Talk:U.S. state

Pronunciation of Texas

Hi, I'm a Texas native, and I've never heard anyone here call the state /ˈtɛksəs/. What dialect are these "preferred pronunciations" in? If they're in the dialects native to the state, shouldn't the pronunciation for Texas be /ˈtɛkzɨz/, /ˈtɛksɨz/, or /ˈtɛksɨs/? This has been irking me for some time. Should I add them to the pronunciations in the table? Thanks. kr0n05931 (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I live in Oregon, and I've heard Texas pronounced as both /ˈtɛksəs/ and /ˈtɛksɨs/ on different occasions. People here have different dialects than those in Texas, I've always pronounced it as /ˈtɛksɨs/, but now I'm not sure what the correct way is. -Dagonius VI (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-English names

There are a few problems with the non-English pronunciations for four states.

1. The non-English spelling is not given. Louisiana is not pronounced [lwizjan]; Louisiane is.
2. Does "Mokuʻāina o Hawaiʻi" correspond to "Hawaii", as opposed to "State of Hawaii"?
3. The criterion for inclusion of non-English needs to be stated. Presumably it relates to Languages of the United States#multilingual
4. Help:IPA for English won't work for them.

jnestorius^(talk) 18:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I can bring clarity. There used to be foreign-language names listed, but there was no authority for the names being official names. When the names were removed, the pronunciations were not. I've gone ahead and taken care of that. -Rrius (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now I'm not so sure. Some of them seem to have been added later, with an IP editor winning an edit war through attrition, I guess. -Rrius (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem with "United States"

I realize that "United States" is supposed to mean the federal government. That is okay. This (US state) article is okay for defining an individual generic state. But there appears to be no intermediate article that talks about the 50 states themselves, outside of a federal environment. Should there be a separate article? Student7 (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I ... don't understand what you mean. This has a list of the fifty states; what exactly do you want? --Golbez (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, having seen your edit I guess I understand what you mean, but that really isn't independent of the United States. An entry in the economy section on the article on the US, for example, can just easily say that six states have screwy budgets (though I advice against that, as it's purely comparative and relies on recent news, which is pretty unencyclopedic). This article defines a 'state' and lists them; but for what you want, it seems that the article on the country is more apt. --Golbez (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that blurb about 2010 deficits is way too specific for an article whose purpose is to define and list the states. Also, "United States" is not just the federal government, it's the states collectively, which have a degree of sovereignty within the USA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I was about to post, as "United States" is shorthand for the full name of the nation. From a governmental perspective, the states can't really be discussed seperately from the federal government, as both levels of government were created by the sovereign American people in the US Constitution and each level of government was thus delegated sovereignty and powers by the people. However, I think from your post you're thinking more perhaps of unique topographical, cultural, or local political elements of each state - is that close? If that's what you're looking for, the individual articles on each state in Wikipedia cover that sort of thing, and the list of states in this article links to the states individually. Does that help?Justin(History) (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain what the editor means? There are already articles like state legislature that discuss state-level topics, so what am I missing? -Rrius (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked at state legislature and, like this one, is too "antiseptic" for a real-life blurb on budgets. We need a real article on real issues faced, more or less collectively, by the 50 states. I would be happy to hear of one. I think topographical can be covered in the United States article, but comparative articles on culture, budgets, politics, cannot. Right now, these are being addressed in regional articles, where defined, New England and maybe Southern United States, but there is no higher level article between these and United States. Student7 (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, the states just don't have that much to do with each other. There's the federal budget; there's fifty state budgets; but it doesn't really add much to talk the budgets of six individual, unnamed states, which may or may not be in the same area or share the same demographics. Apart from your budget blurb, what would you propose adding? Is it just a clearing house for state statistics? --Golbez (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is probably better dealt with at a project level, as it is going to involve a lot of editors, if it is ever approved. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States is probably the best place to do this. - BilCat (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

For example, each state registers vehicles. The nation (with minor exceptions for government cars) does not. This is much different from most countries. There is no place for this information.

States having a warrant for the arrest of someone known to be in another state, must first obtain extradition. This sort of thing is mostly done only by countries elsewhere.

No place for it. Student7 (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's really a "separation of powers" (or "competencies" for the cross-ponders) issue. Most countries are Unitary states, so those powers are handled at the national level. Federal nations do share powers with their states/provinces, but which level controls which powers varies from nation to nation. There are already some article that deal with separation of powers between the states and the federal government to some degree, such as Federalism in the United States, Federal government of the United States, and State governments of the United States. - BilCat (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like "State governments of the United States." This is being used in Wikipedia like "Government of (the state of) X" which very objectively describes the exact constitutional mandates of the various powers in the state. This is fine with me. Each state needs one. All states can use a general one. What is lacking is a "Politics of the state governments" perhaps. How government actually works, as opposed to how it is supposed to work on paper. I like dry, uncontested articles like "State gover...." but something more ambitious is needed to fill in where the dry objective article leaves off. Student7 (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you are after. Are you looking for someone to write a section or an article or something? You may know what you mean by "how a government actually works as opposed to how it is supposed to work on paper", but I for one have no clue. Are you talking about partisan divides? -Rrius (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what he means by "how a government actually works as opposed to how it is supposed to work on paper" either. He states, "I would like 'State governments of the United States'", but the State governments of the United States article already exists! As far as "something more ambitious is needed to fill in where the dry objective article leaves off", I'm not sure such an article would be considered encyclopedic by WP guidelines. It's certainly beyond the scope of this here article. - BilCat (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The article you mentioned is the article I am now using. Student7 (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Budgets

I just reverted an edit (deletion) of a sourced section on budget deficits of various US states. As yet, I take no position on whether this material ought to be in the article, or not, in the long term. However, it was verifiably, sourced with a citation, so I don't think it should be summarily deleted based on the rationale in the deletion comment summary. Rather, I think those who do want to make a case ought to do so on the Talk page and see if a consensus can be reached. N2e (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted you because the material doesn't belong here. This article is about US states, and the fiscal health of six of them relative to Greece in no way helps explain that. What's more, it is meaningless to say their budget deficits are larger than Greece's. In what way? So what? If this is about the difference between how California or Illinois's problems would be handled as compared to Greece's, then a hell of a lot more is needed to explain the difference and to justify including it here. -Rrius (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

N2e, do not revert again. If you had bothered to read the edit summary used when the information was added, you would have seen that the text was inserted to make a point: "illustrates problem with not having another article covering all states as a real group (see talk page)." Golbez would have been right to revert it without explanation, but he actually bothered to address the point made. You reverted him. I then reverted it with another reason that went directly to its merits. You reverted again. What exactly is your goal here? -Rrius (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Rrius and Golbez's critiques. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Texas

Article states regarding Texas: " However, according to Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."[26][27]" I don't know about "however," since a) Congress has already given it's irrevocable permission as prerequisite to get Texas to join the union and b) How would a state divide itself anyway without the consent of the legislature? So the sentence, it seems to be should come before the paragraph rather than an afterthought which prevents the action from happening. Both actions are presupposed. Student7 (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick answer to b) - in the 18th and 19th century, states often took radical actions considered too extreme or too controversial for the state legislature by calling state conventions, which then passed specific questions. The actions of South Carolina during the tariff crisis of 1832 are a good example, or going even further back the ratification conventions for the US Constitution in the late 1780s in many states. In essence, then, it was theoretically possible for a state to divided itself with a convention created for that purpose - unless specific parameters were set in advance that the state legislature had to be involved. Why would someone prefer the legislature to a convention called for that purpose? The legislatures almost always had two houses representing differing interests in the state, while the conventions tended to be unitary and unicameral. State legislatures, then, might be seen as ensuring a better balance of interests in the state than the highly democratic conventions - and thus their consent might be seen as a hedge against second thoughts later by powerful interests in society.

