Protest against SB 1070 in Minnesota

Widespread interest exists in the Arizona law known as “S.B. 1070″ which may be about to get to the US Supreme Court.  The constitutional question is one of federal implied preemption. Of course, this interest is acute in Texas and the Southwest but I would think that states formerly thinking they were immune from the problems of illegal immigration now realize that it’s everywhere. Otherwise why are there protests in Minneapolis against the law?

What is federal implied preemption

Here is a very simple explanation of federal implied preemption. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution provides that where federal law and state law clash, federal law wins. They can “clash” if federal law preempts state law which can be done explicitly or impliedly. If a federal statute states that it preempts state law, then you know. In many situations there is no federal law at all similar to state law and thus there is no question. But if there is a federal law dealing with the same general subject matter but the federal statute does state that it preempts the states, then the question of whether there is an implication that it does. The referenced article goes into more detail.

Will the Supreme Court hear it and what is the issue?

This article has an excellent explanation of federal implied preemption and sets out very clearly the issues involved in the potential case. Apparently we may hear as soon as Monday Dec 12 whether the Court will hear the case.  (Update: the Court has agreed to hear it)

What I don’t understand, is how there could be any doubt — if indeed there is — about the Supreme Court agreeing to hear it.

Four provisions in S.B. 1070 are in dispute. First, the law instructs Arizona law enforcement officials to try to determine an individual’s immigration status any time someone is arrested, as well as during a police stop or arrest if they have reason to believe that the individual may be an unlawful alien. Second, the law makes it a violation of Arizona law for someone to fail to register as an alien under federal  law. A third section makes it illegal for unlawful aliens to work or to try to obtain work. The fourth provision gives Arizona police the power to make warrantless arrests of anyone whom they have probable cause to believe has engaged in activity that would make them deportable under federal law. (emphasis added)

The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the Arizona law. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the four provisions, finding that federal law likely preempted Arizona’s efforts. In April 2011, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction, agreeing with the federal government that the district judge had not abused her discretion in issuing the injunction.  One member of the panel , however, would have held that two of the four provisions were not preempted.  Arizona then filed a petition for certiorari in which it cited an urgent need to be able to enforce state law. The Justice Department has opposed Supreme Court review.

via SCOTUS for law students: Preemption and the Arizona immigration law : SCOTUSblog. Stephen Wermiel, SCOTUS for law students: Preemption and the Arizona immigration law, SCOTUSblog (Dec. 9, 2011, 1:37 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/12/scotus-for-law-students-preemption-and-the-arizona-immigration-law/

My analysis of the Arizona law

I too have written about the Arizona law. Note that the disputed provisions relate to determination of status upon arrest or with reason to believe a law (regarding immigration) has been violated, making a federal crime also a state crime, creating a new crime for aliens to work here, and warrantless arrests if an (immigration) law is believed to have been broken thus making that person deportable.  Thus it seems that the main complaint is about identifying people. In my earlier piece I said:

So the person has been stopped, detained or arrested according to existing law and procedures, and will simply be asked to identify.  That is accomplished

. . . if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1.  A valid Arizona driver license.
2.  A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3.  A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4.  If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification. . . .

How hard is that? It’s what any of us would have to produce if stopped, detained or arrested. And note the relevant provision of existing federal law regarding ID:

“Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.” 8 USC section 1304(e)

Thus it is no imposition on the registered alien to produce what he is already required to have on his person.

About the second squawk, making a federal crime also a state crime, how can that be preempted by federal law? While federal law does regulate a tremendous portion of the workspace, can it be said that making the failure to register also a state crime will interfere with the federal scheme? Drug laws already exist at both levels and there is frequent cooperation between state and federal authorities regarding which of them will prosecute offenses. Lastly on this point we should not forget that the “feds” are failing to enforce their laws in this regard.

Third,we come to the Arizona illegality of working or attempting to obtain work. How can that violate the preemption principle? Does the federal government have an interest or need — or a power granted it under the Constitution — to create a protected right-to-work status for aliens illegally in the country? I think not.

Fourthly, the argument over the fourth point is just silly given the fact that federal authorities are not enforcing most of those laws.

