity. -- Reference: Memorandum on the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
 * A Federal Court on Consejo de Salud de la Playa de Ponce vs. Rullan, holds that Puerto Rico is no longer an unincorporated territory of the United States, and has thus become an incorporated territory. Reference:  --Buzity (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Over 1,220 Puerto Ricans have honorably paid the ultimate price in the service and defense of their Nation United States of America. General William W. Harris, Commander of the 65th Infantry Regiment during the Korean War, describes Puerto Ricans in the military as dedicated and loyal United States citizens:
 * “No ethnic group has greater pride in itself and its heritage than the Puerto Rican people. Nor have I encountered any that can be more dedicated and zealous in support of the democratic principles for which the United States stands. Many Puerto Ricans have fought to the death to uphold them”. A Tribute to Puerto Rican Veterans, Puerto Rico Herald (November 11, 1999).
 * Several Puerto Ricans have attained the rank of General or Admiral, which requires a Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation, as is the case of judges and ambassadors. Such appointments, also are not made pursuant to the Territorial Clause, but rather under the Constitutional provisions pertaining to the Nation’s armed forces.
 * More so, the enlistment and participation of Puerto Ricans in the Armed Forces is not an exercise of Congress’ territorial clause powers, but rather one under military and naval constitutional provisions. See U.S. Const. Art. I § 8 cl. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16; Art. II § 2 cl.1.
 * Puerto Rico is today one of the jurisdictions with the largest per capita enlistment in the United States Armed Forces. See Statement of Hon. Carlos Romero-Barceló, Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico before the United States Senate Committee of Energy and National Resources (July 14, 1998):
 * The American citizens in Puerto Rico are patriots who have risked life and limb for this democracy. Since 1917, when [U.S.] citizenship was extended to the island’s residents, more than 400,000 Puerto Ricans have served in the United States Armed Forces.
 * In fact, beginning with World War I, an estimated 197,000 Puerto Ricans have fought in every military engagement the country has faced during this century.
 * Forty eight thousand Puerto Ricans served in Vietnam and during the Korean conflict, the 61,000 troops sent to the front by Puerto Rico outnumbered the forces of 32 states in absolute numbers and were second only to Hawaii when measured on a per capita basis.
 * Reference: --Buzity (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Again you have presented no valid sources, just arguments. As pointed out by the insular cases, PR can only be incorporated into the U.S. through an act on Congress.  Once incorporated, it can only be ceded by a consitutional amendment.  That Congress has extended privileges to PR and drafted them into the army does not incorporate their state.  The U.S. is merely exercising its authority over a dependent territory just as the U.K. does.  Hundreds of thousands of overseas British subjects have served in the U.K. military (including George Washington).  The opinion expressed by a federal judge in a case which has yet to be decided is just his personal opinion.  TFD (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Buzity said, TFD made an inaccurate statement. PR is a part of the USA. PR is a self-governing part of the U.S. Because territories were not staes, extension of the constitution was required to incorporate them; they are now a part of the U.S.
 * _ _ His sources previous were extended further with the G.H.W. Bush Memorandum and another citation from the 2005 federal district court ruling uncontested in seven years. TFD says there are no sources when sources are linked, something about a draft when there is no draft, and a judicial decision "has yet to be decided" when it has been law seven years. More TFD nonsense.
 * _ _ Washington was not drafted into the British army, he served in the Virginia militia. He applied to the Crown and was denied, although his unit stood and fought rear guard action for Braddock’s command while commissioned regulars fled. He was denied only because he was a colonial. Puerto Ricans are not colonial subjects of empire, they are U.S. citizens incorporated into the U.S. federal republic. Washington served in U.K. military? He did not think so, sources do not say so -- that is more colonial TFD MADEUP.
 * _ _ Presidential and judicial primary sources supporting secondary sources of published scholars and reliable Government Printing Office publications are allowed, -- and superior to -- terciary sources such as CIA Factbook. The judges ruling, unconstested and not overruled by either the Supreme Court or a Circuit court of appeals is the ruling law. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you think militias are part of the military, colonials have served in and continue to serve in U.K. regular forces, and the U.S. allows non-citizens to serve. Memos from a former president do not incorporate territories.  You need to find a source supporting your argument.  TFD (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will try to accommodate in the following sections. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What you call a memo from a former president is really an Executive order that have full force of law today.
 * United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law, since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution. --Buzity (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"Include territories" scholarly sources

 * No source from the "exclude the territories" side, only misrepresentation without textual reference and a challenge to rename and relink support for a U.S. government printing office publication.
 * _ _Wikipedia has on the one side, nine scholars published in reliable academic publications of international law and geopolitical history: Charles S. Chapel, Amitai Etzioni, Gustavo A. Gelpí, Julian Go, Lawson and Sloane, Sean D. Murphy, Juan R. Torruella, Bartholomew H. Sparrow.
 * _ _ On the other we have one editor's assurance that a terciary CIA Factbook of sentence fragments can be interpreted without textual reference to supersede them all by his opinion.


 * “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District of Columbia (a special area that is the home of the federal government), the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.” ("Welcome to the United States" 2007, p.77.) "At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.” (Sparrow in Levinson, p.232).


 * Scholarly source for geographical extent of the United States. -- Sparrow, Bartholomew H., in Levinson, S. and Sparrow, B. H., | The Louisiana Purchase And American Expansion, 1803-1898 2005. ISBN 0-7425-4984-4 p.232. viewed December 2, 2012. Julian Go in |Levinson, 2005 p.215, 216, 225), "The insular cases: the establishment of a regime of political apartheid" Page 294, Juan R. Torruella. Amitai Etzioni online at |Political Unification. Reliable source |Bartholomew Sparrow at the University of Texas published in a | | verifiable publication, "At present, the [U.S.] includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the [D.C.] and, of course, the fifty states. (Sparrow in Levinson 2005, p.232). Sean D. Murphy in | United States Practice in International Law: 2002-2004 (2005) ISBN 978-0-521-75071-4,  Cambridge U. Pr., Murphy quotes Judge Charles S. Chapel, “within the United States [are] individual states, districts and territories.” (Murphy p. 34), The Insular Cases: A Comparative Historical Study of Puerto Rico, Hawaiʻi, and the Philippines, Gustavo A. Gelpí., The Insular Cases: A Comparative Historical Study of Puerto Rico and Others Overseas U.S. Territories, Gustavo A. Gelpí. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Holy shit, Sparrow wrote something? And they wrote " "At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.”"? I never knew that! How many times in one argument are you going to quote the exact same thing? We're aware of it. Repetition of a simple source like that starts to dull your argument, making it appear that it's your only argument. We know that's not the case, so stop relying on it. Please. I will have to stab something in frustration if I see that again. --Golbez (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @Golbez. While never offering a counter source, TFD requested previously cited sources to be restated for ease of reference, so I have begun to accommodate; more to follow. It is not all "exactly the same thing", that is why there are nine scholars in several academic fields from a few universities of international studies cited here for the reader to understand the geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic in 2013.
 * _ _ The nine scholars DO have different ways of saying, "Welcome to the United States, which now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico." These are the only relevant sources. None say, "The U.S. territories of 2013, incorporated by congressional organic law, are not incorporated." only TFD attempts it by argumentation -- without sources of any description -- only tertiary constructs and his search-engine hit-count on the term "unincorporated territory".
 * _ _ The official U.S. source for the official extent of the U.S.A. should be persuasive. The Insular Cases view once held that those without "Anglo-Saxon traditions" were used to Spanish colonial rule allowing massacring village males over ten, therefore American colonial rule should not be held to standards of the U.S. Constitution. But the Insular Cases only lasted the lifetime of U.S. Philippine Governor, Chief Justice Taft -- a civilian who actually ended the worst atrocities. They were superseded fifty years after their inception, beginning in 1952. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Diverse union without oppression
All you have are a number of sources that do not support your claims just facts you have chosen to put together to form an individual opinion. Political Unification, for example, which was published in 1965, does not even mention the insular cases, or Puerto Rico or any other U.S. territories. TFD (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @ TFD maintains a confusion without sources, imagining that federal union requires either a colonialism over different cultures or their extinction. Etzioni helps the reader see federal union can preserve diverse cultures, habits and customs in society and in law of the modern nation-state. By publication in 1965 in a time of post-WWII anti-colonialism, he was not bound by moribund Insular Cases imposing apartheid on U.S. island possessions. In any case, they had been superseded by U.S. statute and jurisprudence beginning 1952; he was interested in exploring peaceful multi-cultural unification in nation-states, worldwide anti-colonialism without revolution.
 * _ _ The Insular Cases, as a philosophy, policy and practice of peaceful integration of diverse cultures, language and legal practice in the nation-state, failed. The Philippine Insurrection was the only case where a United States general officer was relieved directly by Congress for atrocities against a civilian population. Of course Etzioni does not uphold a 50-year failure in 1965 as an ideal for the future world of peaceful self-determination and mutual prosperity among the world's peoples. Similarly, he merely mentions in passing the 400-year failure of British union with Ireland 1542-1922.
 * _ _ But today, there ARE sources to say U.S. territories are a part of the U.S., such as "Welcome to the United States" (2007), published by the U.S. Government Printing Office. NO sources of any description yet say the U.S. apartheid of 1904 is still extant in the U.S. of 2013 with congressional organic law for U.S. territories, united irrevocably in citizenship. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Include territories" government publications

 * Government publications describe the geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic as 50 states, the District and five territories incorporated by organic law. It’s 2007 “Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants” is confirmed in State Department manuals, Census reports, Geographic Information Systems, Treasury regulations and Postal Service.
 * _ _ Previously, editors have cited the CIA Factbook, a tertiary weekly digest of sentence fragments which includes territories under its heading “U.S. government”. But it confuses ‘first-order’ administration by governors, separating states and territories which are held to be "equivalent" in all U.S. Government publications.
 * _ _ And Factbook adds the District with a mayor which is, by definition, a “second-order” administration of government. DC has Article I federal courts, while first-order administrative divisions of the U.S., the states and organically incorporated territories, have the constitutionally more powerful Article III federal courts. But neither DC or the Territories should be excluded from the geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic.


