Well, the idea that a state could cede a populated portion of it state, disenfranchising them in the process, to create a national seat of govt, certainly wouldn't fly today.How? It was spelled out in the Constitution. Article 1, section 8.
Well, the idea that a state could cede a populated portion of it state, disenfranchising them in the process, to create a national seat of govt, certainly wouldn't fly today.How? It was spelled out in the Constitution. Article 1, section 8.
Not really, the constitution sets it the what and why... not the how. The how is the problematic part.To say such a thing, one would have to make the argument that the constitution itself is unconstitutional. I would not want to be the one attempting to make such an argument.
If P.R. gets statehood someday, I'd be VERY surprised if they would vote in Republican senators when it actually came down to it.What makes you assume P.R.'s elected officials would always be Democratic? Their current (non-voting) member of Congress is a Republican(ish).
Cuban Americans have shifted solidly to the Republican Party, and I think there's genuine opportunity for Puerto Rican Americans to be similar.
Yep.
If the problem is that some people don't get representation by living in D.C., the solution is to shrink D.C. Give portions back to the states that ceded the territory originally.
You’d be fooling yourself if think that isn’t the ultimate goal of any political party.These are not the kind of acts that bring forth unification. Those who claim to seek unification are speaking with forked tongues. The only unification they seek is under a one party rule.
They can go straight to hell.
That may be true but right now I'm concerned with the Democrat party single party agenda and I'm not fooling.You’d be fooling yourself if think that isn’t the ultimate goal of any political party.