A Plan to Renew the Promise of American Life, Plank 13
previous plank | summary | contents | intro | next plank
Plank 13. Grant territories statehood or independence
Specific Recommendations
13.1. Bring our practice into line with our founding principles by ending the era of U.S. colonialism. Do so in an orderly way by a date certain. Specifically, announce a sunset date for the current political status of all U.S. territories, including the five permanent territories, which are the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Before the deadline, grant statehood to any willing territory, if it opts for statehood, according to the normal constitutional procedure. After the deadline, declare any remaining permanently inhabited U.S. territory to be independent of the United States of America and extend a time-limited offer to enter into a compact of free association. Soon after the sunset date, fold any remaining territory or waters not granted statehood or independence into the nearest U.S. state.
13.2. Grant statehood to the District of Columbia by way of a constitutional amendment, leaving a small area for the permanent seat of government, inside the boundaries of which no person shall be permitted permanent residency status. If necessary, in order to preserve the partisan balance in the Senate, wait to formally admit the new state until there is another state seeking admission.
13.3. Renounce unnecessary U.S. land and economic claims and amicably adjust boundaries to ensure peace and harmony with all our neighbors.
13.4. Reduce the U.S. global footprint. Limit the number of overseas U.S. military bases and garrisons to the minimum necessary to meet our genuine national defense needs.
Comments
The primary purpose of this plank is to bring our practice into line with our founding principles by ending the era of U.S. colonialism, in an orderly way, by a date certain. The secondary purpose is to bring us closer to those principles with respect to the District of Columbia and our global neighbors.
Colonies with Colonies
The United States is a republic, not an empire, but American federal territories have evolved into permanent colonies, a mark of empire. Their status is incompatible with our principles. /1
Under our Constitution, territorial status is transitional because all men are created equal. No one may rule over others without those others’ consent. Ultimately, all are entitled to self-government. Voluntarily subservience is not an option, and certainly not a permanent basis.
The people of a territory, after a reasonable period, must choose whether they wish to enjoy U.S. statehood or independence, and the people of the United States, through their representatives in Congress, must respect that choice.
Permanent colonial status is not an option in our system. At some point, Congress has an unavoidable duty to compel the people of a territory to choose. /2
In 1898, the United States decided to try its hand at imperialism, acquiring from Spain certain prizes: Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. Later, to our credit, we let some of them go (Cuba in 1902, the Philippines in 1946), but a handful of un-republican experiments continue in the Caribbean and the Pacific. We maintain a number of island territories, both incorporated and unincorporated, with no plan for shepherding them to statehood or independence. To all intents and purposes, they are colonies. We have been called hypocrites, and we are hypocrites.
Proposed Solution
1. Establish a deadline to resolve the political status of the remaining populated U.S. territories.
Congress should let every inhabited territory, and in particular the five permanent territories, decide whether to become a U.S. state or to become an independent state, ideally with a compact of free association with the United States. /3
New states should have a sufficient population to be viable, but I would err on the side of having more states than fewer. Territories with insufficient population for statehood should be folded into the nearest state. /4
Independence should be the default option. Upon reaching the deadline, any territory that has not opted to become a U.S. state or part of one automatically gains its independence. Territories should hold any necessary referenda, and Congress should help them accelerate resolution or their status.
In practice, Congress will probably try to admit states in pairs, a Democratic state with a Republican one, so as not to alter the partisan balance in the U.S. Senate. That’s fine. It’s a practice with a long history. But it should not paralyze the decolonizing process. We can afford a slightly altered partisan balance. After all, it’s not always clear how a state will vote over time. In the late 1950s Hawaii was expected to be a Republican state and Alaska a Democratic one. So much for predictions!
2. Consolidate underpopulated territories into nearby states.
After the deadline has passed, and the territories’ permanent status determined, Congress should merge any remaining territories that are too small to be a state (unincorporated and sparsely inhabited U.S. island territories, such as Swains Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Midway Island) into the nearest U.S. state. I assume no state will refuse to accept the additional territory.
To be clear, the raising of a state flag where a territorial flag once flew wouldn’t change the status of preexisting federal installations, such as military bases.
3. Reduce our global footprint.
Along the way, the United States should, as best it can, peacefully settle any claims with foreign nations over disputed territories, renounce any lingering claims outside our immediate territory, amicably adjust international boundaries and economic claims.