One other note. You referenced Congress giving its permission "to get Texas to join the Union," which could be seen to imply Congress was the supplicant and Texas a reluctant, undivided party. It's important to remember the opposite is closer to being the case. Texas was bankrupt and beginning to fall apart structurally and politically, with the majority of Texans seeing accession to the USA as their salvation in the face of debts they could not pay, a republic that was in crisis, and periodic invasions from Mexico that were becoming harder to repel. Congress, in contrast, was extremely reluctant, as many did not to want to inherit Texas' border concerns with Mexico and the Northern demographic majority did not want to see new slave states added to the Senate. Texas and its allies had to work very hard to wheedle Congress into admitting them, ultimately using a quasi-extraconstitutional dual-house ratification of a treaty of accession when other parliamentary strategies would not work. Even then, Texas was required to surrender all of it territories outside its modern boundaries as collateral for Congress to assume the burden of Texas' rather extravagent sovereign debt.Professor Storyteller (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is not to say there were no Texans opposed to accession, or to say that there were no members of Congress excited about annexation - merely to say that neither were in the majority for most of the rather long period of negotiation on Texas' membership in the United States of America.Professor Storyteller (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Wisconsin

Hi, I'm just visiting the page and noticed an issue similar to kr0n05931. I'm from Wisconsin, and in Wisconsin, we always pronounce the state name /wɪˈskɑnsɪn/, which is what the article on Wisconsin itself says the pronunciation is; however, this page lists the pronunciation as /wɪsˈkɒnsɪn/, which contradicts the Wisconsin article and the pronunciation of Wisconsin residents, though I have heard some people far from Wisconsin say it that way. Could the contradiction be resolved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.233.31 (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a contradiction: Both places need to include both pronunciations. This is not unique to Wisconsin, and occurs for other states (ie, OR-i-gun/ Or-e-GON, and cities (CHAT-ta-NOO-ga/Chat-NOO-ga), and even countries (Qa-TAR/CUT-ter). - BilCat (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of "Commonwealth" in the Lead

While there is nothing wrong with explaining commonwealth vs state somewhere, this is a bit obscure for most Americans. For foreigners, it has to be a "huh?" moment. "It must be important so it is therefore in the lead. What is important about it? What am I missing? Never heard of commonwealth applied to non-nations before." And, of course, it isn't important, which is why is should probably be left out of the article entirely. At best moved far down to avoid confusion. Let's leave the lead for important stuff. Student7 (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead is not just an introduction to the article, but a summary of its main points. The "commonwealths are desrbed in more detail later on in the article. It is a very important title to the four states that use it, especially Virginia, for whom it is almost a source of pride. (I'm not from there, btw.) Now, the user who rewrote the lead last weekend added far too much info, but the one sentence in the lead now that was there previously is short enough to make the point without duplicating the paragraph in the lster article. The fact that you didn't know nonnations ever used the term is exactly why it ought to be mentioned! A main purpose of an encyclopedia is to teach, to convey new information. You might read the linked article Commonwealth (U.S. state) if you haen't already - it's not that long, and it might help you understand the term's significance to the states that use it. - BilCat (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Also (and probably more directly relevant) see Commonwealth#U.S. insular areas. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

How is Commonwealth#U.S. insular areas, or better, Commonwealth (U.S. insular area), more relevant? U.S. insular areas are not even U.S. states, which is what this article is about! - BilCat (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. You're right. It's not. I looked at my browser history and it looks like I stumbled into this discussion as a side issue of something I was looking at re the Puerto Rico article. I probably had P.R. on the brain when I made that drive-by comment. Sorry for the confusion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I've done the same thing myself on other topics. But Student7 is probably really confused at this point! - BilCat (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've lived in Commonwealth states before and know how proud they are of the title. Very historic, very parochial, and very useless IMO. As Wtmitchell has pointed out, this is an important concern for nations. But very unimportant for a U.S. state. Student7 (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't what Wtm was pointing out - he misread the topic entirely. I'm not sure what your basis for declaring it "very unimportant for a U.S. state", but you've yet to make your case with anything but your own subjective opinion. The fact that four U.S. states call themselves "commonwealths" is fact, and should be pointed out in an article about U.S. states, as some readers might be confused and think the title has some other meaning. Covering it should clear up any confusion about it, while ignoring it won't. It doesn't have to be discussed in detail, and it isn't - One sentence in the lead, and a paragraph near the end of the page - that's sufficient. Now, unless more editors join in on this topic, there's not much else I can say here. You don't have support to remove the single sentence about Commonwealths from the lead. - BilCat (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

While a plurality of people in these four states may know that they are "commonwealths not states" I doubt the majority do nor care. The majority of people in the U.S. do not know this, for the very important reason is that the fact is very unimportant. They were not told in school because no one cares. Except for a few people in this article, it wouldn't be known ar all or thought of. And no one would be the poorer for it. An obscure piece of trivia that should clearly be left out of the lead. The number of states previously inhabited by the Cherokees is far more important, but curiously omitted. (Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it. Cripes!) Student7 (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Curiously" omitted? I'm not sure why you seem to be assuming bad faith here, as I don't believe the subject came up until about 12:23 UTC when you said it. And why Cherokees, and not any other nation? --Golbez (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that part is a bit odd. As far as know, no such information was ever in the article then removed. As all WP article are works in progress, it's a bit silly to rant about what isn't in there at all. As to why the "number of states previously inhabited by Cherokees is far more important", I haven't a clue, unless he means the fact that all these states have "previously inhabited by Cherokees" prominently featured as part of the their state names, unlike the term "commonwealth". ;) - BilCat (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Revisionist Writers...

I notice that the writer of the "U.S. State" contribution conveniently forgot to include any mention about the Declaration of Independence when they were writing about the right of states to withdraw (secede) from the Union.

The Declaration of Independence speaks both to a secession from Great Britain and future withdrawals from a tyrannical government.

Declaration of Independence Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776 When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

NOTE: Notice the word "another" was used, not Great Britain because the colonies were independent and wanted to be so, which implied that a colony or later a state had the right to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. ...

NOTE: "...it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,..." And further, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. ...

NOTE: "...and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states;.." Note the worlds "independent states". There was an expectation that each state was superior to the central government the people had created and delegated certain but limited powers enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

"...as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do." Note the independent states have full power to do these things, not the central government our Founders created to do certain limited things...no more no less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Barrs (talk • contribs) 23:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence is indeed one of America's most important historic documents. However, the Declaration has no legal force in American constitutional law - it is neither a constitution, a part of the US Constitution, nor a law enacted under that Constitution's authority. As a result, it doesn't govern the question of the constitutional status of secession - only the US Constitution can be referenced for an understanding of the constitutionality of any action a state might take. The reasons this is crucial is that the American understanding of who we are and how our government functions evolved dramatically from 1765 to 1788. When the revolutionary period began, almost all Americans were united in their fervent patriotism as British subjects, celebrating a crushing victory over France. Then the imperial crisis broke those ties of affection, the British made it clear that the American understanding of the rights of individuals and the role of colonial legislatures would not be honored, and the American people chose first resistance in 1775, and when that failed to change Britain's mind outright revolution and independence from the British empire in 1776. When they did, they initially chose to see their colonies as sovereign states, no different in fact from Britain itself, bound together in a military alliance against their common enemy. By 1777, however, it had become obvious that the states could not exist without unifying into a nation larger than any state - and it had become obvious that the American people shared a commonality more fundamental than any state government - and thus they drafted the Articles of Confederation, a fundamental law to supersede the "sovereign state" entities idea of the Declaration of Independence. It was ratified in 1781, becoming America's first constitution. However, as the war ended and the American people tried to make their thirteen states into a single nation, it became clear that the Articles were a wretched failure, with economic collapse, enmity, political paralysis, and the near-dissolution of the union all within the first few years. Thus, in 1787, the American people took the radical step of asserting their sovereignty *as a people*, not as squabbling states, a fact reflected in the preamble to the document drafted that year in Philadelphia.

The US Constitution, which replaced the Articles - which had replaced the Declaration - as America's fundamental law, our constitution, opened with the stirring and vital phrase "We the People of the United States of America . . . " With that phrase, the American people asserted their inalienable sovereignty as the final authority in the nation over any other source - denying both the states and the national government the right to claim sovereignty. When the Constitution was ratified the next year, the American people succeeded at last in establishing a form of government for their nation that proved stable, enduring, and the best ever seen at protecting the inalienable right of individuals. The evolutionary process shifted at that point, thanks to the flexibility of the US Constitution's amendation process, a fact that shows that the basic idea of the US Constitution proved enduring where the limitations of the Declaration and the Articles had proved existentially insurmountable. But the idea of the sovereign people delegating powers to the levels of government as they see fit - this power to the states, this other power to the federal government, but all fundamentally born of the wellspring of the people's own sovereignty - has endured in a way that no prior understanding, including the failed idea of sovereign states, can compare with. Because the American people under our Constitution are sovereign *as a national whole* (for it says "We the People of the United States of America" not "We the States") only the sovereign people as a whole may approve any mutilation of America through secession. No state has the power to unilaterally sever itself to the detriment of America and her people without the consent of those people of America as a whole, because the sovereign people took the final authority away from the states and rightly claimed it as their own with the ratification of the US Constitution, whose understanding of sovereignty absolutely trumps any earlier iteration of fundamental law. This doesn't say that a state can't secede - it just says that a state cannot secede without the consent of the people as a whole, a fact reflected in the Texas v White decision cited in this article.