My prediction

My constitutionally-semi-informed-best-guess is that the “no work” provision may fall but that the other three will not. It seems to me that the balance between legitimate state interests and individual liberties is reasonable and that items 1, 2 and 4 have not been federally preempted — IF we believe that states still have any rights.

A suggested path to a solution

Finally, I want to be clear about a couple of things. First, I believe that we need to find a way to accurately and completely identify all persons not legally in this country and for those who are law-abiding and productive, to get them into legal presence here, and a legal path toward citizenship if that is their desire. But they have to start at the back of the line.

But second, we must first control our borders. Both of these steps are essential to protecting the sovereignty of this nation and doing so does nothing to close the welcoming arms America has always had. Is there any other country, of any size anywhere, that simply disregards its borders?

Related articles

• Supreme Court Meets to Review Arizona Immigration Law Case (ibtimes.com)
• Latest Generic Preemption Decision (druganddevicelaw.blogspot.com)
• Sanctuary Ordinances: Good Policing and Good Public Policy (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
• More Breaking News – Generic Preemption (druganddevicelaw.blogspot.com)
• SCOTUSblog Community Diuscussion of United States v. Arizona (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
• Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Praises Supreme Court for Reviewing ‘Nationally Important’ Immigration Case (ibtimes.com)
• Supreme Court Takes Arizona Immigration Case – Kagan Recuses (jonathanturley.org)
• Will the Supreme Court Uphold Arizona’s Immigration Law? (reason.com)
• Az. Immigration Case Forces Feds Into Conservative Territory (forbes.com)
• Tough Arizona-Stlye Immigration Laws Pose New Issues for High Court (ibtimes.com)

Recent Possibly Related External Links

• SCOTUS for law students: Preemption and the Arizona immigration …
• Free speech and the Veep : SCOTUSblog
• Tuesday round-up : SCOTUSblog

Related articles

• Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Praises Supreme Court for Reviewing ‘Nationally Important’ Immigration Case (ibtimes.com)
• Supreme Court Takes Arizona Immigration Case – Kagan Recuses (jonathanturley.org)
• Will the Supreme Court Uphold Arizona’s Immigration Law? (reason.com)
• Az. Immigration Case Forces Feds Into Conservative Territory (forbes.com)
• Tough Arizona-Stlye Immigration Laws Pose New Issues for High Court (ibtimes.com)

So the issue is joined, and no doubt with historic consequences for American liberty. For most of the last century, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution’s Commerce Clause as so elastic as to allow any regulation desired by a Congressional majority. Only with the William Rehnquist Court did the Justices begin to rediscover that the Commerce Clause has some limits, as in the Lopez (1995) and Morrison (2000) cases.

via Review & Outlook: ObamaCare Loses in Court – WSJ.com.

In short, it’s about whether we really have a limited federal government, or not. The Commerce Clause has been the root argument for most of the federal expansion of control — over both “evil” corporations, and persons.  While some argue that even greater federal power should be exercised over so-called greedy corporations and “rich” people, it is clear that there now is no limit to the governmental grasp that would insulate any individual.

Therefore, while the case is set in the context of the mandatory purchase provision of the health care bill, the real importance will be when the Supreme Court addresses the Commerce Clause and we find out if there is any limit to its use in justifying government intrusion into individual lives.  As Judge Hudson writes:

“The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision [the individual mandate] would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers,” Judge Hudson writes. “At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.”

via id.

Read the full text of the opinion.

Recent Possibly Related External Links

• Constitutional Analysis of Wetland Cases .. for Dummies « KEA Blog
• Last Refuge of a Scoundrel: Thoughts on HR 822
• Perry Challenges The Judiciary's "Offensive" Decisions | Right Wing …

Regardless of how you view the Nov. 2, 2010 election results, we still have the future to worry about; and one of the most worrisome features of Congress is the concept of “earmarks” a/k/a “pork barrel projects.”  I suggest that earmarks constitute the most divisive, dishonest and dangerous of procedures threatening the republic. Why do I say that?

First, what are “earmarks?”  They are the local project riders added to legislation to authorize and fund pork barrel projects.  You vote for my earmark and I’ll vote for yours and both constituencies will be happy — and we’ll get re-elected.  Often the projects are not only unneeded but downright wasteful, e.g. the Alaska road-to-nowhere. It’s bad enough that if my project costs $1 million, then yours costs $1 million resulting in a $2 million hicky.