 * _ _ Welcome to the United States A Guide for New Immigrants Pages 77, 83 and 101., U.S. Census | Community survey reports. The term -- native born American . | Title 13 of the U.S. Code states that each of the censuses it authorizes “shall include...", United States - United Kingdom Maritime Boundaries in the Caribbean - U.S. Department of State. Cornell University Library - GIS Data and Maps -- United States GIS Data & Maps -- United States-, | Federal tax law related to U.S. territories., U.S. Census | Community survey reports. The term -- native born American -- refers to "anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area, ...  [including] Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands”., Congress defines the official geographical extent of the U.S. at | State Dept. Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) 7-Consular Affairs, p. 2-3, referencing an Act of Congress: INA, State Department | Consular Affairs Manual, refers to INA statute, | U.S. Statistical Abstract. viewed October 31, 2012. “Anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area (such as Guam), or born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and consequently included in the native population. “ (p.6) Section 29, “Puerto Rico and the Island Areas”, p.815. “This section presents summary economic and social statistics for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.”, | U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7- Consular Affairs, 7 FAM 1121,2,3,4,5 - Sec.1- Current Law for each. viewed October 31, 2012. “As of 1952, according to the U.S. State Department, the U.S. five dependencies listed as part of the geographical definition of the ‘United States’ in Section 101 (a)(38) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Include territories" congressional statutes

 * On setting up the U.S. race-based apartheid colonial rule for island possessions as described by both “include territory” sources from Juan Torruella and from Julian Go, the U.S. “Jim Crow” Supreme Court’s Insular Cases, 1901-1904, stipulated that the judicial fiat would have effect only until congressional statute extended the Constitution.
 * _ _ Once the Constitution is extended to a place it is irrevocable. Modern courts, district, circuit and supreme courts, have extended specific constitutional protections to territories in addition to those specifically enumerated in congressional organic acts of incorporation. “The Constitution cannot be switched on and off.”


 * _ _ Acts of incorporation. Six territorial places incorporated into the U.S. by court jurisdiction in USC Title 28 are incorporated into U.S. executive and legislative governance of the U.S. federal republic by Organic Act: (a) | District of Columbia home rule, (b) | American Samoa deed of cession, (c) | Guam organic act, (d) | Marianas covenant, (e) | Puerto Rico organic act], (f) [| U.S. Virgin Islands organic act. 48 USC § 1421b as amended, Guam’s Organic Act. Provisions of the U.S. Constitution explicitly extended to Guam. Congressional intent to extend the Constitution was upheld in appellate court in the 1992 Guam OBGYN case. 48 U.S.C. § 1561 the Virgin Islands, with “the same force and effect” there as in the U.S. or any State of the U.S., with indictments as provided in local law, CNMI Covenant - In a covenant of political union, to the Northern Marianas Islands, as if it were one of the several STATES, with juries as provided in local law. Subsequent federal court cases 1990-1994 held that additional provisions of the Constitution applied to U.S. citizens there without explicit act of congress, including the 5th, 6th, 7th and 14th Amendments.
 * _ _ Legislators. They are titled Congressman (3) and Congresswoman (3): (1) District’s |Norton, (2) Guam’s |Bordallo, (3) Northern Mariana’s |Sablan, (4) Puerto Rico’s |Pierluisi, (5) Samoa’s |Faleomavaega, (6) Virgin Islands’ |Christensen. | The delegates and resident commissioner “possess the same powers as other members of the House, except that they may not vote when the House is meeting as the House of Representatives.”, GAO Report, U.S. Insular Areas, | Application of the U.S. Constitution November 1997, (p.26-28)., after 1960, the term “United States" also includes Guam and American Samoa when the term is used in a geographical sense. The term “citizen of the United States” includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa. But, NO district in the U.K. Parliament for the |British Virgin Islands of any description.
 * _ _ Other statute references. In the |Homeland Security Act of 2002, State Department Consular Affairs Manual, | Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth in the U.S page 3, references Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), that “the term 'United States, when used in a geographical sense ...”, The Senate and the House of Representative of Puerto Rico Concurrent Resolution, Statement of Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX)Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management, |Homeland Security Act of 2002,, State Department | Consular Affairs Manual, Central Intelligence Act of 1949, | Title 13 of the U.S. Code, | census tabulated data. U.S. Code. In U.S. legal matters, |28 USC § 3002 – Definitions (14) “State” means any of the several States, the District ... Puerto Rico, ... Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the U.S. Example. | 28 USC § 1251 - Original jurisdiction (a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more "States". (b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of: (2) All controversies between the United States and a "State". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

First sentence source challenge

 * -- At WP:ORIGINAL, An inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged.
 * -- CHALLENGE: The first sentence phrase, the U.S. is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district.” is not documented with a scholarly secondary source published in a reliable publication.
 * - THERE IS NO SOURCE reported for the U.S. extent based on “incorporated places”, the states, federal district and Palmyra Atoll, -- regardless of those U.S. citizens living in populated territories and incorporated by organic act statute and federal jurisprudence.
 * - THE CORRECTIVE SOURCE is a secondary source from a scholar published in a reliable source says, "At present, the [U.S.] includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the [D.C.] and, of course, the fifty states." (Sparrow in Levinson 2005, p.232)." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Trivial. CIA factbook under government describes administrative divisions as 50 states and one district. Dependent areas are listed under a separate heading. older ≠ wiser 18:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * International treaty between the United States of America and the United Kindom defined their boundaries in the caribbean.
 * On November 5, 1993, in London, the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom signed two treaties delimiting maritime boundaries between their respective territories in the Caribbean. The first treaty divides the maritime jurisdiction between Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, on the one side, and the British Virgin Islands, on the other side. The boundary terminates east of the U.S. Virgin Islands at the tripoint with Anguilla. The second agreement establishes a short one segment boundary that begins at this tripoint and extends less than 2 miles to a tripoint with the Netherlands.1
 * The two treaties are subject to ratification by each side and will enter into force upon the exchange of instruments of ratification. President Clinton transmitted the treaties to the senate on March 9, 1994, seeking the advice and consent to ratification.
 * The Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter the "parties");
 * Recalling the tradition of cooperative relations and close ties between the people of the United States of America and the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;
 * Desiring to establish a maritime boundary between the United States of America (Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (British Virgin Islands) in the Caribbean on the basis of equidistance;
 * Article I
 * The purpose of this Treaty is to establish, in accordance with international law, the maritime boundary between the United States of America (Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (British Virgin Islands).
 * Reference: United States - United Kingdom Maritime Boundaries in the Caribbean --Buzity (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @ Older≠wiser. The CIA Factbook is an anonymous digest of shorthand statistics, a good start for general information, but Wikipedia articles are not to be a dictionary. Awaiting the scholar's name in any academic field who affixes his or her name to that representation of the U.S. federal constitutional republic extent -- ignoring BOTH incorporated territories AND U.S. citizenship. Homeschool textbook committtees are not what is asked for either.
 * - CIA Factbook does NOT have the force of law, NOR credibility of scholarship in any academic field.
 * - Note the treaty between the U.S. and Great Britain, supreme law of the land for the U.S. -- includes in the Atlantic the U.S. and the places of U.S. citizens Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands as equivalent to the U.K. of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and British Virgin Islands. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * CIA factbook is a reliable source. Do you dispute this? Rather than making forced and contorted conclusions based on out-of-context snippets, it clearly and unambiguously presents what is common knowledge. older ≠ wiser 20:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Both the US and British Virgin Islands are overseas territories whose foreign affairs are conducted by the UK. Or are you arguing that the BVI is part of the UK?  TFD (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * U.S. Maritime Boundaries: Agreements and Treaties - U.S. Department of State
 * Maritime Boundaries of the United States of America

