Fellow Puerto Rico Mayor SHREDS San Juan Mayor Cruz ‘She’s Not Participating in Any FEMA Meetings’

The Gateway Pundit ^ | 9/30/2017

[ridesthemiles]

“politically motivated ingrates” “””

THERE is a T-Shirt slogan.......

[wgmalabama]

Yes WE. PR is bankrupt due to corruption and graft. We already have Chicago/Illinois so we have our bag limit.

[adorno]

Chicago and Illinois and a bunch of other liberal hellholes, are not that different in what occurred to them vs what occurred in P.R.

But, why are YOU representative of the "WE" that you speak of?

The "we" that you're attempting to speak for, might not be in agreement with YOU, therefore, you need to speak for yourself, and not the collective "we" that represents the whole U.S.

YOU haven't said anything that refutes or disarms any part of my previous argument, therefore, let me repeat myself and present that argument AGAIN!

We?!?



Are you speaking for the "we" that you think that represents the whole U.S., or the we part of the U.S. that is intolerant of those that you disagree with?

You are no better than those liberals out there who believe that their opinions are the only ones that count.

As a conservative, I don't presume to speak for all the "we" that you think should be the decision makers.

I don't agree with the idiotic liberalism that has destroyed P.R. way before Maria struck, but, I also don't assume that all Puerto Ricans are the same.

[wgmalabama]

No it’s the “We are the people” and it takes a 2/3 majority (hence we the people) by overwhelming support will have to agree. There is nothing that we the people can agree on at a 2/3 majority both house and senateSo no I don’t believe we the people will agree to include them.

Personally I would push for NO! We the people will never provide the 2/3 required,

What’s you beef with the issues of government being “We the people”. Maybe you need to read more.

I suspect your a PR transplant and that’s fine but don’t put your opinions against the legal requirement that We do have a vote and most will not want a welfare drag, corrupt group being given statehood. No way no how.

[adorno]

You are still thinking that YOU represent "we" the people.

The "we" that you're talking about is YOU, and you have not proven any point yet.

The "we the people" is not yet close to being invoked in any conversation regarding P.R.'s status.

The "we" that I know about, is not close to thinking the way you do. When the time comes for "the people" to make their views heard, that's the time that "we the people" will have decided one way or another.

HOWEVER!!!!!!!!..... the "we the people" that you talk about is not even required for any territory to be granted or voted statehood.

Here's how it works....

The Typical Process

Historically, Congress has applied the following general procedure when granting territories statehood:

1. The territory holds a referendum vote to determine the people's desire for or against statehood.

2. Should a majority vote to seek statehood, the territory petitions the U.S. Congress for statehood.

3. The territory, if it has not already done so, is required to adopt a form of government and constitution that are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

4. The U.S. Congress - both House and Senate - pass, by a simple majority vote, a joint resolution accepting the territory as a state.

5. The President of the United States signs the joint resolution and the territory is acknowledged as a U.S. state.

Points 1 and 3 are already concluded, and the people of Puerto Rico voted, by a huge majority to become a state. Point 3 has always been true for P.R., since it adopted and abides by American constitutional law.

Point 2 is almost a certainty to occur.

Point 4 is also almost a certainty, because, you can bet that the vast majority (if not all) of democrats will vote to accept P.R. as a state, and there is no doubt that the majority of republicans (if not all) will also vote to accept P.R. into the union.

Point 5 is a certainty too, and no president would want to go in the history books as the one who rejected a request for a territory to enter statehood. No political party would want to be responsible for that rejection. So, consider that a certainty... and then...

STATEHOOD!

Notice that NOWHERE is "we the people" involved. You might be thinking about the passing of a constitutional amendment or a repeal of one, but then, that's a different animal altogether.