That’s bad enough — wasteful spending — but I’ll never be convinced other than that often the dialogue is “if you’ve vote for this legislation that you really don’t like, I’ll vote for a huge earmark for you.”  What is the difference between that and buying a vote at the polls — which is quite illegal?  The give and take of the legislative process — which is necessary — is bad enough in seeking compromise to pass legislation, but swapping earmarks for votes compromises principles.  That is intolerable.

There is reason to hope that earmarks may be targeted by some in Congress, witness:

With their sweeping electoral victory in hand, Republicans are committed to ending earmarks – the local-project riders to legislation – and focusing on the big national issues, a top Senate Republican said Wednesday.

“We can’t have 500 congressmen and senators who think it’s their job to bring home the bacon – and that’s what’s going to change,” South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint told CBS’ “The Early Show. “One of the first thing we’ll do in the House and Senate is ban earmarks as Republicans – that’ll get our eyes back on fixing our tax code, fixing social security and Medicare, getting America back to work.”

DeMint called earmarks “that parochial interest I think gets that the focus of interest off national interests onto paving local parking lots.” He said in an editorial Tuesday that the dozens of GOP congressional newcomers “can’t be bribed if they’re not for sale.”

via DeMint: We’ll Ban Earmarks Right Away – The Early Show – CBS News.

Not only do earmarks have the potential to compromise a legislator’s principles, but they violate the separation of powers demanded by the Constitution. The separation of powers — the principle that powers of government are shared among the three, co-equal branches of government — requires that certain powers have checks and balances to control the functions of government and the spending and administration of funds (those would be OUR tax dollars, for you in Loma Linda) is one of those important areas.

Seal of the Office of Management and Budget

Earmarks circumvent the executive branch part of that control according to this Wikipedia article:

The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

via Earmark (politics) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

If you doubt that earmarks are a problem, check out the earmarks database at the Office of Management and Budget. The OMB estimate of 2010 earmarks is a file 2.6MB in size in a compressed zip file (containing an Excel spreadsheet).  There are 53,409 line items in that file.  One analysis of the FY2010 earmarks states

Earmark totals appear to have decreased from fiscal year (FY) 2009 to FY2010, but an apples‐to‐apples comparison tells a different story. In FY10, appropriations bills contained 9,499 congressional earmarks worth $15.9 billion. This compares with 11,286 congressional earmarks worth $19.9 billion in FY09.

However, to do a true year‐to‐year comparison requires taking away certain Army Corps of Engineers earmarks that were included in FY09 but not in FY10.1 In addition, the FY09 total includes earmarks from a supplemental spending bill passed after the regular spending bills that year.2 After adjusting for both of these factors, FY10’s $15.9 billion in earmarks represents a slight increase from $15.6 billion in FY09.

TCS FY2010 EARMARK ANALYSIS: APPLES-TO-APPLES INCREASE IN EARMARK …

What to do now?  We citizen/taxpayers need to be just as vocal about earmarks as we were in this election about the size and scope of government.  No, in the scope of our current federal budgets and deficits $15 billion is not significant money, but the probability of bastardizing the legislative process is simply too great.  “We” (and I mean that in a non-partisan way) have “their” (and I mean both sides of the aisle) attention:  carpe diem.

Related Articles

• DeMint Fights Earmark for Port of Charleston (blogs.wsj.com)
• Incumbents challenged over pet projects in earmarks (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Taxpayers are Against Earmarks – Will Elites Listen? (redstate.com)
• Congress hopefuls vow to be pork-free (washingtontimes.com)

Recent Possibly Related External Links

• Discussion: George Allen's Record Examined in Detail | Virginia Right!
• Congress still passes earmarks to build bridges to nowhere …
• We Are All Missing the Point in the Current Political Debate – Big …

I’m trying to quit posting provocative stuff, really, but here is something to think about.The following came from an email. No, I’ve not “snoped” it as is my custom but there is every indication that they are genuine photos. The initial commentary is that of the forwarder.

Pics from Rally in Phoenix 7/31/10

If anyone has any doubts about what these illegals think of us and our country, check out these pictures taken by an acquaintance of mine who went to the rally in Phoenix Saturday 7/31/10 in response to SB 1070.  The illegals had written all over the AZ and US Flags, laid them on the ground, and were walking on them!