--Buzity (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Snippets? Do you consider this reliable source a snippet?
 * CONSEJO DE SALUD PLAYA PONCE v. JOHNNY RULLAN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO 30 PagesBuzity (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Statement of Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management - U.S. House
 * And once these drugs are in Puerto Rico, they have crossed our borders. Because Puerto Rico is a US Territory...
 * This Caribbean region is America’s “Third Border;” an open door for drug traffickers and terrorists.
 * The American flag has flown over Puerto Rico for more than a century. The people of the US Virgin Islands have been American citizens for almost as long. These islands are American soil, and our fellow American citizens need our support now.
 * Statement of Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX)Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management --Buzity (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * GIS Data and Maps include Puerto Rico. Cornell University Library - GIS Data and Maps -- United States GIS Data & Maps -- United States--Buzity (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As with the persistent confusion in this discussion, there is are distinctions between what areas the U.S. has jurisdiction over and what types of parts and authorities constitute those jurisdictions. older ≠ wiser 23:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bkonrad, Puerto Rico, after one hundred fourteen (114) years under the American Flag, remains an unincorporated territory (as is Guantanamo Bay), or whether it has evolved beyond said stage? --Buzity (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think most people would say Guantanamo Bay is not an incorporated territory. It is a leased military facility like all the others the U.S. has around the world, it simply can't be closed unilaterally by the Cubans. A better question would be, was the Panama Canal Zone an unincorporated territory? You could go interesting places with that one. --Golbez (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Golbez here. Guantanamo is a straw man. The U.S. federal republic extends to its populations in places under the Constitution. There is no organic act for Guantanamo. Guantanamo is a place with no resident population for a plebiscite on union in the first place. Some persist in asserting that Guantanamo as a part of this discussion -- which is about a sovereign nation established as a federal constitutional republic with a strong democratic tradition (even Factbook says so) --
 * - BUT Guantanamo is an isolated, deserted sandspit -- which is why it was chosen in part -- adjacent deepwater, developed as a navy coaling station in the 19th century, which happens to be in a strategic location relative to Caribbean sea lanes. It has no people who are a part of the U.S. federal republic, it is a place under U.S. jurisdiction. And I really do want to explore Panama Canal status with Golbez sometime. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Guantanamo Bay was chosen as a prison because the U.S. government believed that because it was not a U.S. territory, U.S. laws did not apply. The Supreme Court found that because the U.S. had jurisdiction that the laws did apply and therefore inmates had the right of habeas corpus and courts could only be valid if established by Congress with appeals allowed to the federal courts of appeal.  It is no different from any other overseas territory.  TFD (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Except, so far as I know, the U.S. agrees the facility is part of the nation of Cuba. They simply rent out jurisdiction over it. (Of course, then we could get into whether Akrotiri and Dhekelia are part of Cyprus or are separate overseas territories of the UK [I think they are separate]) --Golbez (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That was the U.S. government argument, but was not accepted. The Cyprus bases are British overseas territories.  The point is that one country may administer an overseas territory, and may extend privileges to its citizens, but that does not incorporate the territory into the host country.  As explained in Downes v Bidwell, only a clear expression by the host country, which in the U.S., is represented by Congress can do that.  TFD (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The confusion in the discussion relates to the definition of a nation in the first sentence of a country article. The dispute is between an idea of (a) the sovereignty-of-places versus (b) the sovereignty-of-people. Are states sovereign or are people sovereign? Some cannot imagine (a) the democratic republic of the living when there is (b) feudal title of place without consent of the governed. Sort of like the American Civil War--long story.
 * - Jurisdiction refers to places with or without people. there may be jurisdiction over unpopulated places. A "federal constitutional republic" refers to people in places. There is no republic of PLACES without people, of Pacific island guano pits and palm tree farms (Palmyra Atoll) incorporated into jurisdictions of legal fictions. That is not a republic.
 * -Well, except in constructs of original research derived from trivial sources of extracted statistical data without scholarship or broader meaning. A republic is people in places, such as U.S. citizens living under the Constitution in the territories, organically incorporated with local three-branch (republican) government, an Article III federal court, and representation in Congress.
 * - Let’s look beyond this as a stub with rudimentary, elementary, trivial sources into a feature encyclopedia article based on scholarship reflecting the view of academics published in reliable sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Returning to your example, how is US jurisdiction over the USVI any different from UK jurisdiction over the BVI? TFD (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * First, the subject is United States, British Virgin Islands is British, so you are off topic again.
 * Second, the British Parliament reports NO district for the |British Virgin Islands, -- HOWEVER the U.S. Congress reports a district for Congresswoman |Donna Christensen popularly elected by the votes of U.S. citizens resident in the USVI.
 * - Imperialists just don't get it. Virtual representation is different from direct representation in the national legislature. The argument has been made, Very smart people from England know what is best for black people in hot climes, there is no need for them to be bothered. But Congress adopts a different relationship with its citizens.
 * - Again you have allusions to "all sources" and "the UN declared" prior to 1952 that BVI and USVI were once the same by international law, with no current scholarly sources. But the DIFFERENCE is one of the reasons the U.S. federal constitutional republic extends to the U.S. Virgin Islands irrevocably, so USVI is a part of the U.S. -- and importantly at the same time -- I rejoice British citizenship is bestowed on British Virgin Islanders in 2002, "Good show". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The first Samoan-born citizen to be elected a U.S. Representative to Congress is Tulsi Gabbard, from Hawaii’s Second District. She is the first practicing Hindu in the House. Only in America, who knew in 1904? This is not "just like" the British Virgin Islands or the British Parliament, and the difference is related to people in places of a federal republic, it has nothing to do with an abstraction about places in the sovereign jurisdiction of empires -- in a governance regardless of their local populations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Dadabhai Naoroji, who was from India, became a British MP in 1892. He was a practicing Zorastrian.  BTW, your source (Sparrow) says on p. 232 that the territories are outside the "federal republic", although they are within the empire.  TFD (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Which brings us to the parallels of Denmark and the Netherlands and others. The Netherlands consists of, well, the Netherlands. That's it. The Kingdom of the Netherlands, however, includes four constituent countries: The Netherlands, Aruba, Curacao, and Sint Maarten. The Kingdom of Denmark consists of Denmark, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland. The Realm of New Zealand consists of New Zealand, the Cook Islands, and Niue.
 * My point here is, there is sometimes a difference between X and the sphere of/realm of/kingdom of X.
 * Every country handles its spheres differently. The UK has multiple levels; we have the home countries, then we have the possessions of the crown (Man, Jersey, Guernsey), then we have the overseas territories of Gibraltar, BIOT, etc. France appears to have a more consolidated level, as I think (I haven't researched too deeply) it considers all of its overseas territories to be part of the country, like Arizona Territory was part of the U.S., and of course the overseas departments are fundamental units of the country like Hawaii is in the U.S. The Netherlands in particular is an interesting case study. It's not that all of the Caribbean islands are separate constituent countries; in fact, Saba, Sint Eustatius, and Bonaire are part of the Netherlands proper.
 * The main problem with these, of course, is that the outer sphere and the home nation always share a name. (I thought I could find some exception but I can't) Usually, there's a qualifier to set it apart - The Netherlands vs. Kingdom of the Netherlands, for example. But the U.S. has no such qualifier. Wake Island is not part of the United States, but it is solidly within the sphere of the United States. An attack on it is an attack on the country. Yet none of us think it's actually part of the country. And since we don't have a kingdom or empire, we can't say "it's part of the Kingdom of the United States". It's simply a possession thereof.
 * So the question is, where do the inhabited territories fall? It's not entirely wrong to say the United States includes Wake; it is however wrong to say Wake is part of the United States. It all depends on your definition of "United States". And as we've seen repeatedly, the U.S. Code defines it in about a dozen different ways. --Golbez (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There always is a name to describe a country and its outlying territories, e.g., "the USA and its territories". When one state is incorporated into another, all the laws of the host state are received by the addition.  When they are not, only those laws that are explicitly written for the territory are in force.  Again, the definitions in the code relate to interpreting the code only.  TFD (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @TFD. But unlike Congressman Faleomavaega, who as a Samoan can be elected by resident Samoans to the U.S. Congress, MP Naoroji could not directly represent an Indian community voting for him in India to sit in the British Parliament, because while Naoroji would have been a colonial in India unable to participate in any direct way with his sovereign national government, Faleomavaega is able to participate directly from Samoa in his sovereign national government. More developments await tribal councils concerning communal property, but Congress stripped the Interior Department of its power to approve the Samoan Constitution, as its secretary was previously functioning as an MP with overseas territory portfolio. As for now, Samoans can get U.S. citizenship with one-year's stay in Hawaii, and U.S. citizens have full privileges and immunities in permanent residence on Samoa, among natural-born nationals.
 * @Golbez. Lots of comparative government, which is off topic. But out of courtesy, I reply by asking you to consider, by the French Constitution the French colonies accept degrees of new forms of government proposed by the Republic in a sort of parallel to Samoa, I suppose. So as the France article admits the extent of the Republic of France to include its other than department places, with citizenship in a republic, -- so too, the U.S. article should admit the extent of the United States of America to include its other than state places, with citizenship in a republic.
 * -- Wake has not an organic act of incorporation making its inhabitants U.S. citizens, and therefore part of the U.S. federal republic to my knowledge. Did you have a source comparable to the Puerto Rican organic act of August 5, 1947 and the Supreme Court's Ross and Downes cases quoted above?
 * @ TFD. U.S. citizens are a part of the U.S. federal republic. Places are something other than citizens. The U.S. may possess Wake and Guantanamo without making citizens there, and without making the places a part of the federal republic. Do you have any sources to contribute, concerning the U.S. extent in its federal republic, besides unsubstantiated "always" declarations and tautologies like "definitions relate to a reader interpreting" -- without any references to the U.S. or to the extent of its federal republic? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The term "federal republic" is used by your source (p. 232): "How, then, did the United States come to encompass these persons and areas [overseas territories] outside the sphere of its federal republic."  Could you please read articles that you present as sources and stop asking me what they say.  TFD (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The information presented in Welcome to the United States: A Guide for New Immigrants is considered public information and may be
 * distributed or copied without alteration unless otherwise specified. The citation should be:
 * U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL EDITION NOTICE - U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Office of Citizenship, Welcome to the United States: A Guide for New Immigrants,Washington, DC, 2007, Revised Edition.


 * After the colonies won the war, they became states. Each state had its own government.The people in these states
 * wanted to create a new form of government to unite the states into a single nation.Today, this central government,
 * our national government, is called “the federal government.” The United States now consists of 50 states, the District of Columbia (a special area that is the home of the federal government), the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico. --Buzity (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reference: Welcome to the United States A Guide for New Immigrants Pages 77, 83 and 101.


 * Page 101 illustrated THE UNITED STATES TODAY*
 * The United States also includes the territories of Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana
 * Islands and Puerto Rico, which do not appear on this map.--Buzity (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We should use the descriptions in the high quality sources that have been provided rather than Google search for tertiary sources that contradict them. TFD (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The reliable source presented is an authenticated U.S. Government Information as indicated on the U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL EDITION NOTICE.
 * This is the Official U.S. Government edition of this publication and is herein identified to certify its authenticity. Use of the ISBN 978-0-
 * 16-078733-1 is for U.S. Government Printing Office Official Editions only. The Superintendent of Documents of the U.S. Government
 * Printing Office requests that any reprinted edition clearly be labeled as a copy of the authentic work with a new ISBN.
 * The information presented in Welcome to the United States: A Guide for New Immigrants is considered public information and may be
 * distributed or copied without alteration unless otherwise specified. The citation should be:
 * U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Office of Citizenship, Welcome to the United States:
 * A Guide for New Immigrants,Washington, DC, 2007, Revised Edition. --Buzity (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sparrow and empire

 * "At present, the [U.S.] includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the [D.C.] and, of course, the fifty states." As the University of Texas professor wrote more expansively, "The Unites States is an “empire in the sense that the domain of political authority exceeds that of representative government.” (Sparrow in Levinson 2005, p.231-232)
 * - Then the scholar explores for the careful reader, How to think of the U.S. in the 19th century as it developed its territories and government lands within a seemingly federal system of government? The political geographer Donald Meinig describes the U.S. as a “democratic empire”. “Democratic” because voters through representatives in Congress set policy to expand. “Empire” because resultant U.S. sovereignty extended over people without political voice for long periods. The fact of federalism combines democracy and empire. The federal process includes electing Members of Congress and federal districts administering U.S. justice to U.S. citizens. (Sparrow in Levinson 2005, p. 242)
 * - The U.S. territories with organic acts have Members of Congress, all five with links above on this page, all five have Article III federal courts as specified in Ponce, quoted at length and linked above. Sparrow’s scholarly treatment of the U.S. federalism is consistent with congressional organic law and supreme court rulings, such quoted here at Talk from Ross, “Here we see that the act of incorporation is on the people of the territory, not on the territory per se, by extending the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution to them.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You cannot take what two different writers say and make personal conclusions, that is synthesis. Sparrow says that the territories are not represented.  And Ross says "the act of incorporation is on the people of the territory, not on the territory".  IOW the territories are not incorporated into the U.S.  The U.S. is no different from the UK.  TFD (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It was an unanimous decisions here to declare that Guantanamo Bay is not an Unincorporated Territory. In my opinion, if we do a poll, the results will be the same as here, that Guantanamo Bay is not a unincorporated territory.  However the U.S. Supreme Court of the United States recognized otherwise.
 * Quoting directly from CONSEJO DE SALUD PLAYA DE PONCE v. JOHNNY RULLAN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO."The latest expression from the Supreme Court on the Insular Cases occurred on June 12 of this very year in Boumediene v. Bush, ___U.S.___, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008). This case involved aliens detained as enemy combatants at the United States Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who petitioned for writs of habeas corpus. Guantanamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, the latter nation retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the former nation exercises complete jurisdiction and control. Id. at 2251-52. Based on the federal control over the Cuban property, the Court applied the Insular Cases to hold that the detained enemy combatants were entitled to the protection of the writ — a Constitutional provision not contained in the Bill of Rights.


 * "The Court, in reaching its conclusion in Boumediene, made four crucial pronouncements regarding the Insular Cases. First, citing Reid v. Covert, it recognized that the Insular Cases involved territories “with wholly dissimilar traditions and institutions” that Congress intended to govern only “temporarily”. 128 S Ct. at 2255 (emphasis added)." -- "Second, the Court, citing Justice Brennan’s concurrence in Torres, supra, held that “[i]t may well be that over time the ties between United States and any of its unincorporated territories strengthen in ways that are of constitutional significance. Id. at 2255 (emphasis added).'''"


 * "Third, the Court recognized that fundamental Constitutional rights apply to detained enemy combatant aliens in Guantanamo Bay, an unincorporated territory over which the United States has exercised jurisdiction or control for over 100 years. Id. at 2258-59."


 * "Finally, and most important, the Court held the following: Our basic charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. Even when the United States acts outside its borders, its powers are not “absolute and unlimited” but are subject “to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution.” Abstaining from questions involving forward sovereignty and territorial governance is one thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will is quite another.”


 * The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that fundamental Constitutional rights apply to detained enemy combatant aliens in Guantanamo Bay, an unincorporated territory over which the United States has exercised jurisdiction or control for over 100 years. Id. at 2258-59.