We should reduce our global footprint consistent with our national interests. Close down all overseas U.S. military bases and garrisons we don’t really need. I’m thinking, for example, of the one at Guantanamo, Cuba. Since Cuba is currently a hostile country, we may have to wait till it becomes friendly or until we can get something beneficial in return. Our policy should be peace and good relations with friends, with foes, polite firmness.
5. Give residents of the federal district congressional representation.
The District of Columbia is a constitutional anomaly, neither fish nor fowl. D.C. residents live in the special enclave created by the Constitution as the seat of Congress and the government. Having such a district is a good idea, and indeed it’s required by the Constitution. But the Constitution does not give its residents voting representation in Congress. For many years now, license plates issued by the local District government have born the protest slogan, ‘Taxation Without Representation,’ which may be true in a technical sense, but it gives visitors the misleading impression that D.C. residents have no choice about where they live. In fact, they can live wherever they want — in nearby Maryland or Virginia, for example. D.C. residents forgo their representational rights voluntarily, and have no right to complain. And yet they are not wrong to want congressional representation. And yet — and here things start to get complicated — they currently enjoy the constitutional privilege of casting three votes for president in the Electoral College, thanks to an amendment ratified in 1961. I’m shaking my head.
What to do? Popular representation or congressional autonomy? The obvious answer is both. Enable D.C. residents should to have congressional representation, and maintain a federal district. Ideally the bulk of the existing District would be retroceded to Maryland, from whence it came, while excluding a small downtown enclave to serve as the federal district. (Arlington County was retroceded to Virginia in 1847.) Inside this small enclave would be the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and the headquarters of the major federal agencies (and could include the Pentagon, which is located across the Potomac river in Virginia, although that would complicate matters a bit). Since neither the people of Maryland, nor the people of the District, have shown any interest in retrocession, the more practical path, it would seem, is to grant D.C. full statehood, again, while leaving behind a small federal enclave carved out of the current District. Importantly, it would be necessary for the new district to have no residents as a legal matter. Within the boundaries of the rump district, everyone should, legally speaking, be a visitor. No one should have permanent residency status, even if they actually live there full-time. The new enclave would have no votes in the Electoral College because it would need none. Residents of the newly created state would be able to vote for Senators and Representatives on the same basis as other Americans, and the new state would have at least three electoral votes, because the Constitution guarantees at least that many electoral votes to every state. No one could ever again complain of ‘Taxation without Representation.’
Would the change require a constitutional amendment? Absolutely. For a few reasons. For one thing, the Twenty-Third Amendment would have to be repealed. It would be absurd to shrink the federal district down to a few hundred inhabitants and let them continue to cast three electoral votes for president and vice president. For another, while Congress has the power to pass an ordinary bill admitting a new state, and also has the power, by ordinary legislation, to choose the location of, and govern, the federal district, it has no constitutional power to go without a federal district. The Constitution requires one. Third, to guarantee that residents of the tiny enclave could be permanent voting residents of some other state while living and working in the district, we’d need a constitutional provision that prevents states from disenfranchising those voters. So, under any imaginable scenario, the Constitution must be amended.
Incidentally, if Congress tried to remove the district to some completely new location — California, say, or Kansas — all the same ‘taxation without representation’ and electoral college issues would still be present. Plus, Congress would need to obtain the consent of the state or states where the new district would be situated. And then it would then have to schlep the whole government across the continent to its new home, at ungodly cost. Much simpler to just fix D.C.’s problem in the manner I’ve suggested.
Congress proposed a D.C. statehood constitutional amendment in 1978, but the proposal only secured the ratifications of sixteen states before expiring under its self-imposed ratification deadline in 1985. So, again, we need an amendment.
And there is yet one more complication to deal with. D.C. is a solidly Democratic municipality. It has voted for the Democratic presidential and vice presidential nominee in every election since 1964, after it got the right to vote for president by way of the Twenty-Third Amendment. Republicans have no incentive to favor D.C.’s admission as a state, since it would just put two additional Democrats in the Senate. The way out of this conundrum, I think, is through paired admission: two states come in at the same time, one Democratic (D.C.) and one Republican (TBD). It might make sense to include, in the actual text of the statehood amendment, a paired-admission clause explicitly granting Congress power to make the admission date of the District as a state contingent on the admission of a non-D.C. state. And I would make this power temporary, so that there is a hard deadline to work against. Underlying this clause would be a gentleman’s agreement that the second state would be Republican-leaning.