Another acquaintance had this to say:

“I shared those pics with my friend who is a cop/detective. I asked him why nobody was punished for desecrating our flags…his response…..
In response to your question about the legality of Desecration of the American Flag, you are correct, this is illegal. However, it is a crime with the Federal Government. Meaning the Feds will have to prosecute for the crime and considering they will not prosecute for illegal trespassing into the Country, what makes you think they will prosecute anyone for spray painting and walking on an American flag?????”

NOTE: That is the end of the forwarded remarks. The following are mine.

Under our constitutional republic I have to support the right of people, even those who are here illegally, to speak out and even to demonstrate (within peaceful bounds). In fact I’ve served in the military to protect the freedoms we have even to be idiots!  But I don’t support desecration of our flag and we don’t have to indulge in “political correctness” and not react to acts such as this.

What in the world will it take for Congress to become enraged enough to stand up for America, to allow and demand that people be Americans if they want to be here — which implies that they come legally and comport with our laws and rules, and assimilate as Americans.  And while we’re at it, get rid of the hyphenated-American nonsense.  We can all be proud of our heritages (as I am of my Welsh ancestry) but what in the world is so wrong about immigrants becoming proud of their newfound heritage? America:  love it or leave it!

A “must read” article. Krauthammer dissects the willful and ongoing overreaching by the executive branch — federal and state, by both D’s and R’s.  Constitution? What constitution?  Well into the article he makes the point:

This contagion of executive willfulness is not confined to the federal government or to Democrats. In Virginia, the Republican attorney general has just issued a ruling allowing police to ask about one’s immigration status when stopped for some other reason (e.g., a traffic violation). Heretofore, police could inquire only upon arrest and imprisonment.

Whatever your views about the result, the process is suspect. If police latitude regarding the interrogation of possible illegal immigrants is to be expanded, that’s an issue for the legislature, not the executive.

How did we get here? I blame Henry Paulson. (Such a versatile sentence.) The gold standard of executive overreach was achieved the day he summoned the heads of the country’s nine largest banks and informed them that henceforth the federal government was their business partner. The banks were under no legal obligation to obey. But they know the capacity of the federal government, when crossed, to cause you trouble, endless trouble. They complied.

So did BP when the president summoned its top executives to the White House to demand a  $20 billion federally administered escrow fund for damages. Existing law capped damages at $75 million. BP, like the banks, understood the power of the U.S. government. Twenty billion it was.

Again, you can be pleased with the result (I was) and still be troubled by how we got there. Everyone wants energy in the executive (as Alexander Hamilton called it). But not lawlessness. In the modern welfare state, government has the power to regulate your life. That’s bad enough. But at least there is one restraint on this bloated power: the separation of powers. Such constraints on your life must first be approved by both houses of Congress.

via Charles Krauthammer – Annals of executive overreach.

Friends, this is a big deal. The United States Constitution is a remarkable document that implemented the grandest experiment the world had yet known:  a constitutional republic.  One of the most important components was the separation of powers spread among three equal branches of government. At the federal level was (and hopefully still is) the notion of limited, enumerated powers. A simple concept that the feds can only do what’s listed and all else is reserved to the states and the people.

The executive overreaching, whether at the federal or state level and regardless of the responsible political party (both parties are guilty), it violates both the separation of powers and the enumerated powers provisions of the constitution.

And if YOU don’t stand up against it, then THEY are trampling on YOU and thus the end game has become simply:  THEM versus US.  And if you understand no other consequence of this process, it is that THEY are spending YOU and your progeny into fiscal oblivion.

It is often difficult for the lay person to have a basis from which to evaluate the qualifications of a judicial candidate and it’s most daunting to listen to the roar of the media discussing a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Without offering any opinion on Solicitor General Kagan, I suggest that Sen. Cornyn’s discussion offers an excellent insight into the most salient issues surrounding such a candidate. While some may disagree with his conclusions, the statement of the issues is spot-on.

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement announcing he will oppose the nomination of Elena Kagan to be Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court:

“Solicitor General Kagan’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee did not assure me that she agrees with the traditional understanding of the proper role of a judge. Judges should strictly interpret the written Constitution, which means both enforcing written limitations on the scope of government power, such as the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause, as well as not inventing new rights or imposing their own policy views on the American people.