It is equally important to remember that the states are not, in fact, supreme over the central government. The people are the final sovereignty, obviously, but in ratifying the US Constitution they set into America's fundamental law the following:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Next to the people themselves, the US Constitution and the "Laws of the United States" made under its authority - as well as treaties ratified by the Senate - are supreme over anything the States may chose to pass as laws or include in their constitutions. That means that all federal laws consistent with the Constitution - including the "necessary and proper" clause so often overlooked by supporters of states rights, which empowers the Congress to promote the general welfare of the people of America in any way that does not intrude upon the rights of the people or cross explicit prohibitions in the Constitution - are supreme over the States, not the other way around.[User:Professor Storyteller|Professor Storyteller]] (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Court construction needed

The US court system (and maybe most English-culture courts), at the lowest level, is usually comprised of a judge (set of judges), bailiffs, sheriff, prosecutor, and Public Defenders. This structure needs to be defined somewhere and linked to from here and a lot of other state articles. This differs from other coutries/ cultures. In Europe, for example, the judge is often the judge and the prosecutor. Student7 (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

We have Adversarial system (as under Common law) and Inquisitorial system (as under Civil law (legal system)). Check those out, and see if they are what you have in mind.- BilCat (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, if we are going to include a description of American court systems, we need to include the jury system. I realize that not every court process at the state level involves a jury, but the system is jury-based nonetheless.Professor Storyteller (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Your (Student7's) understanding of the U.S. court systems is totally wrong, and if you make any incompetent edits based on your bizarre misunderstandings I'll have to countermand them as vandalism. You're confusing the courts with the justice system (they're not the same thing). The judiciary consists solely of the judges. At the Federal level, the judiciary is then supported by executive branch agencies like the U.S. Marshals (court security), the Department of Justice (prosecutors and public defenders), and the General Services Administration (courthouses). The judiciary has the Administrative Office of the Courts and some support staff that it directly controls, but there's not too many of them. At the state level, it varies from state to state, but in most states, the judiciary has to contract with executive branch agencies for services like court clerks and bailiffs. In other words, they're renting executive branch services, but those support personnel remain part of the executive branch, and do not become part of the judiciary.

Anyway, we already have state court and state supreme court. There is no need to add more detail to this article when those issues are already addressed elsewhere. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't label "incompentent" edits as vandalism, as they are clearly not per the guidelines/ policies on what is and is not vandlaism. Note Student7's exemplarary behavior regarding the Commonwealth discussion above: While he clearly disagreed with my position over the content being in the lead, he never attmepted to remove it without a clear consensus to do so. I see no evidence he would have tried to add any info on the courts without understanding it at least a little, and having the sources to support it. Please try to assume good faith. - BilCat (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"Adversarial system" is good, and may use it someplace. "State court" is exactly what I need right now and have incorporated it into one state article. Will incorporate it into others later. Thanks to both BilCat and Coolcaesar. Student7 (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Border of US states

Why some borders of US states are straight? 222.252.111.122 (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

During the settlement of the eastern seaboard of North America by colonists operating under English (then British), Dutch, Swedish, and Spanish authority, boundaries were normally determined by the usually 16th and 17th century demarcations for property and territory - namely rivers, mountain ranges, and the like. The operational territories of Amerindian (Native American) nations, who were ceding territory as they suffered conquest and the effects of pandemic diseases, also provided some such boundaries. This pattern continued into the 18th century under the British Empire, which took control of the whole of the eastern seaboard except Florida by the end of the 17th century, as its forces and settlers drove back the boundaries of Spain's territory and, at mid-century, conquered New France. However, increasingly the scientific survey methods emerging from the Enlightenment and the demands of politics and compromise between colonial governments led to straight lines on meridians to divide disputed territories.

After the American Revolution, the new United States of America continued this practice in part, alternating between riparian, mountain, and Amerindian territorial boundary markers and the straight lines of compromise. The Confederation Congress and, after the later adoption of the US Constitution, the United States Congress along with the Supreme Court of the United States made compromise determinations in disputes. At the same time, the Congress increasingly favored simple surveyed straight lines between territorial governments for the disposition of territory conquered from Amerindian nations, obtained in territorial swaps with the British Empire's Canadian dominions, acquired through treaties with Spain, and eventually conquered from the United Mexican States and purchased from both the UMS and the Russian Empire. These straight lines made demarcation and determining borders on the fly between rival administrative entities much easier, provided surveying equipment was available, and facilitated the settlement of European-ancestry and anglo Americans into these territories. These boundaries were then inherited, for the most part, by the States admitted from the former federal territories.

Today, straight lines predominate west of the Mississippi, though riparian boundaries - such as the Red River boundary between Oklahoma and Texas or the Nevada-Arizona boundary - still play a role, as do mountain boundaries - like those defining the Idaho panhandle. Proposals periodically go before Congress for changes to these boundaries, provided the legislatures of all the States involved consent (such as the proposed swap of small towns between Utah and Nevada), though to my knowledge the Congress has yet to approve any such change.

I hope that helps answer your question!Professor Storyteller (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Puerto Rico Status Description Dispute

An editor keeps reverting the text to "the island’s ultimate status still has not been determined.." Even though it has long ago been determined to be that of "Commonwealth" of the United States. It is not, nor has it ever been "up in the air." That is just media nonsense. Furthermore, anyone with any sense is not going to vote for "statehood" when they would then pay federal income tax, which they now avoid, but get all the benefits of being a citizen, nonetheless. So far from "taxation without representation", they have "no taxation, yet income, though without representation." Just tell me where and how I can get my state to sign up for "Commonwealth!" Student7 (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

During the presidency of George W. Bush, a commission was created to determine the status of Puerto Rico. Its report formed the basis of the action taken by the U.S. House this spring to set up a final formal determination on Puerto Rico's status through a referendum on that island. That bill is currently in committee in the U.S. Senate. The presidential commission, the U.S. House, and the U.S. Senator introducing the bill all agreed that no final determination has been made on Puerto Rico's status, since it is an "unincorporated territory" of the United States.

Unincorporated does not mean in this context "lacking an internal corporate structure," but rather "not having been made an inalienable part of the territory of the United States of America." The Supreme Court defines unincorporated territories as "belonging to the United States" but "not a part of the United States", and this is Puerto Rico's current status - stuck between the two extremes. Like several other American territories, Puerto Rico is awaiting final determination on status under Federal law, its own internal political issues, and international law (which is unanimous in considering the issue unresolved and overdue for resolution, as does the American Federal government). The Supreme Court during the 1970s noted that Puerto Rico's status was anachronistic, and not truly appropriate for the modern practice of government for Americans, since residents of Puerto Rico do not enjoy the full suite of protections under the U.S. Constitution - a fact enshrined in law and beyond dispute.

Residents of Puerto Rico - who refer to their island in its Spanish-language constitution as a "Free Associated State" not as a "Commonwealth" as it is usually translated - pay federal taxes, though not the income tax (unless they are federal employees living on the island), import duties, social security taxes, and the like - but they do not have a NON-voting member of the U.S. Congress, as they are an unincorporated territory whose final status is pending in the Congress. Puerto Ricans pay Federal exise taxes, motor vehicle fuel taxes, tobacco taxes, alcohol tazes, and taxes on the use of telephones, and Puerto Rican radio and TV stations pay fees for their broadcast licenses just like all other broadcasters under the jurisdiction of the United States (the FCC). There are doubtless more Federal taxes that everyone pays, including Puerto Ricans, and the inhabitants of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.

This is, in fact, the very definition of "taxation without representation," but not all Puerto Rican residents seek membership in the Union as a State. Some seek to formalize their status as a Free Associated State by the process of incorporation, which would change nothing in their current status except to remove the uncertainty and possibility of later expulsion or independence. Others seek statehood, and a tiny minority seek independence. The very fact that Puerto Rico's internal politics are defined by political parties with differing views on what the island's final status should be is the final testimony to the unsettled nature of the status of Puerto Rico.

Student7, all of this information is freely available from sources other than "the media", for you to peruse outside of Wikipedia if you wish to double-check my assertion. And while I expect that you were being sarcastic, a note - no State included in the Union can step back to the status of unincorporation or surrender its representation in Congress according to the decision of Texas vs. White of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1869 - secession is unconstitutional -- without the permission of the other states. (Read the decision.)

In short, your assertion is that a status with limited Federal taxation in exchange for a total lack of voting representation at the national level is preferential is a point of view. It DOES NOT constitute evidence that the status of Puerto Rico has been finalized. The ongoing processes in Congress, court rulings to the contrary, and the nature of all unincorporated territories under Federal and international law all establish firmly that the status of Puerto Rico has yet to be determined.

If Congress recognizes a referendum in which the residents of the island vote to finalize their existing status as the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico and incorporate the territory as such into the United States of America, the status will be finalized with no changes to the life or laws of the residents of Puerto Rico - but that has yet to happen.Professor Storyteller (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link through Google docs to the report of the 2007 Presidential Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status. Note that in the opening paragraph (after the list of members of the Task Force) the report states, "This report . . . carries out the Task Force's continuing mandate to report . . . on progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico's ultimate status." The official position of the United States government is that Puerto Rico's "ultimate status" remains to be determined.

http://www.laevidencia.com/files/2007_REPORT_-BY_THE_PRESIDENT_-_TASK_FORCE_-_ON-_PUERTO_RICO_-_STATUS.pdf Professor Storyteller (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

All these are political statements, not reality. In reality, Puerto Rico is part of the Commonwealth. If people wish to think, for political reasons, that the status is "undetermined" they may so chose as part of the "Seven Freedoms" or something. But reality needs to be reported here. If a dispute goes to any court today, regardless of the "Supreme Courts" ponderous statement, Puerto Rico will be treated as a member of the Commonwealth, not a state, and not a foreign government.

This is like Texans saying that their state can be split into five parts (separate states) so their "final status" has not been determined because they remain one state.

