Organization of American States           Organisation des États Américains (French) Organização dos Estados Americanos (Portuguese) Organización de los Estados Americanos (Spanish)
Seal of the Organization of American States
Motto: Democracy for peace, security, and development
Headquarters		Washington, D.C.
Official languages		4 English Spanish Portuguese French
Demonym		American
Member States		35  Antigua and Barbuda  Argentina  Bahamas  Barbados  Belize  Bolivia  Brazil  Canada  Chile  Colombia  Costa Rica  Cuba  Dominica  Dominican Republic  Ecuador  El Salvador  Grenada  Guatemala  Guyana  Haiti  Honduras  Jamaica  Mexico  Nicaragua  Panama  Paraguay  Peru  Saint Kitts and Nevis  Saint Lucia  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines  Suriname  Trinidad and Tobago  United States  Uruguay  Venezuela
Leaders
-	Secretary General	José Miguel Insulza
-	Assistant Secretary General	Albert R. Ramdin
Establishment
-	Charter	30 April 1948
Area
-	Total	42,549,000 km2  16,430,000 sq mi
Population
-	2008 estimate	910,720,588
-	Density	21/km2  55/sq mi
Time zone		(UTC-10 to +0)
Website oas.org

The Organization of American States (OAS, or, as it is known in the three other official languages, OEA) is a regional international organization, headquartered in Washington, D.C., United States.^[1] Its members are the thirty-five independent states of the Americas.

History[link]

The notion of an international union in the New World was first put forward by Simón Bolívar^[2] who, at the 1826 Congress of Panama, proposed creating a league of American republics, with a common military, a mutual defense pact, and a supranational parliamentary assembly. This meeting was attended by representatives of Gran Colombia (comprising the modern-day nations of Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, and Venezuela), Peru, the United Provinces of Central America, and Mexico, but the grandly titled "Treaty of Union, League, and Perpetual Confederation" was ultimately ratified only by Gran Colombia. Bolívar's dream soon floundered with civil war in Gran Colombia, the disintegration of Central America, and the emergence of national rather than continental outlooks in the newly independent American republics. Bolívar's dream of American unity was meant to unify Latin American nations against imperial domination by external power.

The pursuit of regional solidarity and cooperation again came to the forefront in 1889–1890, at the First International Conference of American States. Gathered together in Washington, D.C., 18 nations resolved to found the International Union of American Republics, served by a permanent secretariat called the Commercial Bureau of the American Republics (renamed the "International Commercial Bureau" at the Second International Conference in 1901–1902). These two bodies, in existence as of 14 April 1890, represent the point of inception to which today's OAS and its General Secretariat trace their origins.

At the Fourth International Conference of American States (Buenos Aires, 1910), the name of the organization was changed to the "Union of American Republics" and the Bureau became the "Pan American Union". The Pan American Union (building) was constructed in 1910, on Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Washington, D.C.

Pan American Union headquarters building in Washington, D.C., 1943

In the mid-1930s, U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt organized an inter-American conference in Buenos Aires. One of the items at the conference was a "League of Nations of the Americas", an idea proposed by Colombia, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic.^[3] At the subsequent Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace, 21 nations pledged to remain neutral in the event of a conflict between any two members.^[4] The experience of World War II convinced hemispheric governments that unilateral action could not ensure the territorial integrity of the American nations in the event of extra-continental aggression. To meet the challenges of global conflict in the postwar world and to contain conflicts within the hemisphere, they adopted a system of collective security, the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty) signed in 1947 in Rio de Janeiro.

The Ninth International Conference of American States was held in Bogotá between March and May 1948 and led by United States Secretary of State George Marshall, a meeting which led to a pledge by members to fight communism in the western hemisphere. This was the event that saw the birth of the OAS as it stands today, with the signature by 21 American countries of the Charter of the Organization of American States on 30 April 1948 (in effect since December 1951). The meeting also adopted the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the world's first general human rights instrument, Bogotá considered the first defensive state in the event of war, of the Organization of American States.