“Ms. Kagan’s testimony about her judicial philosophy was vague and open to multiple interpretations. She was unable to articulate limits on the federal Commerce Clause power.  She did not rule out overturning the Supreme Court’s recent decisions recognizing the importance of the Second Amendment. She backed away from her previous conviction that judicial nominees should be forthright about the direction they would move the courts.

“Also, Solicitor General Kagan lacks experience that could give us more insight into her judicial philosophy. As a lawyer, she has never tried a case to verdict. She only joined the Supreme Court bar in 2009, and she has never served as a judge.

“For these reasons, I will oppose her nomination.”

via News Releases – Press – United States Senator John Cornyn, Texas.

This from a former law school lecturer in constitutional law:

“You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona …” the president said Tuesday at a campaign-style appearance in Iowa, “suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.” On the same day, Attorney General Eric Holder said he was considering a court challenge.

(emphasis added)  via How Obama could lose Arizona immigration battle | Washington Examiner.

That is a scare tactic, class warfare engendering statement and one that is totally irresponsible.  Is it possible that the President simply misspoke?  It’s hard to imagine that by late April when this statement was made that both he and the Attorney General (see YouTube link below) did not know the language and meaning of the AZ law.  If not, then both of their statements were tantamount to gross negligence.  If they DID, then those statements were made purely for political scare tactic purposes, and tantamount to a fraudulent misrepresentation.

Look at my analysis and tell me if the President and Attorney General could justify the “ice cream” statement based on that law.  No way.  It’s quite clear that there first must be a lawful contact with the citizen.  So, if you and your kid just robbed the ice cream store, then upon police contact you might be asked for ID — no matter where it appears you might be from.

(edit 5/15/2010) Just discovered this video where AG Holder acknowledges that he has not read the AZ immigration law, but still has an opinion on it. It thus becomes indelibly clear that his remarks about the bill are simply politically motivated.  The United States Attorney General is not a position where you want politics to motivate. He is the top law enforcement official in the country and there is no room for politics in the types of decisions the AG has to make.

Concisely, in one article, you can read an excellent analysis of the power of the Supreme Court, and the source of that power. Given the increasing impact of Supreme Court decisions on our lives, understanding the origins and nature of the Court’s power is an important consideration. I take no position on the major premise of the article, but it is thought-provoking and interesting.  National Review Online has this insightful piece.

Many Americans are puzzled and angry about the judicial assault on religion, morality, and common sense that has been going on for the past few decades. People wonder, for example, how the First Amendment (which guarantees freedom of religion as well as separation of church and state) could possibly require the expulsion of religion from public life, or outlaw prayers at high-school football games and graduation ceremonies. To answer questions like these, one must understand how federal judges got the power to make such controversial political decisions in the first place, and how the judges used that power to bludgeon the American citizenry into believing that their power was legitimate.

via Judicial Supremacy and the Constitution – Robert Lowry Clinton – National Review Online.

(edit: related discussion here).  Here’s the text.  And here are snippets with comments.

A.  No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

Merely an anti-sanctuary city provision. Let’s all enforce existing federal immigration laws.

B.  For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official

For starters, there has to be a “lawful contact” before ID is sought. Every lawful contact by law enforcement already results in ID’ing the person contacted whether it’s a traffic stop or upon exiting a 7-11 in a ski mask carrying a handgun!

where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien

The phrase “reasonable suspicion” is a term of art in criminal law. There are existing situations where an officer must have an “articulable reasonable suspicion” in order to, for example, detain an individual. Google the phrase and you’ll see a lot about it. What that means is that the officer has to be able to testify not simply “I had a reasonable suspicion” that party ‘A’ was doing ‘X’ in violation of the law; but rather must be able to articulate what that reasonable suspicion was based upon.

Applying that existing and well-litigated principle sets a clear legal standard for when and whether a person can be approached for proof of citizenship.

Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.

What can be wrong with that? How incompetent would it be to have a lawbreaker (illegal entry) in your grasp and just turn them out onto the streets?

[a cop or agency] may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.