Today, Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth. All else is political nonsense. We are not obliged to report unqualified nonsense. We can say, "Some people have stated that the status of Puerto Rico is unresolved. They say that...." But to report it as current fact, without qualification is to report fiction.

It's like saying that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" status is "undetermined." It is determined. It is the law of the land (military) and will be until it is changed.

As an encyclopedia, we should report reality, not as some would wish it to be. Student7 (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Student on this. This article isn't the place to argue the details of Puerto Rico's status, and we certainly don't need forum-style comments anyway. Prof story has a habit of doing that, and it needs to be curtailed, as WP is not a forum for discussing topics. - BilCat (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The above comment it a bunch of baloney. OF COURSE the final status of Puerto Rico is yet to be determined, and people who have fantasies otherwise need to be set straight. Whoever you are BilCat, you have no right to by a judge and declare "That is irrelevant and immaterial", just like on the old "Perry Mason" TV show. Some people act like uninformed idiots, and they need to be set straight.
98.81.12.250 (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rico's status is not determined in any final way according to Federal and international law. Attempting to disguise this fact by disregarding commission reports and court findings is an attempt to push a point of view by selectively claiming that this is "reality" while ignoring realities that don't fit with the political point of view. Until and unless a Federal-level determination includes a determination that Puerto Rico's status is finalized, instead of the contrary, this article should reflect the status the same way thatthe U.S. Government does, not the way some may wish it did.

These are not "forum-style comments" - this is evidence presented in repudiation of Student7's erroneous assertion that Puerto Rico's status has undergone final determination. BilCat - if you want to level criticism at me personally, my talk page is a more appropriate place than this discussion page.Professor Storyteller (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments in a previous post above are what I'm reffering to - political POV meaderings and propganda masquerading as info - that's not permitted here. I'll deal with issues where they occur, and since they occured here, that's where they'll be dealt with. The Puerto Rican status isn't "undecided" in the sense that there are other steps necessary to be taken. If Congress does nothing, PR's status will continue as is - that's what S7 was objecting to. It's fine to note briefly that some measures are being take to change PR's status, but the details are beyond the scope of this article. - BilCat (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't post either "meanderings" or "propaganda" - I post evidence to refute arrantly erroneous points raised in the discussions on this discussion page, and answer the occasional question visitors to this page post out of their own curiosity.

Or rather, as I self-edit, that is what I have done to this point. I am entirely too busy, too ill, and too tired of this kind of unresolvable disagreement to post anything else on this issue (or any other).Professor Storyteller (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And I'm too ill to tolerate one narrow POV being continually expressed as if it were the only correct POV. When simple, short NPOV answers to users' questions would suffice. We'll try to facilite a compromise in your absence, and hopefully it'll meet with your approval when your return to check up on the page at a later date. - BilCat (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I have posted is POV.Professor Storyteller (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is - it has a clear pro-Federal government bent that clearly not strict-constructionist, and an anti-British/anti-European bent in favor of natives tribes with no neutral histories other than their own, and in favor of centralist dictators. I am of a rather differnt POV, but at least I'm honest that not everyone holds my biases, and that others have the right to differ, and to be wrong. We don;t have to agree, but don;t force your views on others as if theyt are proven fact. They're you're opinions, and they are probably well-informed opinions, but they stem from your own world view. Pretending your view is "neutral" isn't helpful at all, and quite condescnding. That said, you we're right - we should probably move this last part to your talk page or mine, as I'm definitely off-topic now! - BilCat (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm breaking my own decision to abandon Wikipedia as the ultimate Canute's task, but this can't go without a response. There are facts about the past discerned through rigorous disciplinary methodology, and they are not subject to reduction to contending equally valued opinions. The quest for this kind of proven fact and its defense in the public sphere is responsible neutrality, not condescension. Every human being has biases, but that does not mean that truth is a consensus of opinion. Among the facts of history are that a) the Constitution replaced previous assertions of final sovereignty for States with the final sovereignty of the American people as a whole while also granting broad flexibility in unenumerated powers to the federal government, recognition of which is not even remotely support for dictatorship, and b) Amerindian peoples suffered greatly at the hands of European colonists and their descendants as those people violated their own self-proclaimed moral and legal codes, but c) the history of Amerindian peoples must not be treated any differently from any other group and is not somehow walled off from examination by non-Amerindian historians - and Amerindians are no more perfect than any other group of humans. These are not a worldview nor a bias but proven facts of history, facts which discomfit certain points of view on the American right just as much as the proven historical fact that the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment was intended by the Founders to protect an individual right to own firearms discomfit certain points of view on the American left. So ends the response, but I invite you to continue this discussion on my talk page as you suggested to whatever length you and I are comfortable with. I will bring my talk page out of tonight's retirement, unless you prefer your own. Please let me know.Professor Storyteller (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

For the purposes of the narrow matter of the changes to this article, your restoration of Student7's changes to the preexisting article is not what I consider a compromise, and won't meet with my approval at a later date.Professor Storyteller (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, that isn't the compromise! It still has to be developed. - BilCat (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that Student7's edit changes the established consensus with only one other contributor in support to this point, let's use a different interim solution while we work on a compromise - let's just take out all references to Puerto Rico's status - the federal determinations, Student7's point of view on taxes, the whole thing. Then we can open this up to comments and see where the consensus takes us, rather than leaving the point of view of two contributors (over the dissent of a third contributor) as sufficient support for an interim change.Professor Storyteller (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Works for me for now. - BilCat (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Made the change - simply stated Puerto Rico's current status as a commonwealth. BTW, I noted that it has a slightly different name in Spanish, as noted in the Wikipedia article on Puerto Rico - it comes out in a literal translation as Free Associated State, which is a slightly different category in international relations. I didn't want to get into all that in this brief summary, though, unless you and Student7 think it has a place here.

Another issue we might as well address in this thread as we're already on this issue - Puerto Rico's delegate to the U.S. House does have voting rights in committee, as I recall, though not on anything that hits the floor as a whole. Do either of you object to adding a dependant clause to the sentence on that issue clarifying that? Otherwise people might wonder why the delegate is voting in committee if they watch C-SPAN . . .

And finally - as to figure out the compromise - do we want to post notices in other discussion pages on Puerto Rico to bring in other editors with a stake in this subject? Or just work it out among the three of us and whomever might stumble over this talk page as we do so? And to that end I do have a suggested compromise - we could note that Puerto Rico's status as a commonwealth is not a temporary or expiring one, and it will persist until and unless changed, while also noting the court rulings and the findings of Presidential commissions which treat the status of Puerto Rico as a work in progress. I think that might cover both our points of view, provided the wordsmithing is appropriately neutral. Thoughts?Professor Storyteller (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My two cents:

Democratic Party 2000 Platform

Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917, but the island’s ultimate status still has not been determined and its 3.9 million residents still do not have voting representation in their national government. These disenfranchised citizens — who have contributed greatly to our country in war and peace — are entitled to the permanent and fully democratic status of their choice. Democrats will continue to work in the White House and Congress to clarify the options and enable them to choose and to obtain such a status from among all realistic options.

Republican Party 2000, 2004 & 2008 Platform

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

Official position of the U.S Government and U.S. Federal Courts

In 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stated that Congress may unilaterally repeal the Puerto Rican Constitution or the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and replace them with any rules or regulations of its choice. In a 1996 report on a Puerto Rico status political bill, the U.S. House Committee on Resources stated, "Puerto Rico's current status does not meet the criteria for any of the options for full self-government under Resolution 1541" (the three established forms of full self-government being stated in the report as (1) national independence, (2) free association based on separate sovereignty, or (3) full integration with another nation on the basis of equality). The report concluded that Puerto Rico "... remains an unincorporated territory and does not have the status of 'free association' with the United States as that status is defined under United States law or international practice", that the establishment of local self-government with the consent of the people can be unilaterally revoked by the U.S. Congress, and that U.S. Congress can also withdraw the U.S. citizenship of Puerto Rican residents of Puerto Rico at any time, for a legitimate Federal purpose. The application of the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico is limited by the Insular Cases.

In 2005 and 2007, two reports were issued by the U.S. President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status. Both reports conclude that Puerto Rico continues to be a territory of U.S. under the plenary powers of the U.S. Congress. The Task Force listened to and considered the views of individuals, elected officials, and other representatives of the people of Puerto Rico in an effort to ensure that views and positions were objectively considered regardless of affiliation or ideology. It published its first report in December 2005, and then a second report in 2007. The 2007 Report built on the 2005 Report and carried out "the Task Force’s ongoing mandate to report, no less than every two years, on progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status".