The transition from the Pan American Union to OAS was smooth. The Director General of the former, Alberto Lleras Camargo, became the Organization's first Secretary General. The current Secretary General is former Chilean foreign minister José Miguel Insulza.

Significant milestones in the history of the OAS since the signing of the Charter have included the following:

• 1959: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights created.
• 1961: Charter of Punta del Este signed, launching the Alliance for Progress.
• 1962: OAS suspends Cuba
• 1969: American Convention on Human Rights signed (in force since 1978).
• 1970: OAS General Assembly established as the Organization's supreme decision-making body.
• 1979: Inter-American Court of Human Rights created.
• 1991: Adoption of Resolution 1080, which requires the Secretary General to convene the Permanent Council within ten days of a coup d'état in any member country.
• 1994: First Summit of the Americas (Miami), which resolved to establish a Free Trade Area of the Americas by 2005.
• 2001: Inter-American Democratic Charter adopted.
• 2009: OAS revokes 1962 suspension of Cuba
• 2009: OAS suspends Honduras due to the coup which ousted president Manuel Zelaya
• 2011: OAS lifts the suspension of Honduras with the return of Manuel Zelaya from exile.
• 2013: Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, Saba, Sint Eustatius and Sint Maarten will join the Organization.

Goals and purpose[link]

In the words of Article 1 of the Charter, the goal of the member nations in creating the OAS was "to achieve an order of peace and justice, to promote their solidarity, to strengthen their collaboration, and to defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and their independence." Article 2 then defines eight essential purposes:

• To strengthen the peace and security of the continent.
• To promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect for the principle of nonintervention.
• To prevent possible causes of difficulties and to ensure the pacific settlement of disputes that may arise among the member states.
• To provide for common action on the part of those states in the event of aggression.
• To seek the solution of political, judicial, and economic problems that may arise among them
• To promote, by cooperative action, their economic, social, and cultural development.
• To eradicate extreme poverty, which constitutes an obstacle to the full democratic development of the peoples of the continent.
• To achieve an effective limitation of conventional weapons that will make it possible to devote the largest amount of resources to the economic and social development of the member states.

Over the course of the 1990s, with the end of the Cold War, the return to democracy in Latin America, and the thrust toward globalization, the OAS made major efforts to reinvent itself to fit the new context. Its stated priorities now include the following:

• Strengthening democracy: Between 1962 and 2002, the Organization sent multinational observation missions to oversee free and fair elections in the member states on more than 100 occasions. The OAS also works to strengthen national and local government and electoral agencies, to promote democratic practices and values, and to help countries detect and defuse official corruption.
• Working for peace: Special OAS missions have supported peace processes in Nicaragua, Suriname, Haiti, and Guatemala. The Organization has played a leading part in the removal of landmines deployed in member states and it has led negotiations to resolve the continent's remaining border disputes (Guatemala/Belize; Peru/Ecuador). Work is also underway on the construction of a common inter-American counter-terrorism front.
• Defending human rights: The agencies of the inter-American human rights system provide a venue for the denunciation and resolution of human rights violations in individual cases. They also monitor and report on the general human rights situation in the member states.
• Fostering free trade: The OAS is one of the three agencies currently engaged in drafting a treaty aiming to establish a continental free trade area from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.
• Fighting the drugs trade: The Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission was established in 1986 to coordinate efforts and crossborder cooperation in this area.
• Promoting sustainable development: The goal of the OAS's Inter-American Council for Integral Development is to promote economic development and combating poverty. OAS technical cooperation programs address such areas as river basin management, the conservation of biodiversity, preservation of cultural diversity, planning for global climate change, sustainable tourism, and natural disaster mitigation.

Organizational structure[link]

The Organization of American States is composed of a Organization of American States General Secretariat, the Permanent Council, the Inter-American Council for Integral Development, and a number of committees.