 * If Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is a place of common knowledge or it is a place of reliable sources? We should say on Wikipedia that Guantanamo Bay is an Unincorporated Territory as the U.S Supreme Court recognized or we should say it is a possession of the United States as the common knowledge recognized? --Buzity (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The judges said that Guantanamo Bay was not part of the U.S. but under U.S. jurisdiction. Under common law, a court may issue prerogative writs to any area under a nation's jurisdiction, which English courts did in colonial America, even though America was not part of England.  TFD (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * -Yes, the U.S. can rule areas that ARE "a part of it", and it can rule areas that are NOT "a part of it". But it does not follow that (1) since one area is NOT "a part of the U.S.", and (2) TFD speaks to a subject that is NOT "a part of it", then (3) TFD can tell us which areas ARE "a part of it".
 * - TFD has Guantanamo right, courts may have jurisdiction over places NOT a part of the country, they also have over places which ARE. Colonial Virginians did NOT have the rights of Englishmen, hence independence. U.S. territories with U.S. citizens DO have the rights of Americans, hence they ARE "a part of the U.S."
 * - Detainees are not U.S. citizens, but have basic protections under the Constitution. As an aside -- something which was NOT held for violent offenders of non-state piracy or slave traders in the 19th century. Parliament once had attainder for execution and outlaw by majority legislative vote. It looks like the U.S. is to be a government of laws, a difficult ideal to live out, that. Republics are not for the feint of heart.
 * - CONGRESS says what is a part of the U.S.-- Guantanamo has no congressional organic act making U.S. citizens, so it is NOT a part it. Congressional acts of incorporation have been passed for non-states with mayors and governors for DC, Northern Marianas, Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands --  so those populations of U.S. citizens in non-state places ARE a part of the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The colonists claimed the "right" they were denied was "no taxation without representation". Ironically the UK recognized that right during the American Revolution, while the U.S. does not extend that right to her possessions.  But then the U.S. does not recognize voting as a right.  Otherwise colonials had the right to enter the U.K., prerogative writs, and all rights under the Bill of Rights 1689.  TFD (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * .gov links provided January 1, January 13, now January 16 for non-state Members of Congress whom you say are not voted for nor elected. Another TFD WP:MADEUP. You have no source that says U.S. citizens in the organic act territories and DC do not vote for local republican government under the constitution. Nor is there any source they do not vote for Members of Congress. I regret there is no BVI Member of Parliament; the U.S. territories are NOT exactly as the British, nor is there any source provided to say so.
 * _ _ The six individual web pages for the non-state Members of Congress are, (1) District’s |Norton, (2) Guam’s |Bordallo, (3) Northern Mariana’s |Sablan, (4) Puerto Rico’s |Pierluisi, (5) Samoa’s |Faleomavaega, (6) Virgin Islands’ |Christensen. Why would you assert they do not exist, without sources, when they are posted here on Jan 1 and Jan 13?
 * _ _ TFD says the UK called for direct election of Members of Parliament from North America during the Revolutionary War (American War of Independence). Is that the REAL reason why Corwallis withdrew from Virginia? Do you have a source the U.S. had won, it didn't know it, but fought a war anyway? This may be another TFD WP:MADEUP without sources.
 * _ _ The Declaration indicted the Crown for twenty years of abuses, including |"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences". Now, without a source we are to believe the grievance was a privilege, TFD: "colonials had the right to enter writs" in the U.K. Another TFD WP:MADEUP. Please find sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The power of English courts to send prerogative writs to territories under the dominion of the Crown was long established. Parliament of course could and can deprive subjects of rights, as can Congress, subject to the constitution.  Whether or not a territory sends representatives to the legislature has nothing to do with whether it is part of the country.  Territorial representatives have no right to vote on the taxes imposed on them, but then neither do DC representatives.  TFD (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * More TFD, still no sources. regarding the subject: United States, the topic: geographic extent of U.S. federal republic.
 * _ _ (1) Rights of Englishmen in Virginia entitled them to be arraigned in LOCAL courts before juries of their peers. These and others were suspended which Congress CANNOT do now. Virginia WAS then a part of the "realm" by royal charter. Long-established abuse is a justification for independence, not a TFD WP:MADEUP proof that [Virginia] "was not a part of England". British Virgin Islands still has no MP today as do DC and U.S. territories in the national legislature.
 * _ _ (2) The U.S. Congress is NOT un-restrained by law as TFD WP:MADEUP supposes, "Parliament of course could and can deprive subjects of rights, as can Congress, subject to the constitution." That is the point of the written constitution which is explicitly of greater authority --amended by 2/3 Congress AND 4/5 states -- than congressional statute, passed by simple partisan legislative majority -- as Parliament "could and can" still do.
 * _ _ - When Americans misunderstood legislative sovereignty in states, the American Civil War in the 19th century and the 14th Amendment in the 20th century sorted it out -- PLEASE read the sources posted by Buzity. -- Sort by "14th" and "Fourteenth" -- The result is a federal republic with incorporated territories which are not TFD WP:MADEUP "exactly like" U.K. with unincorporated territories -- without sourced reference.
 * _ _ (3) U.S. territorial representatives today have the right to vote in committees on taxes concerning them, consult with others on the floor of the House and vote in their national party caucus. Denial of these rights of representation is more TFD WP:MADEUP without sources, asserted only because they are rights not enjoyed by BVI citizens, so as to claim U.S. territories are alike U.K. territories -- which is unsupportable.
 * _ _(3) Voting, representation in the national legislature of any kind, citizenship, travel, all have a great deal to do with the extent of a federal republic. It does not have anything to do with the modern U.K., according to TFD, but that is not the SUBJECT nor the TOPIC of this discussion, the extent of the U.S. federal republic. Thank you for acknowledging that the six Members of Congress exist, elected by U.S. citizens in DC and the U.S. territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Representatives of citizens of territories have no right to vote on legislation concerning them and even if they did it would not incorporate them into the U.S. And of course Congress can deprive citizens of rights, unless they are protected by the constitution.  Note that under United States admiralty law there is no right to trial by jury. TFD (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, TFD MAKEUP without sources. (1) Territorial members of congress DO debate and vote on national law applicable nation-wide in five ways. (2) Congress may NOT deprive U.S. citizens of rights in a part of the U.S. as TFD imagines Parliament does to British citizens in the U.K.
 * (1) _ DC and territorial Members of Congress vote on legislation concerning the entire jurisdiction of the United States. Let’s look at the GAO Report, U.S. Insular Areas, | Application of the U.S. Constitution November 1997, (p.26-28).
 * _ _ Congressional representation. The Congress has created a form of representation for the District of Columbia and five of the larger insular areas to elect Members of Congress (MC). They are in floor debate and sit on committees and vote with “the same powers and privileges.” They are counted as party members within a committee, and vote in their party caucuses. They may serve on conference committees with the Senate, and federal court ruled in 1994 territorial delegates may constitutionally vote in the Committee of the Whole.
 * (2) _ “Irrevocable” in U.S. law means the constitution protection, privileges and immunities for U.S. citizens, uniformly everywhere within the U.S., CANNOT be granted and withdrawn from citizens by Congress in the same way TFD claims Parliament may withhold from English and Virgin Islanders.
 * _ _ In Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962), we read above, “The Supreme Court has indicated that once the Constitution has been extended to an area (by Congress or the Courts), its coverage is irrevocable.” TFD imagines resident U.S. islanders as colliding ships at sea suing in federal Admiralty Court -- not so. -- U.S. territory citizens are under the protection of Article III federal courts, with more authority than the Article I federal courts in the District of Columbia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Territorial "Members of Congress"
No representative of a territory in Congress has the right to vote on any legislation. But whether they do or not has no relevance to whether or not they are part of the U.S. Also whether or not admiralty law, which excludes common law and trial by jury, is applicable to PR has no bearing on whether or not they have become incorporated. TFD (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Every representative of a territory in Congress votes on all legislation (1) in standing committee, (2) on an equal footing with other House and Senate members in Conference Committe, and in the House Committee of the Whole in the 103d Congress, according to the GAO Report, U.S. Insular Areas, | Application of the U.S. Constitution November 1997, (p.26-28). TFD's "No representative ... has the right to vote" is not backed up by a source, only more TFD MADEUP. == THE POINT IS == U.S. territories have a Member of Congress, no U.K. territory has a Member of Parliament, therefore we can see they are NOT "exactly the same" per TFD MADEUP, and TFD has no source to say U.S. and U.K. territories are like in any respect in any case.
 * _ _ Please do not assert Congress can overthrow jury trial in PR because there is no jury trial in federal Admiralty Court, therefore PR is not incorporated, then say Admiralty law "has no bearing on" incorporation. It sounds WP:MADEUP and hard to follow in good faith.
 * _ _ "Unincorporation" is declared by a court but may be reversed by court or congress, "incorporation" is enacted by Congress. A territory is incorporated into the body of the U.S. republic by organic law which organically attaches the territory into political union of federal republic, sealed irrevocably by citizenship according to sovereign U.S. law. That law does not admit to interpretation by TFD MADEUP parallels to the British Empire without sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You brought up admiralty law. (" Rights of Englishmen in Virginia entitled them to be arraigned in LOCAL courts before juries of their peers. These and others were suspended which Congress CANNOT do now.)  That is a reference to admiralty courts (see Admiralty courts).  Your argument was that because admiralty cases with non-jury trials could be conducted for Virginia citizens, that Virginia was not part of the U.K.  Since admiralty cases with non-jury trials can be conducted for PR citizens, it follows by your logic that PR is not part of the U.S.  Glad to see you now describe your argument as made up.  Organic laws do not ipso facto incorporate territories but rather "organize" them, i.e., establish territorial government.  Hence territories may be incorporated or uncorporated, organized or unorganized.  The establishment of a territorial (or colonial) government does not incorporate the state into the metropolitan state.  Please accept that territorial representatives have no right to vote on legislation, which is the raison d'etre of the legislative branch of government.  TFD (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Having a non-voting delegate doesn't mean you aren't part of the country, though. Arizona Territory and the District of Columbia both had/have non-voting delegates but were firmly part of the country. So we shouldn't focus too much on that, should we? --Golbez (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * TheVirginiaHistorian brought it up as evidence. Whether or not a territory is represented has no bearing on whether it is part of the country.  All the Constitution says is that states must be represented.  TFD (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @ TFD to TVH: "Your argument was that because admiralty cases with non-jury trials could be conducted for Virginia citizens, that Virginia was not part of the U.K." -- wow. this shows some misunderstanding. Colonial Virginia had all Rights of Englishmen "as though living in England" by Royal Charter. -- (a) TFD said Parliament granted rebelling colonies so they got what they wanted -- direct representation in Parliament -- ironically persisting in unnecessary war, and they had the privilege of filing writs in British courts. -- TVH said, the Declaration uses removing Americans from here for trials was a grievance, not a privilege -- no TFD counter source.
 * _ (b) TFD said, Parliament made and unmade local law at will in colonial Quebec, and so can Congress in 2013 Puerto Rico. -- TVH said that may be so in a unitary government, but not in a federal constitutional government. -- TFD said, Congress removes jury trial for Puerto Ricans in federal Admiralty court. -- TVH said, there is no jury trial in an admiralty court equally for states and territories, states and territories are equally incorporated. -- (c) TVH said Virginians were Englishmen WITHOUT citizenship rights, while Puerto Ricans are Americans WITH citizenship rights; Puerto Rico is incorporated into the U.S. with "virtually the same constitutional rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens of the several states. The consistent trend since 1952 … has been to expand...” (TFD's source, Lawson and Sloan, 2007, p.1162)
 * _ My point is that admiralty law and the 1776 British Empire are not germane to the U.S. territories as a part of the U.S. federal republic "today", -- as sourced in the U.S.G. publication "Welcome to the United States" 2007. There it observes the U.S. territories have representation in Congress. British Overseas Possessions do not have in Parliament, the two are not "exactly the same". TFD says, representation "has no bearing on whether it is part of the country." But that misses the point of the American Revolution and the U.S. concept of citizenship in a federal republic. TFD MAKEUP again, no counter sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You continue to misquote me. The UK has never set up consitutencies outside the metropolitan state, although there is no law preventing a country from doing that.  In fact there were areas within the UK that had no representation. They did however agree not to tax subjects except through local legislatures (unlike PR).  Today, the Quebec National Assembly has sole power to change the civil code.  I did not say "Virginians were Englishmen WITHOUT citizenship rights' - there was no citizenship law and no distinctions between British subjects born in England or Virginia.  You have continued to argue that the extension or limitation of rights to an overseas territory incorporates it into the metropolitan state.  When I point out that it does not by providing examples, you agree. TFD (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In a federal republic, there are no areas without some kind of representation in the national legislature, there is national and local dual citizenship, national and local constitutions operate on individual citizens who pay taxes to both levels of government. There is no example to the contrary for a federal republic, such as the U.S. including fifty states, a District and five incorporated territories, see the official U.S.G. publication of the official U.S.A., Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants. I think that covers every miscast element of the TFD 10:20 am, 24 Jan 2013 post.
 * _ _ The TFD example that there was no difference between English and Virginians in the 1776 British Empire is not the view held by the preponderance of scholarship on the American Revolution see Pauline Maier "|From resistance to revolution: development of American opposition to Britain". No, without any sources for TFD MADEUP examples, I cannot agree to deny the entire independent history of the United States. The U.S. in federal republic with its incorporated territories is NOT the British empire with its unincorporated overseas possessions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sparrow and "democratic empire"