Taxation

The U.S. Government classifies Puerto Rico as an independent taxation authority by Federal Law 48 U.S.C. § 734. Puerto Rico residents are required to pay U.S. Federal taxes, import/export taxes,[79] federal commodity taxes, social security taxes, etc. Individuals working with the Federal Government pay federal income taxes while the rest of the residents are required to pay federal payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare), as well as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico income taxes. All Federal employees, plus those who do business with the Federal government,[84] in addition to Puerto Rico-based corporations that intend to send funds to the U.S., and some others also pay Federal income taxes. In 2009, Puerto Rico paid $3.742 billion into the US Treasury. Because residents of Puerto Rico pay into Social Security, they are eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement, but are excluded from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and the island actually receives less than 15% of the Medicaid funding it would normally receive if it were a U.S. state.[88] Yet Medicare providers receive less-than-full state-like reimbursements for services rendered to beneficiaries in Puerto Rico, even though the latter paid fully into the system. --Seablade (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. Courts already decided that Puerto Rico is not a Commonwealth. Commonwealth is just a name to the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, in Spanish or English, and the current status is a territory under the plenary power of the U.S. Congress. In addition, the U.S. Presidential Task Force was created to report on progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico's ultimate status. That is the exact wording of the current executive order. The executive order is in effect since the year 2000. --24.48.195.72 (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both our new contributors. Student7 and BilCat - this seems to me to be overwhelming evidence to support the fact that Puerto Rico's final status is officially and legally undetermined. What are your thoughts?Professor Storyteller (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you looking for actual facts or polemics? The following references say Commonwealth: Encylopedia Britannica], BBC (neutral media with no axe to grind), UCLA Law Library, Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (emphasis mine). Come on guys. Let's stay out of politics and stick to facts. Student7 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"Commonwealth" is basically a meaningless term worldwide, being used to mean many things. In the U.S., it is used by four states to describe themselves, and by the U.S. Goverment to describe two organized, incorporated territories with some self-goverment beyond that of most other U.S. territories. All this article needs to say is that Puerto Rico is not a state, but that it could become one one day. Nothing else is really relevant here, except to say that Congress is in the process of providing Puerot Rico with that choice, among others, in the near future. There is no need to discuss its "status" as undecided in this article - it's not a relevant point to an article about U.S. States. There are several other articles where such coverage is more relevant. - BilCat (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Student7 - the facts I've put into this discussion, as well as Seablade and the IP-address poster, show that the legal status of Puerto Rico is in fact not a final one, as the U.S. Government and the Government of Puerto Rico both hold the official positions that the final status has yet to be decided.

BilCat - I agree with you on the issue of the term Commonwealth - it merely means a polity which exists for the benefit of its citizens, much like "Republic." It also, unlike the term "State," doesn't have a single set meaning within the American Federal system. However, even if we simply note that Puerto Rico is an unincorporated organized territory of the United States of America which is the subject of ongoing active debate in Congress over its potential movement to status as a State, or an independent nation, and which has a similar ongoing active debate at the center of its domestic politics, I think we could cover the facts without using buzzwords that anyone has issues with. That sound reasonable?Professor Storyteller (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that pretty much what's there now? If not, what specifically needs to be added or taken out to meet what you set forth? - BilCat (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is my proposed edit. Remove my interim edit "Puerto Rico is officialy referred to ... notably." Add as a dependant clause to the sentencing ending with ". . . since 1917" the phrase ", though they do not have the right to vote in Federal elections unless they become resident on the American mainland."

That should remove the superfluous commonwealth versus associated free state material and, along with material found later in that paragraph, covers the points I consider essential.

Thoughts?Professor Storyteller (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've got three problems with the added phrase: (1) it is easy to infer mistakenly from your wording that the situation re: voting rights is somehow special to Puerto Ricans (that situation applies to all U.S. citizens, but Federal enfranchisement is generally only an issue for U.S. citizens who are not and never have been residents of a U.S. state -- that describes many/most of those born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands), (2) "American mainland" is confusing (consider Alaska and Hawaii), (3) the Federal enfranchisement issue becomes moot if Puerto Rico becomes a U.S. state (that possibility is what is being discussed in the part of the article where your edit would appear). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wtmitchell - thanks for your thoughts! Notes in response:

1) Lack of eligibility to vote while living anywhere but incorporated American territory is not the case for all American citizens. Usually, citizens residing outside American territory are eligible to vote in Federal elections in the State in which they resided immediately before leaving American territory if they were, or could have, registered to vote in that State while residing there, or currently are eligible under State law to vote in that State, even though that citizen may not intend to return to American territory. This applies whether or not the citizen is in uniform - but it does not apply to America citizens from non-States, Puerto Rico included. You are correct in pointing out that the disabilities that face American citizens from Puerto Rico face citizens from other unincorporated territories - but Puerto Rico is the only unincorporated territory where an active process is underway in Congress to determine final status.

2) I take your point. I am using the term "mainland" in the sense of "incorporated American territory", but that should be clarified. Proposed edit of my proposed edit - "... resident within incorporated American territory." Does that work better?

"The main body of the United States" works very nicely. E.G. the 50 states plus the District of Columbia.
98.81.12.250 (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

3) The enfranchisement issue highlights the difference between a State and an unincorporated organized territory - without this point in the article, readers can't see why residents of an unincorporated territory would want their territory to be a State. Does that make sense?Professor Storyteller (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Numbering below refers to your numbered points, not to mine.

1a) Of course "eligible to vote in Federal elections in the State in which they resided" does not pertain if there was no "State in which they resided". I tried to make that clear.

1b) It does apply to citizens "from" nonstates. If someone born in Puerto Rico (or Guam, etc.) moves to, say, New York and moves back after residing there for a few years, that person is a former New York resident for purposes of Federal enfranchisement. Is that messy? Yes it is, but it cannot be changed without amending the U.S. constitution -- which is very difficult to do.

1c) The subject of the political status of Puerto Rico is complicated and is addressed in some detail in that article wikilinked here. That article is wikilinked in the article as a "See also" under Possible new states. Perhaps it might be an improvement to move the PR and Wash DC "See also" links down to those specific subsections.

2) If such a phrase is added, that change would IMO be an improvement in the suggested wording of the added phrase. A wikilink to Territories of the United States#Incorporated and unincorporated territories would also be an improvement.

3) The U.S. started out as a confederation of 13 States, then adopted a new constitution in order to form a "more perfect union" (, etc.). Since that union was formed, 37 states have been added to it. I'm not an expert on the history of those additions, but I imagine that the question of Federal enfranchisement wasn't a central issue in most of those other cases. Also, I imagine that other issues (e.g., exemption from Federal income taxes growing out of classification as an independent taxation authority) probably outweigh the Federal enfranchisement issue in the minds of many PR residents.

Bottom line -- I think that the downside of the proposed addition outweighs the upside. Take that as the opinion of one editor. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response - here are my thoughts on your responses:

1a) Fair enough.

1b) In that circumstance, that would be the case. I think you're right - changes probably would require a constitutional amendment - but I seriously doubt two-thirds of either house of Congress would approve the issue, much less 38 states.

1c) That seems like a fairly radical change, and I'm not sure that it is necessary. Puerto Rico is the only territory with this process active this recently in Congress, so I think it does deserve special and unique mention in an article on American states.

2) I'm glad that works - and to be clear, you're suggesting a link to the Wikipedia article on the difference between the two basic types of non-State US territories?

3) Actually, the United States started out as thirteen separate colonies coordinating resistance to Britain during a constitutional crisis within the British Empire, then declared independence as a sort of alliance, and only then got around to organizing as a confederal polity using the name United States of America - all between 1775 and 1781. After the initial idea of the confederation of sovereign states failed dramatically in the 1780s, the American people asserted their sovereignty by adopting the U.S. Constitution, in America's first nationwide election, to divide the powers they delegated between Federal and state governments. The right of the American people, as they expanded westward, to retain that sovereign power through the vote was in fact at the core of the issue of adding new states out of territories, and has been an undercurrent in every state admission since. As for what weighs most heavily on the mind of Puerto Rico residents in this debate, various polling data and the several non-binding referenda are the best information we have on their thoughts - information summarized pretty well in the article you linked above.

One last question on your bottom line - if you do not see the advantages of these changes, do you prefer the article text as it existed before Student7's change to the text triggered this discussion issue, or the article as it existed with Student7's change?Professor Storyteller (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

1c) The thought behind the suggestion re: relocating the See also links was to sharpen the focus on where more detailed info is located elsewhere as an alternative to repeating that info in a sub-subtopic section of this article.

3) I know that I oversimplified. I was trying to point up that the focus on Federal enfranchisement isn't necessarily a central issue in considerations re re statehood and, AFAIK, has not been a central issue in the 37 prior statehood transition situations. Harking back to my "three problems" comment, I note that that federal enfranchisement focus doesn't seem to be a hot-button issue in U.S. territories other than PR -- it appears not to be an inherent central issue in territory-state transitions, but rather a hot-button political issue peculiar to PR. Having noted all of that, I'll say that don't think extended discussion of that belongs in an article on the topic of U.S. state.

last question) I had not been following this as it developed, and only came on this discussion at the point where I commented above. I've looked back at this, and I much prefer the post-change version. I take the tone of the prechange text as POV, with "still do not have" implying "should have" as if it's a struggle-for-rights situation which could be dealt with if only those in power could be made to accept the arguments of the strugglers. My understanding, however, is that it is in fact a constitutional-restriction situation which is virtually impossible to deal with in practice. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your input. Last response, I think:

3) I believe I understand your point - mine is that Federal enfranchisement was historically a crucial issue in past statehood transitions, and that today it is sharpest in Puerto Rico as it is the only unincorporated territory with sufficient population to meet the historical thresholds for consideration of statehood.