The General Secretariat of the Organization of American States consists of six secretariats.

• Secretariat for Political Affairs
• Executive Secretariat for Integral Development
• Secretariat for Multidimensional Security
• Secretariat for Administration and Finance
• Secretariat for Legal Affairs
• Secretariat for External Relations

The various committees of the Organization of American States include:

• The Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs
• The Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Affairs
• The Committee on Hemispheric Security
• The Committee on Inter-American Summits Management and Civil Society Participation in OAS Activities

General Assembly[link]

Thirty-fifth General Assembly session in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States of America, June 2005

• Forty-first regular session: San Salvador, El Salvador, June 2011.
• Fortieth regular session: Lima, Peru, June 2010.
• Thirty-ninth regular session: San Pedro Sula, Honduras, June 2009.^[5]
• Thirty-eight regular session: Medellín, Colombia, June 2008.
• Thirty-seventh regular session: Panama City, Republic of Panama, June 2007.
• Thirty-sixth regular session: Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, June 2006.
• Thirty-fifth regular session: Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States, June 2005.
• Thirty-fourth regular session: Quito, Ecuador, June 2004.
• Thirty-third regular session: Santiago, Chile, June 2003.
• Thirty-second regular session: Bridgetown, Barbados, June 2002.
• Thirty-first regular session: San José, Costa Rica, June 2001.
• Thirtieth regular session: Windsor, Canada, June 2000.
• Twenty-ninth regular session: Guatemala City, Guatemala, June 1999.
• Twenty-eight regular session: Caracas, Venezuela, June 1998.
• Twenty-seventh regular session: Lima, Peru, June 1997.
• Twenty-sixth regular session: Panama City, Republic of Panama, June 1996.
• Twenty-fifth regular session: Montrouis, Haiti, June 1995.
• Twenty-fourth regular session: Belém do Pará, Brazil, June 1994.
• Twenty-third regular session: Managua, Nicaragua, June 1993.
• Twenty-second regular session: Nassau, The Bahamas, May 1992.
• Twenty-first regular session: Santiago, Chile, June 1991.
• Twentieth regular session: Asunción, Paraguay, June 1990.
• Nineteenth regular session: Washington, D.C., United States, November 1989.
• Eighteenth regular session: San Salvador, El Salvador, November 1988.
• Seventeenth regular session: Washington, D.C., United States, November 1987.
• Sixteenth regular session: Guatemala City, Guatemala, November 1986.
• Fifteenth regular session: Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, December 1985.
• Fourteenth regular session: Brasília, Brazil, November 1984.
• Thirteenth regular session: Washington, D.C., United States, November 1983.
• Twelfth regular session: Washington, D.C., United States, November 1982.
• Eleventh regular session: Castries, Saint Lucia, December 1981.
• Tenth regular session: Washington, D.C., United States, November 1980.
• Ninth regular session: La Paz, Bolivia, October 1979.
• Eighth regular session: Washington, D.C., United States, June/July 1978.
• Seventh regular session: St. George's, Grenada, June 1977.
• Sixth regular session: Santiago, Chile, June 1976.
• Fifth regular session: Washington, D.C., United States, May 1975.
• Fourth regular session: Atlanta, United States, April/May 1974.
• Third regular session: Washington, D.C., United States, April 1973.
• Second regular session: Washington, D.C., United States, April 1972.
• First regular session: San José, Costa Rica, April 1971.

Membership and adhesions[link]

All 35 independent nations of the Americas are members of the OAS. Upon foundation on 5 May 1948 there were 21 members:

  founding member

  subsequent member

  non-member

The later expansion of the OAS included Canada and the newly independent nations of the Caribbean. Members with later admission dates (sorted chronologically):

Canada and the OAS[link]

Although Canada obtained a degree of independence in its foreign policy from the United Kingdom in 1931, it chose not to join the OAS when it was first formed, despite its close relations with the United States. Canada became a Permanent Observer in the OAS on 2 February 1972. Canada signed the Charter of the Organization of American States on 13 November 1989, and this decision was ratified on 8 January 1990.

