Originally posted by FreiMaurer
Full Voting Rights? Vagabond you're a fool
That's the second time you've insulted me in your short time here. It will not happen again. If you hold me in any disdain, you'll not find me the
least bit hesitant to match wits. I'll accept your challenge to a judged debate on any topic you wish. Name the topic, we'll choose sides, and
we'll sort out your assessment of me in one great big hurry.
the US is a "union of states" not territories, territories are governed not participants in the US system.
I neither claimed not advocated otherwise.
Take your crap somewhere else
Can I borrow your hat for a moment?
this is a blatant power grab it's affect is an attempt to further Democrat agendas through amendmentation of Bills that they prefer or
The amendment process to bills is not substatially affected. Delegates may not cast deciding votes in the committee of the whole, but even before this
rule change, they were allowed to vote in standing committees and conference committees. Thus without this rules change the Democrats, who control the
rules committee, could have set the rules of debate such that amendments could not be made after committee, and could have channeled the bill to any
committee they liked. This means that the Democratic power to use the delegates to their advantage in the process of amending bills is not actually
Down the road, they will likely use news stories about votes in the committee of the whole which would have gone differently with full delegate voting
rights in order to create the political capital they would need to pass a law allowing full representation, which would immediately go to the SCOTUS,
where the SCOTUS would either say that only a state may be represented, or might find that Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution is not to be
read exclusively, thus creating legislative discretion on the subject of allowing congressmen from territories under Article 4, Section 3.
I expect you to find this unlikely, however it is judicially possible. Remember that not even delegates are explicitly allowed by the constitution,
yet there they are.
Since congress has the right to make its own rules, and since the Insular cases have generally given Congress the right under Article 4, Section 3 to
determine the extent to which the constitution applies, it is not beyond the scope of possibility that the courts might allow further deviation from
strict construction. I concede however that the court has hedged its bet a bit in the often customs-related Insular Cases, and that much of the
language could easily be found to give congress only very narrow liberties in government. I also concede that the court rulings would be EXTREMELY
questionable if they allowed full representation, since the argument could be made that the primary effect was not on the territory but on the union,
and thus that Article 4 did not apply. I do however maintain that Article 4, section 3 could
be used if
popular sentiment reached an
appropriate level, or if the democrats just took the time to build a court that reflected their beliefs on this matter.
Also, the SCOTUS ruled in Igartua de la Rosa v. United States
that voting rights as affected by the evolution of territorial status were a
political question not subject to SCOTUS jurisdiction and thus to be legislated upon by congress (note that this is a distinct argument from that
relying on Article 4, as the very heart of the question is whether or not the area in question remains under territorial status at all). This opens up
the possibility that when the Congress passed such a law, the SCOTUS might not grant Certiorari, meaning that as long as the Democrats had the
political capital to weather the public opinion fallout, they could hope to win the issue in a walk.
from de la Rosa
"a determination of whether or not Puerto Rico's political status has evolved into 'de facto' statehood for the purposes of presidential elections
would correspond to Congress . . . [and] . . . no standards exist by which a Court can or should decide what is or is not a 'de facto'
Right, wrong, or indifferent, that is what happening. I'm not taking sides on the legitimacy of what congress is doing, I'm analyzing. I will
however take sides on the right of people to representation. On that matter I will say that because the Congress is legislating over those people (see
the recent selective imposition of minimum wage laws) those people have a right to full representation and that if the courts find that this cannot be
constitutionally achieved by the means I see the Democrats attempting at present, then the Democrats should go about it in one of the several ways
that might remain proper.