(Last Question Response) While I don't agree, I do thank you for sharing your preference. Mine is driven by the fact that the question of national enfranchisement is a question of political rights deeply entwined with all past statehood transitions and with Puerto Rico's final status, and thus framing the debate of Puerto Rico's future without at least touching on this creates its own POV issue. There are constitutional resolutions for this situation - if you would like, I'd be happy to explicate them in detail on my talk page.

Otherwise, I thank you gain for your time and input!Professor Storyteller (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans happily vote for their municipal and state elections including the governorship which decides most things which are important. No they don't vote for U.S. President. Allow me to not pay Federal income taxes and I would swap with them any day! Student7 (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I, like most Americans, disagree that municipal and commonwealth-level election (I assume that's what you meant, as residents of Puerto Rico don't actually vote in any "state elections") decide "most things which are important" - the national level is the most important. But my views here and yours are just that - POV, as is your stated desire to swap national enfranchisement for an end to Federal income tax.Professor Storyteller (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

My additional two cents: Common guys, Here are the facts without the personal point of view: Puerto Rico pays more Federal taxes than three States:

Reference:

"Table 5. Internal Revenue Gross Collections, by Type of Tax and State, Fiscal year 2009" (XLS). irs.gov. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help).

Blood Tax: Puerto Ricans may enlist in the U.S. military. Since 1917 Puerto Ricans have been included in the compulsory draft whenever it has been in effect and more than 400,000 Puerto Ricans have served in the United States Armed Forces. Puerto Ricans have participated in all U.S. wars since 1898, most notably World War I, World War II, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, as well as the current Middle Eastern conflicts. Several Puerto Ricans became notable commanders, five have been awarded the Medal of Honor, the highest military decoration in the United States, and 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.

Very important Reference (Please read it completely): "CONSEJO DE SALUD PLAYA DE PONCE v JOHNNY RULLAN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO" (PDF). The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Retrieved 2 January 2010.

Congressional Research Service Position: Very important Reference (Please read it completely) (Especially pages 9 to 11):

"Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress. Report RL32933. By Keith Bea and R. Sam Garrett, Congressional Research Service" (PDF).

Finally, remember we are talking about 3.9 millions of natural-born U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico and 4.1 millions of natural-born U.S. citizens who are Puerto Ricans residing on the States. --Seablade (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Seablade - am I correct in deducing that the importance of pp. 9-11 of Playa v. Rullan lies in the decision by SCOTUS holding that American citizens living in unincorporated territory are not accorded the full spectrum of constitutional rights accorded American citizens in incorporated territories such as States? I was not aware of this, but it makes the current status of Puerto Rico even less tenable, if even rights in the courtroom are limited by the status. The other file, on Congress' options for Puerto Rico's final status, further reinforces that in American law, Puerto Rico's final status is undetermined - especially since the report shows that even retaining a commonwealth status will entail changes, specifically creating a "permanent relationship" that can't be changed unilaterally - which would be incorporation of this currently unincorporated territory. Thanks for providing this additional evidence. It is clear now that any assertion of Puerto Rico's current status as somehow final represent a POV, and not the facts of the commonwealth's actual status under law.Professor Storyteller (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Professor Storyteller, you are right! One additional piece of evidence, about ultimate status issue: Please read the project of law approved by the U.S. Congress: On April 29, 2010, the U.S. Congress voted 223–169 to approve a measure for a Federally sanctioned process for Puerto Rico's self determination, allowing Puerto Rico to set a new referendum on whether to continue its present form of commonwealth political status or to have a different political status. If Puerto Ricans vote to continue to have their present form of political status, the Government of Puerto Rico is authorized to conduct additional plebiscites at intervals of every eight years from the date on which the results of the prior plebiscite are certified; if Puerto Ricans vote to have a different political status, a second referendum would determine whether Puerto Rico would become a U.S. state, an independent country, or a sovereign nation associated with the U.S. that would not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution.[107] During the House debate, a fourth option, to retain its present form of commonwealth (status quo) political status, was added as an option in the second plebiscite.[107][108] --Seablade (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Continuing Territorial Status The existing form of government in Puerto Rico is often described as a "Commonwealth", and this term recognizes the powers of self-government that Congress has allowed. The current Commonwealth system was established pursuant to Public Law 600, discussed in the previous section. Congress approved the Puerto Rican Constitution in 1952, subject to several conditions that Puerto Rico fulfilled through amendments that took effect in 1953. However that term may be used, Puerto Rico is, for purposes under the U.S. Constitution, a "territory", as President George H.W. Bush recognized in his 1992 memorandum concerning Puerto Rico (See Appendix A). It is, therefore, subject to congressional authority, under the Constitution’s Territory Clause, "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory… belonging to the United States." In adopting this view of Puerto Rico’s current status, President Bush was confirming the view that the U.S. Department of Justice had taken in congressional testimony in 1991 and had first reached in 1959.

The Federal Government may relinquish United States sovereignty by granting independence or ceding the territory to another nation; or it may, as the Constitution provides, admit a territory as a State, thus making the Territory Clause inapplicable. But the U.S. Constitution does not allow other options. It therefore is not possible, absent a constitutional amendment, to bind future Congresses to any particular arrangement for Puerto Rico as a Commonwealth. Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2005)

Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2005)

Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2007)

The reports of December 2005 and December 2007 conclusions are that there is not any constitutional enhanced possibility to the commonwealth territorial (colonial) status. The conclusion is that Puerto Rico just has four constitutional Options: 1. Territorial Commonwealth (Status quo just as is) 2. Statehood 3. Independence 4. Sovereign nation associated with the U.S. that would not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution.

The options 2, 3, and 4 are constitutional finals options. The current territorial status is not an ultimate status. This conclusion is supported by the Congressional Research Service report and by U.S. Court decisions.

The reports were the U.S government answer to the 1993 and 1998 Wishing Dreaming List plebiscite description to enhance the territorial status. The analysis was performed and the result is that any enhancement to give more autonomy or power that any other of the U.S. states and still be under the U.S. sovereignty is not constitutional. As recently as last year, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor indicated that Puerto Rico "seem[s] to have become a State within a common and accepted meaning of the word."  United States v. Laboy Torres, 553 F.3d 715, 721 (3d Cir.2009) (O'Connor, Associate Justice, Retired) (quoting United States v. Steele, 685 F.2d 793, 805 n.7 (3d Cir.1982). The purpose of Congress in the legislation of 1950 and 1952 was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with a State of the Union. Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 594 (1976), and the wishing list presented on the 1993 plebiscite and proposed by the pro "commonwealth" party should give Puerto Rico more sovereign powers, that any other jurisdiction actually has under the U.S. sovereignty. The U.S. Government declares this unconstitutional.

In short, then, the only constitutional options for ultimate status are basically independence as a sovereign nation-state (with or without a specific set of agremeents with the USA) or statehood.

--Seablade (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this discussion still addressing contemplated changes in the article, or has it deteriorated to blogish discussion and soapboxing? If the latter, it should be closed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the contemplated change is replaced this sentence: Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century, and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917;

By this sentence:

Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century, and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917, but the island’s ultimate status still has not been determined and its 3.9 million residents still do not have voting representation in their national government. --Seablade (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I support the suggested restoration change.Professor Storyteller (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would end the suggested replacement after the word "determined" and would replace "still has not" with ", as of 2010," (using the {{as of}} template). I think "still has not" suggests a --Seablade (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)"should have been by now" POV. I think the mention of the the feder--Seablade (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)al enfranchisement issue (only one of a number of issues growing out of PR's status, and probably the most highly-POV-charged issue) also introduces POV into the article. I think that these issues might appropriately be more fully developed in other articles but that this article on the topic 51st State is not a reasonable venue in which to develop these issues. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In pursuit of consensus, I would support Wtmitchell's desire to replace "still has not" with "has not been determined as of 2010." I would still want to see a neutral-voice note on the lack of national representation remained to clarify the difference between a "U.S. State" and a non-State American territory, which is germane to this article. I believe that the fact that Puerto Rico does not have representation in the national government is just that - a verifiable fact - and not POV. My edit posit would be:

"Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century, and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917, but the island’s ultimate status has not been determined as of 2010 and its residents do not have voting representation in the United States government."

Professor Storyteller (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I support Professor Storyteller suggestion change in pursuit of consensus. --Seablade (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In pursuit of neutrality and npov, the new sentence should then contain wording to say that no territory nor U.S. commonwealth has Federal voting rights while in that territory, nor have they ever had Federal voting rights. I think it already points out that Puerto Ricans can vote in any one of the U.S. states, if registered. Student7 (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's another draft, addressing Student7's concerns and still seeking consensus:

"Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century, and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917, but the island’s ultimate status has not been determined as of 2010 and, as with any nonstate territory of the United States, its residents do not have voting representation in the United States government."