 * @FTD. The Sparrow source says, that the U.S. came to encompass persons who were outside the sphere of the federal republic at the time of the Louisiana Purchase (the title of the book). You cannot WP:MADEUP say the source says territories are not represented in the 8th United States Congress 1803-1805 and for ever more thereafter until today. That is not what Sparrow says.
 * - - You argumentatively challenge me, with an assertion that the source says persons outside the federal republic in 1803 have never been encompassed. You misread the phrase, “How,then …” It is a rhetorical device on page 232 to ask the reader to discover how the incorporation came to be – since 1803, the subject of the book. You will find Sparrow's answer from Sparrow’s article in the anthology -- including pages 231, 232, and 242 that I reference above, please read it all, not only selected phrase-search snippets.
 * - - You have no source to say the U.S. does NOT now encompass persons living in territories that the U.S. acquired beyond the federal republic of 1802 – including its citizens in the U.S. territories made states, Louisiana, Oregon, Arizona -- including its citizens in the U.S. territories incorporated by congressional organic acts of Northern Marianas, Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands.
 * - - Authors in the book make a compelling case for injustice at the race-based congressional delays admitting Arizona and incorporating Guam as U.S. citizens. But progress is to be applauded in the parts of the U.S. as we applaud British Virgin Islands, though with no MP in Parliament, gaining citizenship beginning 2002. Good show all 'round. Wik-culture asserts an obligation of editors is to read the sources, which I can only encourage you to do, including the title of the books quoted. Please read carefully the entire title of the book, then three pages, 231, 232 and 242, in their entirety. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * British subjects living in the BVI were granted citizenship in 1947, when British citizenship was created. The 2002 act gave them right to live in the U.K.  However U.K. citizens have no right to live in the BVI unless they are from there.  Don't understand your reference to "encompass persons".  American citizens living in Mexico may be part of the U.S. but that does not make Mexico part of the U.S.  TFD (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Twice in your last four-line post, we see the reason we should limit discussion to SUBJECT: "United States", TOPIC: "geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic".
 * _ _ (1) U.S. citizens are free to move throughout the geographic extent of the U.S. without passport, because the constitution confers certain privileges and immunities onto a citizen. A citizen of New York is free to travel to USVI because USVI and NY are equally a part of the extent of the U.S. federal republic. A citizen of England may not freely travel to the BVI because the English have the limits of British citizenship. The subject under discussion is the United States, not UK.
 * _ _ (2) The "compass" of a place refers to a drafting compass drawing a circle. Sparrow uses "democratic empire" to explain HOW persons and places outside the geographic circle of the U.S. federal republic in 1803 such as Arizona and Guam, were INCORPORATED into it after the Louisiana Purchase. At first territories and states were to be created from places ceded by Great Britain. New circumstances required new legal structure and political practice to integrate new places and persons after 1803. The topic is the extent of the U.S. federal republic, not Mexico. Please read the three pages. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I provided the quote where Sparrow says that the territories are not part of the federal republic. The right of an American national to travel to U.S. territories derives from English common law not the constitution.  The constitution does not confer rights and privileges on the citizen, it protects them.  TFD (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Your quote from Sparrow says territories not a part of the 1803 federal republic DO became a part later. Examples include Arizona and Guam. Please read the entire title the Levinson source.
 * _ _ You have a personal view of the generation of constitutional authority, but you have no source, you have nothing here that bears on the United States or the extent of its republic in 2013.
 * _ _ The direct quote from Sparrow without ellipsis or TFD WP:MADEUP is, "At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I swear I will start torturing squirrels if I see that line again. --Golbez (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sparrow writes, "Despite the continued existence of the territories and the U.S. government lands, students of federalism and ther U.S. political system chronically assume the United States to be a nation of states, operating under federal principles and constituted wholly by the separate states. How, then, did the United States come to encompass these persons and areas outside the sphere of its federal republic, given that the U.S. Constitution contains only limited provisions for areas to be under the control of the U.S. federal government? (p. 232)" TFD (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Code of Federal Regulations - 26 C.F.R. § 31.3121(e)-1 (b)  State, United States, and citizen
 * (b) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term “United States”, when used in a geographical sense, means the several states (including the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States), the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. When used in the regulations in this subpart with respect to services performed after 1960, the term “United States” also includes Guam and American Samoa when the term is used in a geographical sense. The term “citizen of the United States” includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.
 * Reference: 26 C.F.R. § 31.3121(e)-1 (b) --Buzity (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read the first part of the sentence, "When used in the regulations in this subpart"? If the territories were part of the U.S., then it would be redundant.  Most importantly it refers to the use of the term in the subpart, and not for any other purpose.  TFD (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Right to Traval in the U.S. Constitution as per U.S. Federal Courts...
 * Right to travel - In Saenz v. Roe, the Supreme Court held that the Citizenship Clause protects an aspect of the right to travel. Specifically, the Saenz Court said that the Citizenship Clause protects a citizen's right to resettle in other states and then be treated equally:


 * [T]he Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment expressly equates citizenship with residence: "That Clause does not provide for, and does not allow for, degrees of citizenship based on length of residence." Zobel, 457 U. S., at 69. It is equally clear that the Clause does not tolerate a hierarchy of 45 subclasses of similarly situated citizens based on the location of their prior residence. … [T]he protection afforded to the citizen by the Citizenship Clause of that Amendment is a limitation on the powers of the National Government as well as the States.
 * The Saenz Court also mentioned the majority opinion in the Slaughterhouse Cases, which had stated that "a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State."


 * The Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 - In the federal circuit court case of Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D.Pa. 1823) Justice Bushrod Washington determined that the protections provided by the clause are confined to privileges and immunities which are, "in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign."


 * In his explanation of the scope of the rights protected by the clause, Justice Washington included the right to travel through states, the right of access to the courts, the right to purchase and hold property, and an exemption from higher taxes than state residents pay. The Corfield case involved the rights of an out-of-state citizen, rather than the rights of an in-state citizen, and Justice Washington's opinion did not suggest that this provision of the Constitution addresses how a legislature must treat its own citizens.


 * In rejecting Plaintiff’s renunciation, the Department notes that Plaintiff demonstrated no intention of renouncing all ties to the United States. While Plaintiff claims to reject his United States citizenship, he nevertheless wants to remain a resident of Puerto Rico. The Immigration and Nationality Act makes it unmistakably clear that Puerto Rico [*46] is a part of the United States for such purposes. (See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(38), providing that the term “United States” for the purposes of the statute refers not only to the 50 states of the United States, but also Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.) Indeed, after attempting to renounce in the Dominican Republic, Plaintiff returned to Puerto Rico without making any effort to be documented as an alien under the Immigration and Nationality Act. In other words, while claiming to renounce all rights and privileges of United States citizenship, Plaintiff wants to continue to exercise one of the fundamental rights of citizenship, namely the right to travel freely throughout the world and when he wants to, to return and reside in the United States. Reference: Alberto O. LOZADA COLON, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE --Buzity (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Which again is just your personal argument and hence synthesis. Under common law, subjects have the right to reside anywhere within the King's realms (see Calvin's Case 1572).  TFD (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Personal argument??? Please read: The Right to Travel Justia U.S. Law


 * The constitutional right to travel has long been recognized,1865 but it is only relatively recently that the strict standard of equal protection review has been applied to nullify those durational residency provisions which have been brought before the Court.