In 2004–2005, Canada was the second largest contributor to the OAS, with an annual assessed contribution representing 12.36% of the OAS Regular Budget (US$9.2 million) and an additional C$9 million in voluntary contributions to specific projects.^[6][7] Shortly after joining as a full member, Canada was instrumental in the creation of the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy, which provides support for the strengthening and consolidation of democratic processes and institutions in OAS member states.^[8]

Status of Cuba[link]

The current government of Cuba was excluded from participation in the Organization under a decision adopted by the Eighth Meeting of Consultation in Punta del Este, Uruguay, on 31 January 1962. The vote was passed by 14 in favor, with one against (Cuba) and six abstentions (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, and Mexico). The operative part of the resolution reads as follows:

1. That adherence by any member of the Organization of American States to Marxism-Leninism is incompatible with the inter-American system and the alignment of such a government with the communist bloc breaks the unity and solidarity of the continent.
2. That the present Government of Cuba, which has officially identified itself as a Marxist-Leninist government, was incompatible with the principles and objectives of the inter-American system.
3. That this incompatibility excluded the present Government of Cuba from participation in the inter-American system.^[9]

This meant that the Cuban nation was still technically a member state, but that the current government was denied the right of representation and attendance at meetings and of participation in activities. The OAS's position was that although Cuba's participation was suspended, its obligations under the Charter, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, etc. still hold: for instance, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights continued to publish reports on Cuba's human rights situation and to hear individual cases involving Cuban nationals. However, this stance was occasionally questioned by other individual member states.

Cuba's position was stated in an official note sent to the Organization "merely as a courtesy" by Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. Raúl Roa on 4 November 1964: "Cuba was arbitrarily excluded... The Organization of American States has no juridical, factual, or moral jurisdiction, nor competence, over a state which it has illegally deprived of its rights."^[10]

The reincorporation of Cuba as an active member regularly arose as a topic within the inter-American system (e.g., it was intimated by the outgoing ambassador of Mexico in 1998)^[11] but most observers did not see it as a serious possibility while the present government remained in power. Since 1960, the Cuban administration had repeatedly characterized the OAS as the "Ministry of Colonies" of the United States of America.^[12][13] On 6 May 2005, president Fidel Castro reiterated that the island nation would not "be part of a disgraceful institution that has only humiliated the honor of Latin American nations".^[14] After Fidel Castro's recent retirement and the ascent of his brother Raúl to power, this official position was reasserted. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez promised to veto any final declaration of the 2009 Summit of the Americas due to Cuba's exclusion.^[15]

On 17 April 2009, after a trading of warm words between the administrations of U.S. President Barack Obama and Cuban leader Raúl Castro, OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza said he would ask the 2009 General Assembly to annul the 1962 resolution excluding Cuba.^[16]

On 3 June 2009, foreign ministers assembled in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, for the OAS's 39th General Assembly, passed a vote to lift Cuba's suspension from the OAS. The United States had been pressuring the OAS for weeks to condition Cuba's readmission to the continental group on democratic principles and commitment to human rights. Ecuador's Foreign Minister Fander Falconí said there will be no such conditions. "This is a new proposal, it has no conditions – of any kind," Falconí said. "That suspension was made in the Cold War, in the language of the Cold War. What we have done here is fix a historic error."^[17] At the end of the General Assembly the suspension was lifted but in order to readmit Cuba to the Organization, this state has to comply with all the treaties signed by the Member States including the Inter-American Democratic Charter of 2001.^[18]

Suspension of Honduras[link]

Those attending the Extraordinary Assembly of the OAS voted to suspend Honduras.