That’s an anti-racial profiling provision. Of course, the fairness of the implementation of this depends on the integrity of the officer, but then so does a lot of law enforcement. Add the “articulable reasonable suspicion” criteria and substantial limitations exist.

1.  A valid Arizona driver license.
2.  A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3.  A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4.  If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

That’s how one proves citizenship. Hardly a burden.

[officers or agencies can't be precluded from ] exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:1.  Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.
2.  Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.
3.  If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by title II, chapter 7 of the federal immigration and Nationality act.
4.  Pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373 and 8 United States Code section 1644.

Merely says to verify that the person is eligible to receive public benefits, i.e YOUR tax dollars.

That concludes my analysis of the portion of the bill that deals with the ID of a suspected illegal alien. The other parts deal with trespass by an alien, employment of aliens, and other items ancillary to the identification aspect.

CONCLUSION:  the ID provisions having significant constitutional safeguards and are not unduly burdensome.

In Congress, HR2499 is set for a vote on April 29, 2010 which many believe will inevitably lead to Puerto Rico becoming the 51st state.  Whether this is a good or bad thing is beside the point. The point is, you have probably heard absolutely nothing about this. Who wants this? Pundits variously accuse both Democrats and Republicans as chasing the goal of creating additional voters loyal to their party.  One of them is wrong.  Read on to see how this is about to occur.  Here is the official summary of the bill:

10/8/2009–Reported to House amended. Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009 – Authorizes the government of Puerto Rico:
(1) to conduct a plebiscite giving voters the option to vote to continue Puerto Rico’s present political status or to have a different political status;
(2) if a majority of ballots favor continuing the present status, to conduct additional such plebiscites every eight years; and
(3) if a majority of ballots favor having a different status, to conduct a plebiscite on the options of becoming fully independent from the United States, forming with the United States a political association between sovereign nations that will not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the Constitution, or being admitted as a state of the Union. Prescribes the eligibility requirements for voting in the plebiscite.

I’m going to summarize what I’ve garnered from numerous sources. Just Google “H.R. 2499 puerto rico” and read for yourself, but here is how it apparently shakes out.

First, PR has on three occasions in the past voted on the question of “Do you want to become a state?” and it has been voted down all three times.  Now look at the question in No. 1 above: “Do you want to continue the current status of PR?” and of course, an easy answer is “No.”  Heck, ask that generic question about the U.S. and you’d probably get a “no” vote.

Now look at the three choices:

1. becoming fully independent from the United States,
2. forming with the United States a political association between sovereign nations that will not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the Constitution, or
3. being admitted as a state of the Union.

Many commentators make the point that 1 & 2 are unpalatable and the obvious choice, of the three which the PR voters have to choose among if they say “no” to the current status, is statehood.

Apparently a political party has been formed in PR that is ready to roll with the statehood idea and have approved the “Tennessee Plan” for accomplishing it.  What?  The “Tennessee Plan?”  The short answer is that without admission to the union being voted on in the U.S., they do as Tennessee did:  elect representatives and senators and show up in Washington and demand to be seated.  And Tennessee may establish the precedent for doing this.  Ever crashed a party to which you wee not invited? Google “tennessee plan admission union” and find many resources on that approach.

Google it and read for yourself. But if you want to call your congressman, do it tomorrow!  In the meanwhile, here’s a thorough and cogent explanation (read the whole article):

Alex Castellanos’ post discussing the Puerto Rico Democracy Act (HR 2499) correctly points out that “the principles of democracy, inclusiveness, and self-determination belong to all U.S. citizens.” What he misses, however, is the Puerto Rican government’s plan to rig their election by eliminating the commonwealth option in their next series of self-determination elections.

Puerto Ricans have rejected statehood in the last three self-determination elections, and independence is extremely unpopular. The strategy to virtually eliminate as an option for voters Puerto Rico’s current status as a commonwealth, leaving only independence and statehood as options, will all but guarantee a statehood landslide. The plan is spelled out in their legislation (pp. 7-8) and can be found here. The New Progressive Party (PNP), which is pro-statehood, controls all branches of government. There is little doubt that this bill would become law soon after the U.S. Congress passes the Puerto Rico Democracy Act.

via Stealth Statehood – Naomi Lopez Bauman – The Corner on National Review Online.