 * 1865 Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35 (1868); Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941) (both cases in context of direct restrictions on travel). The source of the right to travel and the reasons for reliance on the equal protection clause are questions puzzled over and unresolved by the Court. United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 758, 759 (1966), and id. at 763-64 (Justice Harlan concurring and dissenting), id. at 777 n.3 (Justice Brennan concurring and dissenting); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629-31 (1969), and id. at 671 (Justice Harlan dissenting); San Antonio School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 31-32 (1973); Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 417-19 (1981); Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 60 & n.6 (1982), and id. at 66-68 (Justice Brennan concurring), 78-81 (Justice O'Connor concurring).--Buzity (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you are providing arguments rather than evidence. U.S. nationals have the right to travel throughout the U.S. and her territories just as British subjects had the right to travel throughout the U.K. and her colonies, based on the same common law.  Which means what?  TFD (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The evidence cited above in Crandall and Edwards above shows the extent of the equal protection provision to incorporated territories of U.S. citizens. It demonstrates their places of residence is a part of the U.S. states. Citizens can move and live from states to states, territories to states, and equally from New York to U.S. Virgin Islands without restriction.
 * _ _ TFD is off the topic U.S. extent again. British Common Law and jurisprudence is NOT "the same" as U.S. statute and jurisprudence by a long shot. Even within the U.S., Virginia's 1600s customary county law is NOT "the same" as Pennsylvania's 1700s common law. They are so substantially different that Virginia is in the 4th Federal Circuit, Pennsylvania is placed in the 3rd, in part because their first immigrants came from different sides of the island of England so had and still have different legal traditions. Whatever may be the case in U.K. from "the same common law" as it had evolved in 1776, it is irrelevant to the extent of the U.S. by U.S. standards in 2013.
 * _ _ But, as a matter or courtesy, is it true, Scots may move to England, English to Scotland? HOWEVER British subjects may NOT travel freely from England to British Virgin Islands? That is what TFD said. In that case, the parallel asserted -- without scholarship -- that U.S. and U.K. are exactly the same -- fails. It cannot be that the U.S. article standard shall be the POV pushed by an editor insisting that 2013 U.S. and its organic act territories is indistinguishable in law and practice from 1776 English Empire and its common law rule over colonial Virginia.
 * _ _ Proclaiming another editor WITH a source as "without evidence", WITHOUT producing a source himself, TFD is not displaying Wikipedia standards in editorship. Stay on topic U.S. federal republic extent, or find an academic source that supposes as TFD asserts, nothing has changed in the relationship between 1776 Britain to British colonies and 2013 U.S. to its organic act territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Subjects of a king or nationals of a state have the right to travel into any realm subject to the king or state. (See Calvin's Case 1572).  However the state may protect or restrict movement of its nationals.  It has nothing to do with whether or not the states are merged.  In fact all the settled British colonies received the law of England upon settlement, while the conquered and ceded states, such as Quebec, did not.  Upon the establishment of colonial legislatures and courts their laws came to differ from one another.  TFD (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Calvin's Case in 1572 concerns basic rights in a place before union in 1707, when Scots would have Members of Parliament.
 * _ _ U.S. Territories in 2013 now have Members of Congress, you have seen their web pages links, but TFD MAKEUP that the MCs are not there, and somehow they are still "exactly the same" as England in 1572, Scotland WITHOUT members of parliament, before the union that would make Scotland "a part of" the same country as U.S. territories are now of the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Congress intends to include Puerto Rico

 * More significantly, when Congress fails explicitly to refer to Puerto Rico, courts must nonetheless inquire whether it intended to do so. E.g., Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (P.R.), Ltd.,302 U.S. 253, 58 S.Ct. 167, 82 L.Ed. 235 (1937) (determining a statute's applicability to Puerto Rico is a question of congressional intent); Acosta-Martinez, 252 F.3d at 18 ("When determining the applicability of a federal statute to Puerto Rico, courts must construe the language ... to effectuate the intent of the lawmakers." (internal quotation marks omitted)).'''
 * Conducting this inquiry, courts routinely conclude that Congress intended to include Puerto Rico even when a statute is silent on that front. E.g., Examining Board, 426 0U.S. at 597, 96 S.Ct. 2264 (defining "State" to include Puerto Rico for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3)); Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc., 368 F.2d, at 437 (federal statute that referred to the proceedings of any "State, Territory, or Possession," applied to Puerto Rico even though Puerto Rico was not a State, Territory, or Possession); U.S.I. Properties Corp. v. M.D. Constr. Co.,230 F.3d 489, 499-500 (1 st Cir.2000) (defining "State" to include Puerto Rico for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332); Cordova & Simonpietri Insurance Agency Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank N. A.,649 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir.1981) (treating Puerto Rico as a "State" under the Sherman Antitrust Act).--Buzity (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As you say, "Puerto Rico is a part of the United States for such purposes". It means nothing.  TFD (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @ TFD. 12:30 pm 16 Jan 2013. You quote Sparrow, that despite continued existence of the territories, students of the U.S. political system, “chronically assume the United States to be a nation of states.” The Levinson source you cite quoting Sparrow points out that TFD is mistaken to EXCLUDE the territories from the extent of the U.S.
 * _ _ TFD cannot MAKEUP an interpretation of the quoted source to make it deny including territories today -- when it says -- "AT PRESENT (2005), the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories."
 * _ _ To Buzity’s cite, the “United States, when used in a geographical sense” includes the territories -- TFD cannot find a usage which is contrary -- so as to omit the territories at Wikipedia's U.S. federal republic extent, as though to make the editorial rule “incorporated” territory are the only places which are "part of the U.S. -- ONLY states, DC and Palmyra Atoll. Unlike Buzity who can find cites INCLUDING territories, there is NO source EXCLUDING the District and organic law territories FOR ANY PURPOSE in a published academic source by any named scholar. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely positive that you didn't intend it this way, but this smells like an inadvertent strawman: No one is suggesting at all that DC would be excluded, and you will find no source excluding it because that is absolutely 100% not in question. Of course there is no source excluding "the District and organic law territories." We're talking about the organic law territories (and American Samoa), not DC. --Golbez (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As explained in the insular cases, the territory where DC was created was part of two U.S. states and was transferred to the federal government. The transfer did not remove D.C. from the U.S. and Congress has no power to remove any part of the U.S.  TFD (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel like it should be noted that there is at least (and perhaps at most) one legal way in which incorporated territory can be unincorporated: Treaty. The Rio Rico, Texas, is no longer in Texas, for example. --Golbez (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I cannot find any sources on this but it could argued that Rio Rico was never part of the U.S. and Congress merely discovered where the border lay. TFD (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, the border was the rather obvious Rio Grande, which it used to lay on the north side of. "However, since the course change was due to man-made changes and not natural changes, international law dictated that the land remained US territory, a fact that was not in dispute." --Golbez (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the treaty. It says that Rio Rico was U.S. territory but that the treaty resolved pending boundary differences and maintained the Rio Grande as the border.  Do you know if the federal courts ever ruled on this?  TFD (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean; ruled on what? There appears to be no disagreement in the government that Rio Rico was U.S. territory, and now is Mexican territory. --Golbez (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The U.S. Constitution is the Constitution of the U.S. Territories as Citizens of the United States, not merely as living in a territory of the United States. In Martin v. Hunter, 4L. ed. 103, the court said:
 * "...In view of the adjudication of this court (it) cannot assent to the proposition, whether it be announced in express words or by implication, that the national government is a government of or by the states in union, and that the prohibitions and limitations of the Constitution are addressed only to the states.... ...If the National Government is in any sense a compact, it is a compact between the people of the United States among themselves as constituting in the aggregate the political community by whom the national government was established. The Constitution speaks, not simply to the states in their organized capacities, but to all peoples, whether states or territories, who are subject to the authority of the United States." (Our emphasis).


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


 * We now move to the territory per se and its relation to the geographical boundaries of the United States. That Puerto Rico is part of the geographical United States is found in the official definition of the latter:
 * “The term United States, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.” 7 FAM 1121.4-2 Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA)


 * Under this federal definition, the provisions of the U.S. Constitution that relate to the geographical boundaries of the United States and their relationships within, apply to Puerto Rico as if it were a State, fully incorporated. The Nationality Act of 1952 reads as follows:
 * "All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth.”