Honduras was suspended unanimously at midnight of 5 July 2009, following the 28 June expulsion of President Manuel Zelaya.^[19] The de facto government had already announced it was leaving the OAS hours earlier; however, this was not taken into account by the OAS, which does not recognize that government as legitimate.^[20] An extraordinary meeting had been conducted by the OAS in Washington, D.C., with Zelaya in attendance.^[19][21][22] The suspension of Honduras was approved unanimously with 33 votes—Honduras did not vote.^[19][22] This was the first suspension carried out by the OAS since Cuba's in 1962.^[19][22]Honduras was finally re-admitted to the organization on 1 June 2011 with 32 votes in favor, with Venezuela having some reservations, and only 1 against by Ecuador.^[23]

Observer countries[link]

As of May 2011, there are 66 permanent observer countries, including the European Union.^[24]

Official languages[link]

The Organization's official languages are Spanish, English, Portuguese, and French, the national languages of the majority of its member nations. The Charter, the basic instrument governing OAS, makes no reference to the use of official languages. These references are to be found in the Rules of Procedure governing the various OAS bodies. Article 51 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly,^[25] the supreme body of the OAS, which meets once a year, states that English, French, Portuguese and Spanish are the four official languages. Article 28 stipulates that a Style Committee shall be set up with representatives of the four official languages to review the General Assembly resolutions and declarations. Article 53 states that proposals shall be presented in the four official languages. The Rules of Procedure and Statutes of other bodies, such as the Inter-American Council for Integral Development (CIDI), the Permanent Executive Committee of the Inter-American Council for Integral Development (CEPCIDI), the Inter-American Commission of Women (CIM), the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Juridical Committee (CJI), technical bodies of the OAS, also mention the four official languages in which their meetings are to be conducted. Policy is therefore dictated through these instruments that require use of the four official languages at meetings.^[26]

Although a number of other languages have official status in one or more member states of OAS (Dutch in Suriname; Haitian Creole in Haiti; Quechua and Aymara in Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia; Guarani in Paraguay), they are not official languages of the Organization.

See also[link]

• Regional integration
• Organization of Ibero-American States
• Union of South American Nations
• Community of Latin American and Caribbean States
• Rio Group
• Statues of the Liberators
• Continental organizations

References[link]

External links[link]

• OAS official site
• Door Opens to OAS for Cuba By Thelma Mejia, Havana Times, 4 June 2009
• OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression
• OAS Executive Secretariat for Integral Development (SEDI)
• OAS Foreign Trade Information System – SICE
• Outdoor sculpture at the OAS headquarters building
• Educational Portal of the Americas
• OAS Lifts Ban On Cuba After 47 Years by Portia Siegelbaum, CBS News, 3 June 2009
• Cuba's Fidel Castro Calls OAS a "U.S. Trojan Horse" by Xinhua, 4 June 2009
• The Organization of American States in Haiti: Election Monitoring or Political Intervention?, from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, October 2011

U.S. state
Also known as	Commonwealth (KY, MA, PA, VA)
Category	Federated state
Location	United States of America
Number	50
Government	State government

A U.S. state is a federated state of the United States of America that shares sovereignty with the United States federal government. Since the admission of Hawaii as a state in August 1959, there are fifty U.S. states. Because of the shared sovereignty between a U.S. state and the U.S. federal government, an American is a citizen of both the federal entity and of his or her state of domicile.^[1] Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia use the official title of Commonwealth rather than State. State citizenship is flexible and no government approval is required to move between states, with the exception of paroled convicts.

The United States Constitution allocates certain powers to the federal government. It also places some limitations on the state governments. State governments are allocated power by the people (of each respective state) through their individual constitutions. By ratifying the United States Constitution, the people transferred certain limited sovereign powers to the federal government from their states. Under the Tenth Amendment, all powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are retained by the states or the people. Historically, the tasks of public safety (in the sense of controlling crime), public education, public health, transportation, and infrastructure have generally been considered primarily state responsibilities, although all of these now have significant federal funding and regulation as well (based largely upon the Commerce Clause, the Taxing and Spending Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution).

