Puerto Rico

Monorprise · Posted: Apr 27, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: Puerto Rico

I’ve been continually watching this develop, as it's most relevant to the United States, and UNA.

For the last 100+ years Puerto Rico has been trying to decided what it wants’ to do with itself with regard to the United States.

All her political parties have been built around her 3 proceeded options, which most simply put are:

1. Remain where they are. (40-50%)
2. Statehood (40-50%)
3. Independents (1-5%)

All the while, we here in the existing U.S. have largely been oblivious to it, as they play out this fight among themselves.

In 1952 Congress Authorized Puerto Rico to draft and establish it's own Constitution, Puerto Rico did so.

On their own, Puerto Rico has been simi-regularly holding their own referendums as to their political status.
Keep in mind that because its on their own, they are non-binding, as Puerto Rico, as a territory does not have the authority to make such a change one way or the other. but presumably it would direct where the Puerto Rican government would go in respect to the United States, and get the attention of the United States Congress.

Anyway in the course of this 100+ year debate it seems the party’s on the island have gotten themselves a bit confused as to the exact nature of U.S. Constitutional law. Specificity their pro-statuesque Party NDP has got in large part itself under the dilution that, there is such thing as a status not statehood or independent of the united states, which prevents congress from taking unilateral action on the island of Puerto Rico. (ie with out their consent).

to answer this over the previous decades or so the Puerto Rico's have asked that The U.S. clarify this for them. over 2 administrations starting with Clinton then Bush, starting with Clinton’s taskforce, we have come to this conclusion.

That because The United States constitution’s Tertian clause gives Congress unilateral authority over all territories. and recognizes for no status other than Statehood, Territorial status, or independents. that Puerto Rico must be one of theses status's and subject to the rules to which that status is constitutionally provided.

And that specifically, there is no constitutional way for us to bind future congresses to certain courses of actions with regard to Puerto Rico, as long as she remains under Territorial status.

Because this conflicts with NDP’s current political position of “enhanced commonwealth/territorial status” this has cause something of a political realignment and controversy, prompting their current NDP governor to send a unpredicted letter to our Secretary of State protesting the reports findings. Calming if they are true then the united states has perpetrated a hoax on Puerto Rico and the UN sense 1952.

Conversely the Puerto Rico Legislator, seems to disagree, with the president of the Puerto Rican sensate sending his own letter to our Secretary of states indicating his agreement with the findings.

The Presidential task force report also recommends that the United States Congress Institute a formal vote upon the island of Puerto Rico to have the inhabitants chooses among the available options, constitutionally allowed us to give them.

Despite the intense lobbing of the Puerto Rican resident commissioner (Their elected non-voting rep to the U.S. House) this measure has so yet to come to a vote in the U.S. House of reps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_Democracy_Act_of_2007

Although taken as a whole, Puerto Rico is unusually slow in this, and the process of statehood is itself normally slow and long term. It would appear that we are as expected coming to an impasse.

mccapitalism · Posted: Apr 27, 2008 4:25 pm Post subject:

It should be a state. It makes sense. Hooray. Now we just have to motivate Puerto Ricans to truly advocate it. United North-uerto Rico! Vive el Estados Unidos!

CTMountaineer · Posted: May 09, 2008 2:12 pm Post subject:

I worked with a pro-statehood status Puerto Rican for years. The notion has become very close to being supported by a majority, and the pro-commonwealth status group has always won out by a narrow margin. There is virtually no support for independence, and those who do support that notion are considered nut jobs by both of the other groups.

They maintain a certain autonomy with commonwealth status that they wouldn't have as states, and don't pay Federal Income Tax. They do pay Social Security taxes. It is the income tax issue that is the major consideration for the commonwealth folks. The Federal Government has always had ultimate jurisdiction there, but generally exercises a lot of sensitivity to the wishes of the residents. For years they haggled back and forth over use of the naval bombing range on the outlying island of Vieques. The Navy finally got tired of listening to them complain about it and stopped using it.

Then they decided that without the range, they didn't need the accompanying naval base either, so they closed it and moved operations to another base in Florida. It took thousands of good paying Federal jobs right along with it. They quickly changed their mind about the bombing range but it was too late... the Navy had already made the decision.

Monorprise · Posted: May 11, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject:

It was pretty stupid of them to drive the Navy base out.

That being said, I think if they were a state, we would have more of a vested interest in maintaining a navy base there for nonthing more than the enhance ability to project and provided military response over the region most effecting them.
Even thou the Caribbean sea isn’t practically a issue for us right now.

It would be foolish to assume it won’t be again in the future, Puerto Rico’s strategic location in the area is outstanding in terms of a base to quickly project power, in our backyard. It’s right in the middle. Should we eventually loses Getmo, Puerto Rico will be our best position in the region from which to project power.
Half the distant from Florida to Venezuela, and thus time it would require for us to launch a response, to either them or any of the South American costal regions.

I think there is a fair case to be made for maintaining a navy base there if we had a vested interest.

CTMountaineer · Posted: May 11, 2008 8:17 pm Post subject:

	United North America Board -> Economics, Law & Politics	All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1