 * This provision in U.S. Code 1402 is significant when compared with the first paragraph of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It reads: “Section. 1. All persons born or naturalised in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
 * By approving U.S.C. 1402, the Congress granted to the territory of Puerto Rico the power to give birth to full fledge U.S. citizens, as if it were a state. Thus, the Congressional Research Service has ruled that :
 * “Citizens born in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as "natural born" citizens, and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President,... --Buzity (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because Puerto Rico is not part of the U.S., federal laws normally must specify that they apply there, unlike Virginia. Before 1776 the U.K. legislated for Virginia, but Virginia was never part of the U.K.  No laws in the U.K. btw preventing people born outside the country becoming head of state.  TFD (talk)
 * U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with your personal opinion. Conducting this inquiry, courts routinely conclude that Congress intended to include Puerto Rico even when a statute is silent on that front. E.g., Examining Board, 426 0U.S. at 597, 96 S.Ct. 2264 --Buzity (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No the Supreme Court did not say that. If they did ever support your views, you could quote them rather than providing long, boring arguments.  TFD (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MARCO LABOY-TORRES
 * Hon. Sandra Day O’Connor, * Associate Justice (Ret.) of the Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by designation.
 * Quote: :Conducting this inquiry, courts routinely conclude that Congress
 * intended to include Puerto Rico even when a statute is silent on that front. E.g., Examining Board, 426 U.S. at 597 (defining
 * “State” to include Puerto Rico for purposes of 42 U. S. C. §1983 and 28 U. S. C. §1343(3)); Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc., 368
 * F. 2d, at 437 (federal statute that referred to the proceedings of any “State, Territory, or Possession,” applied to Puerto Rico
 * even though Puerto Rico was not a State, Territory, or Possession); U.S.I. Properties Corp. v. M.D. Constr. Co., 230
 * F. 3d 489, 499–500 (1st Cir. 2000) (defining “State” to include Puerto Rico for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28
 * U. S. C. §1332); Cordova & Simonpietri Insurance Agency Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank N. A., 649 F. 2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1981)
 * (treating Puerto Rico as a “State” under the Sherman Antitrust Act).
 * Reference: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MARCO LABOY-TORRES §922(g)(1) Page 15 --Buzity (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The judgment also says, "When Congress fails explicitly to refer to Puerto Rico, courts must nonetheless inquire whether it intended to do so." Regardless, the fact that the laws of the United States apply to her possessions does not mean that they are part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * More WP:MADEUP. The "fails explicitly to refer to Puerto Rico" does not refer to REVOKING Puerto Rican rights, only that courts may EXTEND application of Constitution to U.S. citizens in the territories, BEYOND explicit statute as Congress intended -- as federal courts have in the past, and once extended, they are irrevocable -- recall your reading in Talk above. It is a phrase allowing for the organic extension of the federal republic to new places, including new populations by statute and by adjudication among a diverse society of varied polities. Statute law is variable in each state, DC and territory, enforced variably by the locally elected governors of different politics in states and territories, and variably by the locally elected mayor of the District of Columbia.
 * _ _ Law is variable in a federal republic in each federal district, variable in each circuit district, variable at the Supreme Court over time pursuant to the laws of Congress conforming to the superior Constitution -- This FEDERALISM particularly allows for custom and cultural differences grown up in island societies of U.S. citizens, but also on Amerindian reservations. The Supreme Court makes little UNIFIED law, refusing to take up 80+% of the cases appealed to it each year. Usually a subject is not "ripe" until it bubbles up in three or more circuit courts close together in time.
 * _ _ Code Napoleon is the State Law assumed by Louisiana until state statute supersedes it. California and Arizona law is informed by colonial Spanish law. Virginia's law is informed by its 1600s immigrant English county customary law, Pennsylvania by its 1700s immigrant British Common Law. Code Napoleon cannot be local law in unitary Canada's French Quebec or England's Spanish Gibraltar.
 * _ _ FEDERALISM is the reason the U.S. system is different from UNITARY governance in Great Britain. You repeatedly miscast U.S. law and governance, jurisprudence and history because you push a POV that the U.S. operates as you understand unitary empires, but without sources to substantiate your dismissal of the nature of federal republics in law or practice. You are reduced above to say a U.S. citizen on Puerto Rico before a Article III federal court is equivalent to a ship's captain suing for a sea collision in federal Admiralty Court without a jury. Nonsense.
 * _ _ It is not only that congressional statutes do NOT apply to territory as in an empire, the populations are irrevocably incorporated as citizens in a republic where the people are sovereign. This is not a Parliament based on historical accident, an invitation to William of Orange, "Dear Sir, with your armies about to invade, please govern us, or we will have another Civil War. But William, follow majority law in sovereign Parliament and you and yours are rich forever and ever, thank you." -- But the U.S. is not by accident, it is by its citizens, so U.S. citizenship is different. That's just not the U.S. history, law or practice, the parallel does not hold, you have no sources that it does. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Is your argument that because the UK is unitary and the US is federal that possessions of the US become incorporated into the US? You made a few factual errors btw.  When a state acquires another state their citizens become subjects (or nationals) of the other state.  Canada is actually a federal state and the Napoleonic code applies in Quebec for civil law.  Spanish law applied in Gibraltar until English law was adopted in 1740.  Scotland is part of the UK but has civil law.  Under common law, the local laws of conquered or ceded territory remain valid until they are changed.  TFD (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, your proof that the congress can revoke citizen rights is NOT based on U.S. law, jurisprudence, or the existence of any such unconstitutional mechanism. Your "proof" that congress may remove jury trial in Puerto Rico is because federal admiralty court does not require jury. You have no source to say congress can revoke citizenship once it is extended. The wiki article on BVI says they gained citizenship 2002, you say its 1947? Still no sources. I remember Quebec nearly voting secession from Canada on the issue of Code Napoleon in the 1960s, now you assure me it has always been thus in Canada -- since consolidation in 1763? But that was before Code Napoleon. Still no sources relating Quebec to PR, still not on topic.
 * _ _ You say congress may revoke citizenship in a republic because parliament has done in a not-republic. Regardless of how one characterized the U.K. government, it does not apply to the subject at hand -- the extent of the U.S. federal republic. You have no source to say congress may do as you suppose Parliament does. Cases cited above say it may NOT lawfully revoke citizenship, and to the contrary courts have extended the constitution in organic act territories beyond that explicitly granted by congress. You have no source since 2000 saying Congress has enacted a statute limiting citizen rights once extended by law or adjudication, only argumentation on neverendingly shifting grounds away from SUBJECT: United States. TOPIC: extent of the U.S. federal republic.
 * _ _ Factual error about the U.S. abound from TFD. Error: That territorial members of congress do not vote on national legislation, when they do in committee or in conference committee with the Senate or in party caucus. Error: that colonial Virginia was not a part of U.K. by 1774 common law, therefore Puerto Rico cannot be a part of the U.S. by 2013 congressional law. Error: Federal admiralty courts have no juries so congress may remove juries in the organic act territories. Error: that Insular Cases for 1904 temporary administration of places without U.S. citizens in Guam and Puerto Rico ARE STILL governed in the same way -- after subsequent U.S. statutes and adjudication including the 2013 organic law territories with irrevocable U.S. citizenship. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See United States Admiralty Law, p. 68, "generally there is no right to trial by jury in the district courts of the United States when proceeding in admiralty under maritime law...." Quebec received the Coutume de Paris in 1664, English common law was received by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, but the civil law was restored by the Quebec Act 1775 (the U.S. Declaration of Independence says, "For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province...."), and adopted the Napoleonic code in 1866.  I did not say that Congress could revoke citizenship once bestowed.  Territorial members cannot vote on legislation.  BVI residents who were British subjects received citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1948.  But all of this is irrelevant to the discussion.  Rights and privileges extended to citizens of an overseas possession do not incorporate that territory into the state.  TFD (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (1) Where Puerto Ricans are on U.S. territory, not at sea in international waters, maritime law is not applicable. Unitary governments have abolished and restored local law at will in Province Quebec in a way impossible in the U.S. federal republic for states or territories, the two are not comparable.
 * (2) The only overseas possession in the U.S. federal republic is Samoa. Although there is no blanket citizenship at birth, Samoa’s organic act incorporates U.S. citizens there irrevocably. BVI citizens have no representation in their national legislature but U.S. citizens in territories such as Samoa do. The two situations are not comparable.
 * (3) The rights and privileges irrevocably extended to U.S. citizens in organically incorporated places and its one overseas territory (Samoa) make them all a part of the federal republic of the U.S. by U.S. standards -– according to reliable sources from U.S. citizenship publications, three academic sources, congressional statutes, presidential executive orders, and federal court rulings.
 * (4) Overseas possessions of the United Kingdom are not incorporated into the United Kingdom according to TFD without sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorporation into the metropolitan state

 * Of course possessions of the UK and the US are not incorporated into the metropolitan state - that is the whole point. Canada is not a unitary state and has no power to revoke Quebec laws.  The point of admiralty law is that you argued that the American colonies, unlike Puerto Rico, were not part of the metropolitan country because they had non-jury trials under admiralty law.  But PR also has non-jury trials under admiralty law.  Extending rights and privileges to citizens of possessions does not incorporate that state, and you need a source that says it does.  The CIA factbook calls PR a "dependent state".  Do you know what "dependent means"?  If you have dependents, they are not incorporated into your personhood, but remain separate persons.  However you would have authority to act on their behalf.  TFD (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * - (1) No reliable source cited in this discussion refers to "the metropolitan state" for the U.S., nor have you provided one which does. You have made no point on this score to date, is it more TFD MADEUP? I have no original research on "dependent", has TFD a source relative to U.S. extent?
 * - (2) Admiralty law is your point; Admiralty law does not apply on land -- equally -- anywhere in the U.S. federal republic, states, District and territories. My point on colonial Virginia, a part of England by royal charter as though citizens were "living in England", which TFD made into "exactly" like BVI and PR somehow without a source? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The term "metropolitan" merely means those areas that have been incorporated into the U.S. - no source required but here ya go. The U.S. Supreme Court held in the insular cases "that the protection of the US Constitution did not fully extend to non-metropolitan territories over which the US had title, such as Puerto Rico." (Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties, p. 93.)  Again, admiralty law is your point because you said the U.K. deprived Virginians of jury trials which they did by trying Virginians in admiralty court by extending admiralty law to land areas adjacent to the sea.  My point about Virginia was that a state may exercise authority over a territory without incorporating it.  TFD (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @ TFD. (1) and my point is that a federal constitutional republic may exercise authority over a territory AND incorporate it. Your proof that they may not be in the U.S. territories of 2013 is reference to the Insular Cases of 1901-1904, but Insular Cases are superseded by statute and jurisprudence beginning 1952. There is no point in TFD recalling the injustice of apartheid on U.S. territories who were not allowed citizenship by the same Court upholding Jim Crow laws segregating the South in 1904. Reference Virginia’s infamous yet then upheld Underwood Constitution, for instance. But neither 1904 Insular Cases nor Virginia’s 1904 Constitution are applicable to U.S. citizens of any description in 2013.


 * Metropolitan France is continental France and Corsica. Yet in the "Republic of France", overseas territories of French citizens are admitted as being a part of the country without this resistance to inclusion by the article country criteria. We learn from Lawson and Sloane, “states are generally free as to the manner in which, domestically, they … meet their international obligations ... These are matters for each state to determine for itself according to its own constitutional practices.” So what allows France, but forbids the U.S. this latitude, and what is the source?
 * TFD seems to say that if U.S. territories are not made municipalities in the U.S. as the District of Columbia in the U.S. under Congress, or as Liverpool with a Member of Parliament in U.K., then they cannot be incorporated “as a part of” the country. But this is not so for incorporation in the U.S. federal republic as sources provided by Buzity, TVH and TFD’s Lawson and Sloane show.
 * _ _ And would TFD now say that Scotland has ipso facto “unincorporated” itself from U.K. now its citizens have dual citizenship under a Parliament of Scotland akin to the self-elected legislature in a U.S. territory? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Scotland has not unincorporated itself from the U.K. The existence of a Scottish Assembly and citizenship (which I doubt they have created) has nothing to do with whether or not it is part of the U.K.  Whether or not France continues to refer to its European territories `metropolitan`after it has incorporated overseas territories has no relevance.  Indeed PR's status can be changed by Congress and in fact was in 1952 when they decided to treat it as an associated state.  Congress of course could incorporate Puerto Rico into the U.S. but have not done so.  The idea that granting a colony increased autonomy incorporates them into the state is bizarro reasoning.  Otherwise the Philippines would be part of the U.S. today, because it has even more autonomy than PR.  TFD (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * “PR’s status can be changed by Congress” – correct, but only in one direction, “the Constitution cannot be switched off and on”. As TFD source Lawson and Sloane says, the U.S. “has in fact vested Puerto Ricans by statute or judicially, "virtually the same constitutional rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens of the several states. The consistent trend since 1952 … has been to expand this category.” (p.1162) – status may be changed, but changed in only one more incorporated way, as with the French.
 * _ _ “Autonomy” may be misunderstood in this context; it is not teen-ager emancipation from parents. “Autonomy” is self-government by international law, FTD takes it to mean “independence”. But “autonomy” in local governance apart from the national government can be achieved in a federal republic with citizens in states and territories incorporated under the national government's supreme law of the land.
 * _ _ In the U.S. states and territories with “virtually” the “same constitutional rights and privileges”, each has its own local three-branch governance, with national (federal) courts protecting their rights and representation in the national legislature representing their interests. TFD's source Lawson and Sloane instructs us that international law does not require voting for president as an necessary requirement for Puerto Rican "incorporation" into the U.S. federal republic.
 * _ _ It is not bizarro that Puerto Ricans may no longer be colonials. They have in 2013 attained the status enjoyed “of the several states”. It is what all editor SOURCES say since 2004, including TFD’s own. The 1901-1904 Jim Crow supreme court's “Insular Cases” are today superseded by congressional statute and jurisprudence since 100 years ago. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"Include territories" sources

