Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
LGD
Sep 25, 2004

Be real- they're not getting representation

maybe they can get upgraded from Territory status after Puerto Rico

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

LGD
Sep 25, 2004

loquacius posted:

Pfft PR keeps voting not to be a state, there's no line. All the UK would have to do is vote a little better than they just did and they'd get in easy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2012

multi-part question so open to interpretation, but by most indications Statehood is the most popular option, and given the recent budget crisis I think full statehood would be likely to win if it was a straight up or down vote

the bigger issue is that there is little reason for a Republican controlled congress to add one or more new states that would be solidly politically aligned with the opposition party, so you'd need large agitation on the parts of the territories, wave elections favoring the Democratic party, or a political realignment

LGD
Sep 25, 2004

loquacius posted:

well given what just happened in the UK that's certainly not true for them :v:

bad news for Scotland though

They might be racist enough, but having been sheltered by undemocratic European bureaucracy for the last several decades I'm not sure the average Englishman really has the constitution for the full blast of :911: FREEDOM :911: inherent in modern U.S. movement conservatism

LGD
Sep 25, 2004

Bitter Mushroom posted:

do we get guns though? dealbreaker

yes, it would be a constitutional right for anyone who wanted one

LGD
Sep 25, 2004

Typical Pubbie posted:

Is there a law against a state having a monarchy?

yes, there is actually a bunch of the constitution dealing with this

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause

and

Article One, Section 10 posted:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

LGD fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Jun 29, 2016

LGD
Sep 25, 2004

boom boom boom posted:

I just figured out how we could make Britain part of the US, and let them keep the queen as their leader while still staying within the constitution's ban on monarchy. Just make her a high school football coach.

No, you just absorb most of Britain as a state and create a set of treaties with The Crown that leave it a totally dependent but self-governing quasi-state with complete freedom of movement that consists only of it's properties like Windsor/Buckingham Palace/etc. That way you can still have kings, queens and all of the associated royalty for tourism purposes, but it has no bearing on the actual apparatus of government. Think of it like the Vatican. Or maybe an Indian reservation for royalty.

LGD
Sep 25, 2004

spud posted:

Buckingham palace is the most expensive house in the world (that noone can actually buy). If we joined the US, probably 50million people would move over and then the Queen would be left in her big, cheap, lovely house, all alone.

They can just turn it into a casino.

e:

loquacius posted:

Uhh if any of this were true clearly we wouldn't have a pressing need to make America great again, therefore it is false

Seriously though if it were up to me you'd be a state right now, just gotta introduce those royals to Monsieur Guillotine as a little show of good faith and we're good to go

Lets be real, the average American would be horrified by the execution of the royals and such a move would completely derail any movement for English statehood. After all, they're basically funny foreign celebrities who are Just Like Us when you get down to it. Except royal, which is better.

LGD fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Jun 29, 2016

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

LGD
Sep 25, 2004

spud posted:

Wait, why did you introduce execution?

I am unsure what else the suggestion that the English "introduce those royals to Monsieur Guillotine" would be plausibly interpreted as.

e: yeah
e2:

spud posted:

This was me back when I worked in NYC in 1999, but lived upstate. It still holds true today.

lol wait until they see how far that gets you in the genuinely inexpensive states

  • Locked thread