Over time, the Constitution has been amended, and the interpretation and application of its provisions have changed. The general tendency has been toward centralization and incorporation, with the federal government playing a much larger role than it once did. There is a continuing debate over states' rights, which concerns the extent and nature of the states' powers and sovereignty in relation to the federal government as well as the rights of individual persons. Debates over states' rights were a contributing factor in the outbreak of the American Civil War.

Congress may admit new states on an equal footing with existing ones; this last happened in 1959 with the admission of Alaska and Hawaii. The Constitution is silent on the question of whether states have the power to leave unilaterally, or secede from, the Union, but the Supreme Court has ruled^[2][3] secession to be unconstitutional, a position driven in part by the outcome of the American Civil War.

Map[link]

List of states[link]

Alabama  Alaska  Arizona  Arkansas  California  Colorado  Connecticut  Delaware  Florida Georgia

Hawaii  Idaho  Illinois  Indiana  Iowa  Kansas  Kentucky  Louisiana  Maine  Maryland

Massachusetts  Michigan  Minnesota  Mississippi  Missouri  Montana  Nebraska  Nevada  New Hampshire  New Jersey

New Mexico  New York  North Carolina  North Dakota  Ohio  Oklahoma  Oregon  Pennsylvania  Rhode Island  South Carolina

South Dakota  Tennessee  Texas  Utah  Vermont  Virginia  Washington  West Virginia  Wisconsin  Wyoming

Federal power[link]

The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States which has expanded the scope of federal power. The Cambridge Economic History of the United States says, "On the whole, especially after the mid-1880s, the Court construed the Commerce Clause in favor of increased federal power."^[4] In Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S. 111 (1942), the court expanded federal power to regulate the economy by holding that federal authority under the commerce clause extends to activities which are local in character.^[5] For example, Congress can regulate railway traffic across state lines, but it may also regulate rail traffic solely within a state, based on the theory that wholly intrastate traffic can still have an impact on interstate commerce. In recent years, the Court has tried to place limits on the Commerce Clause in such cases as United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison.^{[clarification needed]}

Another source of Congressional power is its spending power—the ability of Congress to impose uniform^{[clarification needed][citation needed]} taxes across the nation and then distribute the resulting revenue back to the states (subject to conditions set by Congress). A classic example of this is the system of federal-aid highways, which includes the Interstate Highway System. The system is mandated and largely funded by the federal government, and also serves the interests of the states. By threatening to withhold federal highway funds, Congress has been able to pressure state legislatures to pass a variety of laws. Although some object that this infringes on states' rights, the Supreme Court upheld the practice as a permissible use of the Constitution's Spending Clause in South Dakota v. Dole 483 U.S. 203 (1987).

Governments[link]

States are free to organize their individual governments any way they like, so long as they conform to the sole requirement of the U.S. Constitution that they have "a Republican Form of Government," that is, each state government must be a republic.

Constitutions[link]

In practice, each state has adopted a three-branch system of government (with legislative, executive, and judiciary branches) generally along the same lines as that of the federal government — though this is not a requirement.

Despite the fact that every state has chosen to follow the federal model of government, there are significant differences in some states.

There are also significant similarities. For example, all 50 states allow tax exemptions for religious institutions.^[6]

Executive[link]

In all of the U.S. states, the chief executive is called the Governor. The governor may approve or veto bills passed by the state legislature. In forty-four states, governors have line item veto power.

Most states have a "plural executive" in which two or more members of the executive branch are elected directly by the people. Such additional elected officials serve as members of the executive branch, but are not beholden to the governor and the governor cannot dismiss them. For example, the attorney general is elected, rather than appointed, in 43 of the 50 U.S. states.