 * EXTENT: “The United States now consists of 50 states, [D.C.], the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico." Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants. Published by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. (p.77). The information is sourced, "This is the Official U.S. Government edition of this publication and is herein identified to certify its authenticity." This is the official view of the U.S. government. : _ _ SOURCES: include (a) official publication for the general reader intending U.S. citizenship, in direct quotable text without interpretive original research, -- three scholarly citation in academically published reliable resources, -- (b) the State Department explaining the implications of congressional immigration and naturalization act to its officers in a U.S. government manual, -- (c) other examples of official U.S. Government usage, and -- (d) multiple explanations from rulings of federal judges showing HOW that U.S. territories are incorporated into the federal republic of the U.S.
 * _ _ SCHOLARS: (a) Professor Bartholomew H. Sparrow in Levinson’s, The Louisiana Purchase And American Expansion, 1803-1898 2005. p.232. "At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states." without any separation. (b) Judge Charles S. Chapel in Murphy’s "U.S. Practice in International Law", 2005, p.34, wrote that courts had agreed that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations "is binding on all jurisdictions within the United States, individual states, districts and territories." without asserting any separation or distinction among states or territories within in the extent of the U.S. government as viewed in international law. (c) Judge Juan R. Torruella “Insular Cases” in University of Pennsylvania “Journal of International Law”, (Vol. 29 Iss.2, 2007) p.326, “In light of Rassmussen … citizenship was linked with incorporation, and that incorporation was linked with eventual statehood for the territory; and Congress was cognizant of this when it granted U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans.”
 * _ _ USAGE in primary documents: (1) State Department Consular Affairs Manual, | Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth in the U.S page 3, references Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), that “the term '[U.S.]', when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.” From 1986, “the Northern Mariana Islands have been treated as part of the United States” by the INA. (2) In the |Homeland Security Act of 2002, "The term 'State' means any State of the [U.S.], the District of Columbia, ... Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, ... the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the [U.S.]". (3) |Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l) (l) '[U.S.]' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace.”
 * _ _ FEDERAL COURT CASES include those overturning the Insular Cases, which were a temporary judicial fiat in 1904 allowing Congressional rule over inhabitants without U.S. citizenship until Congress might make them U.S. citizens, which it has done by 2013. There is not only one answer for all time, except the Supreme Court says once incorporated into the U.S., it is IRREVOCABLE for citizens living in places, states or territories, under the Constitution, as it is now written. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Military spending
Quote from current issue of the New Yorker regarding US military: "The United States spends more on defense than all the other nations of the world combined. Between 1998 and 2011, military spending doubled, reaching more than seven hundred billion dollars a year—more, in adjusted dollars, than at any time since the Allies were fighting the Axis." 86.177.118.203 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What a ridiculous comparison. In 1998, the US was at peace with minor interventions and the economy was going well. In the 13 years after that, the US experienced two wars and the economy has been in a tumultuous state. What's the point here? Boneyard90 (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Anon.203 says, 1998 < 2011 < 1945. Then BY90 says 1998≠2011. there's a lot of that going around. The point, Anon.203 thinks the U.S. can afford to cut military spending by making a comparison, like time magazine in the cold war adding british and dutch nucs to the u.s. arsenal count to show nato had more than the soviet bloc. I guess for some, there's always "lies, damn lies and statistics", like the new york times best seller book said.
 * And another thing, in 1945, commanders and lieutenant colonels testified for the ordinance department, etc. before congress, now theres 3x the generals with 1/3 the troops and theyre all assigned to the pentagon so every congressperson of every ad hoc special subcommittee in a panel of three can have their due status reflected in testimony by a bevy of on-call "flag" officers. its a ridiculous comparison. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Nearly complete propaganda from self referenced sources and inconsistent with provable facts
"The United States of America (USA), commonly called the United States (US or U.S.) and America, is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district." The single reference for this statement is a subsidiary of the same corporation it is writing an essay about. The article should be deleted because the page is a huge essay about the author's stance on the US government. Existing sources on the page primarily shore up the author's point, rather than establishing notability. The article is almost entirely about the organization's legal beliefs regarding the "corporation" of the United States. It has very little about the organization itself, particularly anything that would pass the Wikipedia notability standard for organizations. This discussion is not about the beliefs and/or stance of the organization, just the organization itself and whether it can prove notability through reliable, verifiable sources, and not just original research. No assertion of notability for the group per WP:ORG; no significant coverage of the group online from WP:Reliable sources; currently just a collection of WP:Original research and an essay on the author's political opinions per WP:NOTOPINION. Wikipedia isn't a debate forum for you to argue your point. It's an encyclopedia that is meant to document established facts about the world. This article is arguing for some way-out-there theory about the government. It is not written like a normal encyclopedia article and is essentially impossible to understand. There is no sense of context and no relation to the average reader's point of view. How can this article be said to be informing anyone of anything when it starts off in a way that is completely incomprehensible to anyone who isn't suffering from the same mental illness as the author? I have no idea what this article is about and the authors are less interested in explaining what it is and more interested in trying to argue / advocate for some extremely paranoid conspiracy. ImthatIm (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What? --Golbez (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This whole article is CIA gibberish. The United States is a foreclosed Corporation. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=129&invol=141 (CORPORATION) Get it?  Republic? nope. See The American Supreme Court as an international tribunal by Herbert A. Smith Published 1920 by Oxford University Press in New York. There is only 1 state in the bankrupt, foreclosed, former federal US government of the District of Columbia. This entire article is some sort of Original Research dream or somebody's idea of a joke. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on FACTS. ImthatIm (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you did get one thing right: Wikipedia isn't a debate forum for you to argue your point. You aren't going to get any traction on this, ever. --Golbez (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. Wikipedia is paid branch of propaganda and misinformation. Glad to see you agree. ImthatIm (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This article should be split/moved to "Federal Corporate America" because of the thesis statement referring only to the same
The thesis statement here is referring to the now foreclosed Federal Corporate United States only and uses a self referential CIA source to provide notability.

Sections 1 and 18 of the act of congress of February 21, 1871, entitled 'An act to provide a government for the District of Columbia,' (16 St. 419,) are as follows: 'Section 1. That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act. --- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=129&invol=141

The United States of America 1781, Executive Order April 27, 1861, last lawfully elected President, President Lincoln’s Order to Commanding General of the Army of the United States, Winfield Scott, suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, a resulting trust administering an act in direct contravention of Article 1 § 9 1791 Constitution, a private act by usurping office, never authorized by Original Contact Constitution 1791, The United States of America under military rule through Executive Order, from April 21, 1861 to date, still in place to date; a surety to principal The One People 1776, Creditors Reference File No. 2011-360-8868-3 Washington State, Department of Licensing.

Virginia and Maryland venue for jurisdiction, setting up private corporation District of Columbia, a foreign jurisdiction to The United States of America, March 1781, entitled UNITED STATES OR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, confessed federal corporation, 28 USC § 3002 Chapter 176,FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE, corporation never authorized under contract Constitution 1791, no such powers assigned to Congress Article 1 Section 8; admitted and confessed by and through United States Code Title 1 §§ 112,112b, 113, 204, under Article 6 Original Contract 1791, thereby said corporation, ultra vires entity, providing goods and services in nature of original obligations foreclosed, returned to original principals, The One People 1776, on cause of bankruptcy, trespass upon The People in their original jurisdictions, theft of properties, benefits taken from commercial slavery operations under sham legal process in kangaroo courts,all assets of any nature or kind, anywhere situated marshaled therefrom seized through this replevin issued by and through The United States of America 1781, The One People’s Public Trust 1776; C. Public No: 43 63rd Congress [H.R. 7832], December 23, 1913, 38 stat 251 Chapter 6 known as Federal Reserve Act, a private bank corporation charter, said corporation never authorized through Congress powers delimited at Article 1 Section 8 Constitution 1791, nor under federal corporation of government, District of Columbia Charter, 1871, thereby FEDERAL RESERVE ultra vires, nunc pro tunc December 23,1913, all assets, financial instruments, and derivatives thereto obtained through deceptive practices and illegal acts taken from Principals, The One People 1776, stolen value through conspiracy with UNITED STATES Federal Corporation via commandeering units, labor backed value used to support private money systems, issuing, collection, legal enforcement systems, operating SLAVERY SYSTEM, REPLEVINED, returned to the original owners on order of The United States of America, 1781, as issued through Trustees serving the formerly abandoned trust; any and all values derived from said theft and slavery seized from the beginning December 23, 1913, no matter where situated in any jurisdiction as product of slavery operations, inclusive of any and all agreements disclosed or undisclosed,involving said stolen value, use of same for any purpose whatsoever declared VOID. The ultra vires action known as The Independent Treasury Act, 41 Stat at L 631, Chapter 214, June 30,1921, any and all its records, transactions, agreements, contracts, benefits to any party or person from June 30, 1921, property of The One People, Grantors, Bailors, Beneficiaries of the One People’s Public Trust 1776, perfected perpetuity, The United States of America, March 1781, whereby payment taken in any manner applied, used, or stored, is superior ownership, full right, title,and interest in all acts, products, goods,services, agreements, contracts, properties of any and all natures or kinds, inclusive of derivatives thereto; thereby the One People’s Public Trust 1776, its perpetuity named The United States of America 1781, by and through its Trustees order restitution on all values, goods, chattels, rights, and credits under accounts or custody or guardianship of Debtor United States Treasury established private transfer agent to Debtor FEDERAL RESERVE and its derivatives in co-venture with Debtor federal corporation UNITED STATES OR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA or by whatever name any Debtor is known or does business under or through; E. Debtors Rothschild Family, a Trust, from all appearance, from sources of integrity of various jurisdictional agencies, is believed to be the prime source funder for each Central Bank of the World’sNations, United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, U.S.Federal Reserve, and alleged immune from any and all jurisdictions anywhere on Earth, the Bank of International Settlements, and Rothchilds who operate through nominees of various kinds and identifiers are unable or unwilling to produce verified value, real assets or verified titles thereto proving any loan was made to any nation or bank resulting in commercial slavery of the People of The United States of America.

The United States of America, 1781, the exclusive identifier within the Family of Nations, duly recognized, formerly abandoned 1861, reinstated by registrant Trustees, January 2010, BEFORE THE ENTIRE WORLD, To Whom These Presents May Come; adjudge and declare,through its administrating Trustees Charles C: Miller, Heather Ann: Tucci-Jarraf, and Caleb Paul:Skinner, that the political body constructed by the One People 1776 the united States of America, perfected perpetuity by acts of states duly constituted on the authority and in the name of the Good People therein and thereon, The United States of America, duly confederated, March 1781, that Our Political Body is the sole, exclusive, beneficiary of any and all powers assigned by the One People, constructing any and all governments on, in, or of America, the superior to any and all derivatives to our original grants of powers and that the Trustees demand in the name of the Trust, The United States of America, that our properties of every nature or kind be restored to original capacity and standing, The One People’s property rights,title, and interests or credits are fully and completely owned by The One People in their personal capacities and all other claims to any property of any sort by any person or entity derivatives thereto are CANCELLED, VOID pending production of consent to transfer said titles duly obtained under full disclosure of any and all relevant material facts or law or contracts. Done this 26th day of December, 2011. Reference file #2011-360-8868-3 Washington State Department of Licensing, documents; 1. ADMINISTRATORS’ BOND WITH OATH pgs.2, 2. CREDITORS’ ORDER IN NATURE OF REPLEVIN AND RESTITUTION pgs. 2, 3. COURTESY NOTICE OF ABSCONDING DEBTOR, N.M. ROTHSCHILD, ET AL. pgs. 3, fully incorporated by reference as fully executed under seal.

All DEBTORS – ISLN#: 904324042, Court Orders, Subpoenas, Docket Numbers, Case Files, Case Numbers, Warrants, Contracts, Chambers Orders, Minute Orders, Awards, Financial Instruments held now and future holdings and other supporting obligations pertaining to the foregoing and all proceeds thereof. Adjustment with this filing is in accord U C C section 1-103 and 101; House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933; Public Law: Chapter 48,48 Stat. 112; Secured Party accepts DEBTOR signature in accord with U C C section 1-201(39)

ImthatIm (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. --Golbez (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)