Where could we find such a state? I’m not sure. I don’t know whether any of the potential Pacific or Caribbean states discussed in point 1 above would be Republican-leaning. Perhaps Puerto Rico? Alternatively, we could, as it were, carve a new Republican-leaning state from the territory of an existing state, for example, California, Oregon, Washington, or Colorado, in all of which secession movements have long simmered. Subdividing a state, of course, requires the consent of Congress and of the citizens of the affected state.
To sum up, realistically, D.C. statehood will not happen without two things: a constitutional amendment and paired admission with a Republican-leaning state. Since living inside the District is voluntary, there is no deadline for action. No one is holding D.C. residents captive. If they are serious about statehood, they will go out and find a Republican-leaning community that wants to be admitted as a state, and team up with it on a paired admission proposal, and persuade Congress and the states concerned to accept the deal. That may seem like an unfair burden, but, well, the law is the law.
Notes
1/ I realize the United States has the responsibilities of empire, despite not being one in the traditional sense. We are a great power, a global superpower, and the hegemon of the West. That’s good. Long may it continue. But we can be a hegemon without being a despot.
2/ Puerto Rico’s distinct cultural and linguistic character makes it unlikely it can ever be comfortable in the American Union. It belongs, historically, to a different civilization from the rest of the United States. I’m using the word ‘civilization’ here in the sense used by Samuel Huntington in his Clash of Civilizations. He bases his thesis on the fact that linguistic and cultural differences give rise to distinct peoples that cannot be yoked together without unresolvable tensions. My personal view is Puerto Ricans would be better off as citizens of an independent nation state where Spanish is the national language. That said, if they choose to seek admission as a U.S. state, I think we should admit them and insist they accept English as the official language of government and interstate commerce. The United States has always been an English-speaking country despite our being a ‘nation of immigrants.’ E pluribus unum. The English language is one of the main tools by which we become Americans without hyphens. And while I’m all for local autonomy and self-government and, within reason, cultural diversity, I think we have to draw a line at language, which can unite or divide a community like little else. Every community must have a lingua franca. Too much autonomy invites needless grief. I will go further and add that I think the nation state, as a form, is the best haven for individual liberty the modern world offers, and therefore a certain degree of national homogeneity is not only desirable but imperative, and certainly so with respect to language. A multinational state may be a hodgepodge, but a multilingual state is a chimera. It’s wiser to let distinct peoples and civilizations flourish independently.
3/ A compact of free association is a voluntary protectorate. An independent, usually smaller, nation agrees by treaty to let a larger, stronger nation serve as its military protector against foreign attack or invasion, and perhaps also to speak for it in international affairs. Typically, the larger power is allowed to maintain a military presence within the smaller nation, for which it pays rent. So far, three nations have entered into compacts of free association with the United State: the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. All three are former members of the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, over which the United States held a mandate from the United Nations from 1947 to 1986. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands was also part of that trust, and is now a U.S. territory.
4/ In general, I would prefer that most U.S. states be, on average, geographically smaller and more numerous than they are now, and closer to each other in size and population. Certainly, it would be good for the physically massive states — Alaska, Texas, California, and Montana, for starters — to subdivide themselves. But I am under no illusion. Political units expand. They never contract voluntarily. But sometimes they do divorce amicably, and that’s worth contemplating. (I’m thinking of Norway separating from Sweden, and of Czechia separating from Slovakia — admittedly, rare instances of peace and amity in these things.) P.S. I do not believe states have a constitutional right to secede from the Union. But I do think they have a natural right of revolution when truly oppressed. And I am cautiously open to the idea of a constitutional amendment granting any state the right to secede peacefully with the unanimous consent of all the existing states and a clear, reasonable procedure for obtaining such unanimous consent. But some of the issues raised by such an amendment would be mind-bending, such as the Swiss cheese problem. So, that’s why I’m not proposing such an amendment.
Constitutional Amendments
This plank requires one constitutional amendment, which would grant statehood to the District of Columbia while leaving a small enclave to continue as the federal district required by the Constitution.
Benefits
Ends American colonialism.
Restores our just example in the world.
Honors the freedom and dignity of the peoples of the territories.
Revised: June 4, 2016.
Published: June 21, 2013.
Author: Dean Clancy.
previous plank | summary | contents | intro | next plank