Student7, does that address your concerns?

Seablade, are you willing to accept this new consensus edit draft?

Professor Storyteller (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Professor Storyteller, I accepted the new consensus draft!

As the following article Federal voting rights in Puerto Rico indicates (Use for reference only):

Any U.S. citizen who resides in Puerto Rico (whether a Puerto Rican or not) who is not an absentee resident of one of the 50 U.S. states or of Washington, D.C. is effectively disenfranchised at the national level, as are all U.S. citizen residents of U.S. territories (for further information, see Voting rights in the United States#Overseas and nonresident citizens). --Seablade (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I liked Prof's version which seemed neutral and incorporated my concern that we did not portray P.R. as anyone's "victim." No one is "picking on" P.R. The version directly above used the word "disenfranchisement" which implies that they were enfranchised to start with and does not mention that they can vote by merely being present in one of the 50 states. The latter may be too arcane for this article anyway. But it seems to suggest that P.R. has been "victimized." Student7 (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Seablade and Student7. Since the major points of view represented in this discussion appear to be at consensus, I am going to propose that we allow another twenty-four hours for additional comments from any other interested editors, then make the relevant edit thereafter. Does that work for everyone?Professor Storyteller (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Prof's latest draft looks good to me. The wikitext in the article should use {{as of|2010|lc=on}} in order to invisibly tag the potentially dated material. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with the 24 hour proposal and the draft!

Just one clarification, I added the for reference only comment, just to clarify that any U.S. citizen residence for example on the State of Wyoming, Texas, or California, can move to other places in the world, for example to France, Italy, or the Philippines, and still is enfranchised to vote in the U.S. elections. However, it this U.S. citizen who resides in Italy for example, moves his residence to Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or the Northern Mariana Islands, lost the enfranchisement to vote in the U.S. elections.

Eg. H.R 4173 - Reminding his colleagues in the House of Representatives that "voting is one of the most treasured civil rights in the history of our nation, and we must protect the right to vote for all citizens, regardless of whether they are currently living in the United States," Congressman Mike Honda (D-CA) at the H.R. 4173, the Overseas Vote Act introduction. Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/world/americas/28iht-vote.1.8511516.html Title: Efforts increase to enfranchise U.S. citizens abroad

Reference: Disfranchisement Wikipedia Article. --Seablade (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm making the change now - Wtmitchell, would you mind making the invisible tag you described after I make the change? That's not something that I know how to do, and the end of the semester is a little to frenetic for me to research the process in the help files. Thank you for the idea, though! And Seablade, than you for your clarification!

And to all who have participated and helped reach consensus, thank you very much!Professor Storyteller (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!Professor Storyteller (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to pursue it further, but the line reads "the island’s ultimate status has not been determined as of 2010." This seems POV.

Let's try Iran. The U.S. does not care for it's nuclear policy. Do we then say, "The final disposition of the nuclear problem has not been determined?" From Iran's POV it has been determined. They are a "free" country and can do what they please.

No one has been "finally" disposed of. Is your "final" disposition promotion? Retirement? Death?

The term "final disposition" can please only those who want to see P.R. a state or independent. For those who are happy to have P.R. part of the commonwealth and not automatically delivering three or more electoral votes for whoever the Democratic candidate is, is overlooked by this observation. After several votes on the topic, the people of P.R. aren't really predisposed to change. They certainly are not overwhelmingly in favor of either statehood or independence. Therefore, they seem to prefer their current final disposition as "commonwealth", a term you don't seem to care for.

I don't wish to pursue this until another editor shows up who agrees. Student7 (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

My impression was that we were all at consensus on this edit, based on the comments from you, Seablade, myself, and Wtmitchell. Specifically, I thought we had reached consensus on the "final status" question with part of the information Seablade provided, which showed that a "final status" is only that status which cannot in the future be altered by Congress - the only such status being independence, which would be irrevocable once granted, or statehood, which would be governed by Texas vs. White.Professor Storyteller (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe new topic?

Okay, Seablade got my attention on the moving to Italy, etc. That seems peculiar and interesting. If you can find a reference that spells this out and can be made to sound encyclopedic, I think it should go "somewhere" but that might not be this particular article. Might be "enfranchisement" or "voting rights," for example, if they exist.

I don't want the example moving around too much but what if he moves back to Italy having once resided in PR, is he now "poisoned" and can't vote until he again resides in the US proper?

BTW, I consider all statements by politicians on the matter as mere rant for the people back home. The only trustworthy people here IMO are maybe college professors, if they don't seem to have an obvious ax to grind. Student7 (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Two things - first, the issue of enfranchisement based on residence is pretty thoroughly covered in Wikipedia articles (unless they changed recently), but it is scattered. The information Seablade covered shows up in part in the sections on "United States territory" and sections on federal and state absentee ballots. I wonder if we should consolidate it?

As I understand it (and I am not an expat, so I have no personal experience with it beyond reading the laws in question) the ability to vote when overseas relies heavily on the last State in which one resided continuing to treat you as either a resident citizen or at least eligible to vote in their elections. Most states, again as I understand it, allow this if one moves from the State to another country, but because one can establish residency in a non-State territory and still be in the United States, not in a foreign country, then a move to a non-State territory snaps this thread of prior residency. So, in short, it's not really a matter of being "poisioned" so much as it is loosing the tenuous "once a resident" status with a State that allows overseas voting. There are proposals to change this, but little support for them. And, as with the territories, there is a difference between voting in primary elections - which SCOTUS has ruled is up to the parties in question - and voting in actual elections for government office.

Second point, on your BTW - I am a college professor, though I suspect you consider me to have an "obvious ax to grind," though I'm really just pushing for us to use the terminology and status determined by Congress and the courts. A finding by Congress or the courts is representative of the reality as it exists under law, even if it is produced by politicians, for legal realities are almost always the creation of politicians. I think this explains our disagreement on Puerto Rico. Professor Storyteller (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Student7,

The article that cover that information is Voting rights in the United States. Please disregard this talk page section, not additional or new topic is required on this article! --Seablade (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I found the answer, in the case that you describe, this person, can vote at federal level in the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico. This means in United States presidential primary and by the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico.

It move from any other U.S. territory or Washington, District of Columbia to Italy, well, he can vote in the United States presidential primary and by the territory or Washington, District of Columbia delegate to Congress. That are the federal level vote allowed in the U.S. Territories. In the case of the residence of D.C. that move to Italy is also allowed to vote by the President.

In short, the U.S. Citizens that move out of the United States are allowed to vote in the federal level as the same federal level permitted in their last residence jurisdiction in the U.S.

Reference:

Federal Voting Assistance Program

Registering and Requesting Your Absentee Ballot

--Seablade (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act applies to military members and their spouses/dependents who are absent from their place of residence, and to other qualified voters who are absent from the United States (for more info see [1]). As a practical matter, though, the mechanics of voting are handled through the absentee voting process in governmental election organizations of individual U.S. states, and the process of registering to vote involves asserting to state election officials that you are an absentee resident of that State (I myself am a longtime U.S. expat, and do vote absentee). The Overseas Vote Foundation is a public charity that helps American citizens overseas and in the military participate in federal elections. See [2]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Therefore a US state citizen does not acquire "commonwealth" residency (including commonwealth income taxes?) if s/he moves there. Unlike moving to a new US state, where s/he would be a resident and subject to their tax (and voting) rules within a certain timeframe but almost always longer than six months (greater part of a year). This is kind of interesting IMO. Student7 (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. As I understand it the degree of recognition of residence in PR afforded by the PR government has no impact whatever on federal enfranchisement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Resident or total?

I notice the new ref for 2010 pop. comes from the apportionment pdf, which includes overseas pop., but the figures are for resident population only... Which figure should be used for the table? Smarkflea (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 U.S. Census Data --Seablade (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Why "U.S." and not "US", I mean with or without the dots?

Which of the two common ways or writing it is more correct: "U.S." or "US"? Personally, I like it without the periods, but don't we already have some quideline somewhere on Wikipedia with regard to this matter? What does it say, and why? Chrisrus (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I know the standard on Wikipedia is to write U.S. with periods, but where, I don't know. A quick look found no specific entry in the MOS, but every time it did mention the abbreviation, it used U.S. instead of US. --Golbez (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this ends up being a variations-of-English issue. In American English, the version with periods is standard, so it is used in articles with a U.S. focus. Articles that use British and related forms of English tend to use "US", though Canadian ones aren't terribly consistent; the article Canada itself uses both. -Rrius (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a section in the MOS main page under Abbreviations that deals with this and explains how U.S. is the more common usage in American English. Also, keep in mind that this is an article about U.S. states, which are ultimately legal constructs. Virtually all U.S. lawyers spell the abbreviation with the periods. Oregon and Michigan courts drop periods in abbreviations and use US, but everyone else thinks they're weird. All federal courts consistently spell U.S. with the periods. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I still can't find the guideline. Chrisrus (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as an American, I don't think it really matters. I think the periods are anachronistic...Smarkflea (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but it is still the norm. -Rrius (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It can be found here under the heading "Periods (full stops) and spaces". -Rrius (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image colorless

I think it would be more appropriate for the infobox of this article to have the various states colored as in [File:Map_of_USA_with_state_names.svg]. Although I might not personally find it as aesthetically pleasing, it is the standard when showing political maps of the US that emphasizes the states -- which is clearly the purpose of this article. Just a tiny suggestion, I would do it myself under be bold guideline but I don't know how :P. MarcelB612 (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Undue material on Puerto Rico

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

Governments--Budgetary?

