Talk:Political status of Puerto Rico/Archives/2011/November

Innacurate Statement proposal correction as per Balzac v. Puerto Rico opinion full text

My reference is the Balzac v. Puerto Rico opinion full text! The current statement is not there! The proposal statement is most accurate in relation to the case full text!

• Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) (opinion full text).

Current Statement: The Supreme Court later made other rulings. For example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 305 (1922), explained the distinction between an incorporated and a non-incorporated territory. Of particular application in the case of Puerto Rico is the definition stating that "an unincorporated territory is a territory as to which, when acquired by the United States, no clear intention was expressed that it would eventually be incorporated into the Union as a State."

Proposal Statement: The Supreme Court later made other rulings. For example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 305 (1922), explained the distinction between an incorporated and a non-incorporated territory. Of particular application in the case of Puerto Rico is the definition stating that "an unincorporated territory is a territory as to which, when acquired by the United States, no clear intention was expressed that it would eventually be incorporated into the Union."

--Seablade (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The citation is quoting Judge Torruella's 100 Years of Solitude article, not Balzac vs. Puerto Rico. Please use Burnett and Marshall's publication as your source as per citation.

In any event, it is puzzling that you are arguing about this when even the partial quote, "an unincorporated territory is a territory as to which, when acquired by the United States, no clear intention was expressed that it would eventually be incorporated into the Union", is not found in Balzac vs. Puerto Rico using the reference you include ABOVE.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

I don't have the time to pursue this further right now; nor the resources (being limited as I am to online sources, and this source not being previewable enough). Still, see Burnett, Christina Duffy; Marshall, Burke (2001). Foreign in a domestic sense: Puerto Rico, American expansion, and the Constitution. Duke University Press. pp. 243. ISBN 978-0-8223-2698-4. (the last full paragraph on the page -- I don't know what chapter this is and I haven't located footnote 13, but it may be previewable) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Although quotations should of course be checked when their accuracy is questioned, there really is no difference in meaning between the two versions. In 1922, "incorporated into the Union" had no potential meaning other than statehood. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the territories could be incorporated into the union and/or admitted into the union as a State. One example by the U.S. Supreme Court

In Downes v. Bidwell supra at 252, it was said:

Owing to a new war between England and France being upon the point of breaking out, there was need for haste in the negotiations, and Mr. Livingston took the responsibility of disobeying his (Mr. Jefferson's) instructions, and, probably owing to the insistence of Bonaparte, consented to the 3d article of the treaty (with France to acquire the territory of Louisiana), which provided that 'the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the meantime they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess.' [8 Stat. at L. 202.]

This evidently committed the government to the ultimate, but not to the immediate, admission of Louisiana as a state...

--Seablade (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you want to chop off the quote (from "incorporated into the Union as a State" to "incorporated into the Union") to emphasize the fact that unincorporated territories may become part of the US by becoming only incorporated territories. Louisiana or not, we must remember that "incorporation has always been a step...leading to statehood." (BALZAC v. PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO) In other words, you are not going to find a ballot option for becoming just an incorporated territory, the option would instead read "statehood". That is, incorporation is not an end in itself, but simply part of the process of becoming a U.S. state and, judging by when Alaska and Hawaii became states after becoming incorporated territories (both done within a year), it is clear that incorporation is a step in the process of becoming a state. In light of this, heading down your direction has more the resemblance of political propaganda, which I would warn against as it is contrary to the WP:NOTADVOCATE policy. Wikipedia is not the place to advance personal political ideas. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Your assumption is incorrect! I just want to perform the update by the simple reason of illustrate what the Supreme Court ruled on 1922! Because this is an encyclopedia and the article most have the most accurate information available! This is not about POV, or elections or plebiscites! It is about accuracy to the most reliable facts as per the U.S Supreme Court avoiding POV interpretation of them on Wikipedia! Could you assume good faith!

Hawaii was incorporated into the union on 1898 as per the U.S. Supreme Court and was admitted as State 61 years later on 1959.

Alaska was incorporated into the union on 1868 as per the U.S. Supreme Court and was admitted as State 91 years later on 1959.

--Seablade (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Supreme Court ruling:

"The inhabitants of the ceded territory . . . shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States;" This declaration, although somewhat changed in phraseology, is the equivalent, as pointed out in Downes v. Bidwell, of the formula, employed from the beginning to express the purpose to incorporate acquired territory into the United States, especially in the absence of other provisions showing an intention to the contrary.".Rassmussen v. U S, 197 U.S. 516 (1905) Here we see that the act of incorporation is on the people of the territory, not on the territory per se. --Seablade (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wtmitchell,

Burnett, Christina Duffy; Marshall, Burke (2001). Foreign in a domestic sense: Puerto Rico, American expansion, and the Constitution. Duke University Press. pp. 243. ISBN 978-0-8223-2698-4. it is not previewable. --Seablade (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Seablade, I can't say for sure why you have a problem previewing that page and I do not. It may have something to do with our respective geographic locations -- Google books may or may not restrict previewing by geographic location as indicated by the IP address of the web client. That page is previewable for me in Google Books from my location in the Philippines. it appears to be an essay by John R. Torruella, and the relevant para reads in part, "What is an 'unincorporated' territory of the United States? According to the Supreme Court--because again, this is terminology that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution—an unincorporated territory is a territory as to which, when acquired by the United States, no clear intention was expressed that it would eventually be incorporated into the Union as a state.¹³ The distinction between being classified as incorporated versus an unincorporated territory is not an insignificant one, for in the infamous Insular Cases the Supreme Court held that only those rigthts in the Bill of rights that are determined to be 'fundamental' are applicable in unincorporated territories.¹⁴ ..." (Emphasis added by me. Any typos in the quote are mine). P.241, the title page of that chapter, is not previewable by me; neither are pp.248-280, wherein footnotes 13 and 14 would be. Someone located in a country such as the U.S. (in Puerto Rico too) might be able to find a copy of the book in a library there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, when I click on your "Foreign in a domestic sense..." Google books link above and then click on "Preview this book >>" and then type "incorporated into the Union as a State" (including the 2 double quotes) in the "Search in this book" box on the left and hit "Go", I get a full display of page 243 highlighting the quote in question on the paragrapgh that starts with "What is an "unincorporated" territory of the United States?". Since the title of this discussion implied that the quote needed correction because it was innacurate, this proves the quote is not innacurrate and, to me, anything beyond this is would be purely argumentative. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Correction performs on the article to clarify that the statement is from Torruella and not by the U.S. Supreme Court on Balzac v. Puerto Rico. Thanks for your help! --Seablade (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)