Legislative[link]

The legislatures of 49 of the 50 states are made up of two chambers: a lower house (termed the House of Representatives, State Assembly or House of Delegates) and a smaller upper house, always termed the Senate. The exception is the unicameral Nebraska Legislature, which is composed of only a single chamber.

Most states have part-time legislatures, while six of the most populated states have full-time legislatures. However, several states with high population have short legislative sessions, including Texas and Florida.^[7]

In Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court held that all states are required to elect their legislatures in such a way as to afford each citizen the same degree of representation (the one person, one vote standard). In practice, most states choose to elect legislators from single-member districts, each of which has approximately the same population. Some states, such as Maryland and Vermont, divide the state into single- and multi-member districts, in which case multi-member districts must have proportionately larger populations, e.g., a district electing two representatives must have approximately twice the population of a district electing just one.

If the governor vetoes legislation, all legislatures may override it, usually, but not always, requiring a two-thirds majority.

Judicial[link]

States can also organize their judicial systems differently from the federal judiciary, as long as they protect the federal constitutional right of their citizens to procedural due process. Most have a trial level court, generally called a District Court or Superior Court, a first-level appellate court, generally called a Court of Appeal (or Appeals), and a Supreme Court. However, Oklahoma and Texas have separate highest courts for criminal appeals. New York state has its own terminology, in that the trial court is called the Supreme Court. Appeals are then taken to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and from there to the Court of Appeals.

Most states base their legal system on English common law (with substantial indigenous changes and incorporation of certain civil law innovations), with the notable exception of Louisiana, a former French colony, which draws large parts of its legal system from French civil law.

Only a few states choose to have the judges on the state's courts serve for life terms. In most of the states the judges, including the justices of the highest court in the state, are either elected or appointed for terms of a limited number of years, such as five years, eligible for re-election or reappointment if their performance is judged to be satisfactory.

Relationships[link]

Under Article Four of the United States Constitution, which outlines the relationship between the states, the United States Congress has the power to admit new states to the Union. The states are required to give full faith and credit to the acts of each other's legislatures and courts, which is generally held to include the recognition of legal contracts, marriages, and criminal judgments, and before 1865, slavery status. States are prohibited from discriminating against citizens of other states with respect to their basic rights, under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The states are guaranteed military and civil defense by the federal government, which is also required to ensure that the government of each state remains a republic.

Four states use the official name of Commonwealth, rather than State.^[8] However, this is merely a paper distinction, and the U.S. Constitution uniformly refers to all of these subnational jurisdictions as "States" (Article One, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, concerning the U.S. House of Representatives, in which Representatives are to be elected by the people of the "States"; Article One, Section 3, Clause 1, concerning the U.S. Senate, allocates to each "State" two Senators). For all of these purposes, each of the four above-mentioned "Commonwealths" counts as a State.

Admission into the union[link]

U.S. states by date of statehood

  1776–1790

  1791–1799

  1800–1819

  1820–1839

  1840–1859

  1860–1879

  1880–1899

  1900–1950

  1959

The order in which the original 13 states ratified the constitution, then the order in which the others were admitted to the union. (Click to see animation)

Since the establishment of the United States in 1776, the number of states has expanded from the original 13 to 50. The U.S. Constitution is rather laconic on the process by which new states could be added, noting only that "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union" and forbidding a new state to be created out of the territory of an existing state, or the merging of two or more states into one, without the consent of both Congress and all the state legislatures involved.

In practice, most of the states admitted to the union after the original 13 have been formed from Territories of the United States (that is, land under the sovereignty of the federal government but not part of any state) that were organized (given a measure of self-rule by the Congress subject to the Congress’ plenary powers under the territorial clause of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution).^[9]

Generally speaking, the organized government of a territory made known the sentiment of its population in favor of statehood. Congress then directed that government to organize a constitutional convention to write a state constitution. Upon acceptance of that Constitution, Congress has always admitted that territory as a state. The broad outlines in this process were established by the Northwest Ordinance (1787), which predated the ratification of the Constitution.