The "Governments" section deals with the structural forms that state legislatures take--why is there a "Budgetary" section? Budgets aren't a structural body of government, they part of the legislative process. Furthermore, this section does not provide useful information about budgets in state governments, just two items related to 2010 spending lines. I don't think that this is the place to have a section about state budgets in the first place, but if there is going to be a section on budgets at all (which is a daunting task and I feel may be best served with information on each states' page unless someone is really going to put in the effort--at which point, it should be its own page and not a section), it should have the basic who what when where why and how information. 71.175.97.148 (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That I can agree with, basically. The subsection has virtually nothing to do with what that section was saying, and provides information that is not terribly relevant to the article at all. In fact, it seems to have been added because someone had an ax to grind. As such, I've removed it. -Rrius (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The start of that stuff came in an edit by a still-active user, over 10 months ago:[3] Actually, by Student7, who posted in the previous section, within the last 2 weeks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

We used to have a problem with the encyclopedia - no one could mention money at all. There were (apparently) so many college kids editing and they didn't seem to know or care or found "unencyclopedic" where money comes from to a) send them to school, or b) anything else either.

I sort of thought we were now past that stage.

Many countries do not have an independent "state"/province level autonomous government. Many of them have appointed "department heads" that are assigned policies and budgets from the national budget.

This establishes a section where general budgetary concerns relative to the states can reside. Before I inserted it, there was no place to insert general facts relating to state budgets. States cannot operate without budgets (money). If it weren't for money, they would not exist.

The (now-deleted) subsection read:

"Budgetary

In 2010 the largest single item in the budget of most states was the public education system.[24]

In 2010, 41 states paid their government workers more than their counterparts in the private sector. The average earnings have been more since 2003, largely due to increased health care costs for private workers and increased pension benefits for government workers.[25]"

It was a blurb I ran across and was (yes) looking for a place to insert it. There was none. That is, there was noplace and still is noplace (now that someone has eraased this subsection) where general analysis of state budgets can reside. And yes, it represents a pov. Most items in Wikipedia do. It is, however, a legitimate pov with a legitimate source. BTW, a number of states are concerned about this.

I agree that "Government", per se, may not be the proper subsection. But where is the proper subsection? Right now, no one "likes" it. Student7 (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And before anyone gets too carried away, I would like to ask two questions:

1. Is it important what the main expense in most state budgets is? 2. Is it important (when headlines are being generated about it), what the concern is over state expenditures for employee salaries and benefits? I agree, that the latter, in a robust subsection, would probably not predominate. But a brand new subsection can't necessarily be "robust." That takes time. Student7 (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think some editors figure that this article was named (should be named?) "Governments of the U.S. states." But it isn't. There is no reason not to include high level general Politics and/or Statutes common to many. There is no titled limit to this article. If the editors want to preserve it in pristine form, it should either be re-titled or a hatnote should read "This is about government in the U.S. states. For information about how the states generally conduct their business, see "Article X." Whatever that is, because I don't think it now exists. Student7 (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I think this page should be merged with List of U.S. states by date of statehood. It was noted at that page's FLRC that sortable tables make the two articles completely redundant. While that discussion was limited to featured status, I don't understand why Wikipedia needs both of these articles. Awg1010 (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Support. Lists are by and large inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Dbpjmuf (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like you to elaborate on your broad statement; are you saying no lists, not even featured lists, are appropriate? --Golbez (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the "..state by date.." is adequately summarized here and duly forked. Why merge (or re-merge, as the case may be)? We are always looking for candidate material for forking. This is suitable IMO since it is rather routine information and distracting from higher level stuff. We need a lot more on general state information, general budgeting, general problems, general roads, education problems common to all, Medicare/Medicaid problems common to all, etc. This is tough to work in when being distracted by simple lists, which are interesting, but, let's face it, grade school stuff. As long as we are distracted by simple stuff, we can't elevate this article higher, IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support The statehood list is redundant to the main list, which is already sortable by date. There is no reason to have a separate page. How is Medicare relevant to these two lists?? Reywas92^Talk 20:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Mu. I think that the List of U.S. States section of this article should be pulled out to be a standalone page, then "...by date of statehood" (and any other similar list) should be merged into it. This current article is overly long; pulling out the list would improve the page. - Frankie1969 (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support merging list off this page Looks like the list has already been moved out of this article, but there still remains the issue of merging List of U.S. states and List of U.S. states by date of statehood. I support merging those two lists, but it seems like that discussion belongs on the talk page of one of those two pages, not here. YBG (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Taxing, redistribution, and uniformity (or lack thereof)

This edit caught my eye. The edit removed the word "unequally" from the phrase "the ability of Congress to impose uniform taxes across the nation and then distribute the resulting revenue back to the states unequally" with an edit summary saying, "rv, unnecessary (if it weren't given back equally then what's the point of taxing in the first place)".

AFAICS, taxing and redistribution are both done unequally. Equality of taxing and redistribution seems to have come into this without support back in this 2008 edit which, among other things, changed "ability of Congress to allocate funds, for example to the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System." to read, " ability of Congress to impose uniform taxes across the nation and then distribute the resulting revenue back to the states (subject to strict conditions set by Congress). A classic example of this is the system of "federal-aid highways," which includes the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System."

The rest of the edited paragraph following the bit discussed above relates to the coercive use of the threat of nonuniform redistribution of taxation revenue, and the paragraph ends in a {{cn}} with an embedded comment saying, "all quite true but really needs a cite someplace. Fairly dramatic and may be new to somebody". Taxing and Spending Clause#Power to tax discusses nonuniformity in taxation when it speaks of regulatory taxation and prohibitive taxation. Re nonuniformity redistribution, this might be useful here. It mentions South Dakota v. Dole, and a four-part test for evaluating the constitutionality of conditions attached to federal spending programs. Other examples related to the Interstate Highway System and 55mph speed limits probably exist. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit didn't so much 'remove the word unequally', as, 'reverted the previous edit which added it.' The way you paint it sounds like removing it was against consensus. My point of view was simply, distributing taxation unequally needs to be stated? Isn't that the point of distributing taxed money, to have it done unequally? If it's going to be done equally then what's the point of collecting it in the first place? --Golbez (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in participating in academic discussions here. I read the final paragraph of this section as making unsupported assertions re the power of congress to tax and spend. As explained above, I see problems growing out of unsupported assertions re congressional freedom vs. constraints re equality/unequality considerations. I'm not a regular editor of this article, not a topic expert, and have other things on my plate. At present, I am not disposed to tinker with the wording. I will add another tag to the paragraph, challenging a point which I think needs to be either supported or removed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Blank US Map.svg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Blank US Map.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem with sorts

It does seem that the sorts by population and area are correct. Perhaps they are alphabetical rather than numeric value sorts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.216.183.162 (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC) If you mean that they are incorrect I have the same problem with the area, but not with population. When I go back to earlier versions it appears as if it goes back from the time that the area was included in the table, whcih can't be true because I have seen it the correct way, so it must be a technical error.--Merijn2 (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Federal police?

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

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

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

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

tch. tch. Please avoid WP:ATTACK, which is also (BTW) ad hominem.

The attempted addition may be incoherent and laughably wrong. I agree that we would not want to mislead our readers. I do not drink nor drug and have several masters degrees. Unfortunately, these attributes do not render me infallible.

The article is supposed to be a joint enterprise. It is still lacking this information IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How about adding something like the following in the Relationships section:

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

That can no doubt stand improvement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Texas vs. White

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

That Supreme Court decision doesn't say ANYTHING about a state's leaving the Union being "unconstitutional". The decision states that there are only two ways to do this:
1. Leaving with the consent of the other states - with that method of consent being unspecified in the court's decisions.
2. Leaving by the carrying out of a successful rebellion.
As for the means of giving consent for a state to leave, we can guess at some possibilities:
A. By a 2/3 vote of both Houses of Congress.
B. By a unanimous vote of both Houses of Congress.
C. By a unanimous vote of the Senate, and a majority vote of the House delegation from every State.
It would be up to the Federal Courts to decide on the rules.
D. By amending the Consitution in the usual way. For example:
AMENDMENT 31
By this amendment, the states of Alaska, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Texas are allowed to leave the United States within the five years following its ratification, upon the application of each state's legislature.
I don't know when or why, so that's why I made it the 31st Amendment.
Remember that to ratify an amendment requires the votes of 3/4 of the states, so that alone sounds like "the consent of the other states". In any case, the Consitution will have been changed.
98.81.12.250 (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)