"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The 14th amendment disagrees.
Proposals and War Aims That Didn't Happen Map Thread
- Thread starter Beedok
- Start date
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The 14th amendment disagrees.
It does. State citizenship isn't a formality, it has bearing on our taxes, whether we're eligible to stand for and hold certain elected offices, and if we can claim benefits distributed by the state government, among other things.
@Analytical Engine I can see the distinction you're making between identifying as a Welshman and a Hoosier. One's a nationality, the other's a regional identity. The strength with which we identify with either is entirely up to us, of course
. I've always thought of myself more strongly as a New Hampshirite and an ethnic Canadien than an American, but I'd never consider my "nationality" to be anything other than American.
I’ve never bothered to learn, can you hold US citizenship without any state citizenship?
You can if you live in D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, or the Marianas. I know children of U.S. citizens born overseas inherit U.S. citizenship, whether state citizenship can be inherited as well I have no idea.
Italy sure had big ambitions, didn't they? Man, if you thought Nazi Germany had some wild dreams.
@Analytical Engine It also explains a few of the conceits of the US system - to the best of my understanding, the powers granted to the federal government are those delegated in the constitution to that federal government by the signatories of it. The powers that are not delegated are thereby reserved by the states themselves. The states do not completely cede the entirety of their sovereign powers to the federal government upon joining the Union.
And, if I understand it correctly, that is why the Senate is composed of 2 members per state who were originally appointed - the Senators were representatives directly of their state, while the House directly represented the people who reside therein.
And, if I understand it correctly, that is why the Senate is composed of 2 members per state who were originally appointed - the Senators were representatives directly of their state, while the House directly represented the people who reside therein.
It came up. It's not like we're taking away from the maps by discussing it.
This isn't the place to insult another nations governmental structure.
The United Kingdom consists of four constituent countries. From a constitutional point of view, each U.S. state exercises more sovereignty in its domestic affairs than any of those constituent countries. WEstminster could tomorrow disbad the Welsh Assembly and Sottish parliament. It would be unconstitutional for the federal government (in peacetime) to in any way dissolve the government of a state. A state law can be challenged in the judiciary, or the federal government may pass a law applying to the whole union which effectively nullifies a state law, but it cannot dissolve a state or alter its borders without the authorization of that state.
Correct.
A federation of sovereign states, and an arguable distinction without a difference from a purely constitutional point of view. The states are tighter bound under the Constitution than they were under the Articles of Confederation, but they are nonetheless largely internally sovereign in domestic affairs and institutions, provided their governments are republican in form and that the constitutional liberties guaranteed federally are maintained.
Essentially, yes.
Basically. And, before the civil war, Aericans travelling abroad would basically identify with their state if asked where they were from.It does. State citizenship isn't a formality, it has bearing on our taxes, whether we're eligible to stand for and hold certain elected offices, and if we can claim benefits distributed by the state government, among other things.
@Analytical Engine I can see the distinction you're making between identifying as a Welshman and a Hoosier. One's a nationality, the other's a regional identity. The strength with which we identify with either is entirely up to us, of course
In theory. Americans bon abroad are not necessarily citizens of a particular state until they move to one. The status of people in the insular areas is thornier, and being resident in a state if not a U.S. citizen does not confer state citizenship. Citizenship and immigration are Article I powers of Congress in its establishment of a uniform code of naturalization.
Precisely.
Beyond the legal structure of the United States, it doesn't really have a coherent culture save for a few shared values. Each state generally has a unique culture, which is wildly different from most other states. Personally, I identify as a Californian first because A) that's the culture I'm a part of and B) everyone has an idea of what California's like so they'll be able to understand that, whereas if I said I was American people would have a more vague, and probably wrong, idea of what my culture and society is like.
Idk, while I agree theres no coherent US culture really, I actually think theres far more then just state by state, for example the general idea people have of California culture is mainly about coastal california, and even then the coasts in the northern part don't really count in that either, and arguably even the coastal culture varies
Not like the Scots get along with other Scots either. And Northern Ireland...
Anyhoo. Maps.
And here we have the German Empire's ambitious goals for the first World War, with colonies, puppet states, dependencies, an economic sphere, and lots and lots of islands. Would easily be the biggest land exchange in history if it actually happened.