However, Congress has ultimate authority over the admission of new states, and is not bound to follow this procedure. A few U.S. states (outside of the original 13) that were never organized territories of the federal government have been admitted:

• Vermont, an unrecognized but de facto independent republic until its admission in 1791^[10]
• Kentucky, a part of Virginia until its admission in 1792^[10]
• Maine, a part of Massachusetts until its admission in 1820^[10] following the Missouri Compromise
• Texas, a recognized independent republic until its admission in 1845^[10]
• California, created as a state (as part of the Compromise of 1850) out of the unorganized territory of the Mexican Cession in 1850 without ever having been a separate organized territory itself^[10]
• West Virginia, created from areas of western Virginia that rejoined the union in 1863, after the 1861 secession of Virginia to the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War^[10]

Congress is also under no obligation to admit states even in those areas whose population expresses a desire for statehood. For instance, the Republic of Texas requested annexation to the United States in 1837, but fears about the conflict with Mexico that would result delayed admission for nine years.^[11]

Once established, most state borders have been generally stable, with exceptions including the formation of the Northwest Territory in 1787 and the Southwest Territory in 1790 from various portions of the original states, the cession by Maryland and Virginia of land to create the District of Columbia in 1791 (Virginia's portion was returned in 1847), and the creation of states from other states, including the creation of Kentucky and West Virginia from Virginia, and Maine from Massachusetts. However, there have been numerous minor adjustments to state boundaries over the years due to improved surveys, resolution of ambiguous or disputed boundary definitions, or minor mutually agreed boundary adjustments for administrative convenience or other purposes.^[10]

Possible new states[link]

Today, there are several U.S. territories left that might potentially become new states.

Puerto Rico[link]

The most likely candidate for statehood is generally thought to be Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico called itself the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" in the English version of its constitution, and as "Estado Libre Asociado" (literally, Associated Free State) in the Spanish version. The island’s ultimate status has not been determined as of 2011^[update]. A plebiscite will be held on November 6, 2012 to determine the future of the Island.

As with any non-state territory of the United States, its residents do not have voting representation in the federal government. Puerto Rico has limited representation in the U.S. Congress in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a nonvoting delegate.^[12]

History[link]

Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917.

The U.S. Congress directed the Puerto Rican government to organize a constitutional convention to write the Puerto Rico Constitution in 1951. Like the U.S. States, Puerto Rico has a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution adopted by its people and a bill of rights. The Approval of that constitution by Puerto Rico's electorate, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. President occurred in 1952. The rights, privileges and immunities attendant to the United States Citizens are "respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a state of the union" through the express extension by the U.S. Congress in 1948 of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution.^[13]

President George H. W. Bush issued a memorandum on November 30, 1992 to heads of executive departments and agencies establishing the current administrative relationship between the federal government and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This memorandum directs all federal departments, agencies, and officials to treat Puerto Rico administratively as if it were a state, insofar as doing so would not disrupt federal programs or operations.^[14]

The commonwealth's government has organized several referenda on the question of status over the past several decades, though Congress has not recognized these as binding; all shown resulted in narrow victories for the status quo over statehood. On December 23, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed executive Order 13183, which established the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status and the rules for its membership. Section 4 of executive Order 13183 (as amended by executive Order 13319) directs the task force to "report on its actions to the President ... on progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status."^[15]

President George W. Bush signed an additional amendment to Executive Order 13183 on December 3, 2003, which established the current co-chairs and instructed the task force to issue reports as needed, but no less than once every two years. In December 2005, the presidential task force proposed a new set of referendums on the issue; if Congress votes in line with the task force's recommendation, it would pave the way for the first congressionally mandated votes on status in the island, and (potentially) statehood by 2012. The task force's December 2007 status report reiterated and confirmed the proposals made in 2005.^[15][16][17]

President Barack Obama appointed a new Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status.^[18] In March 2011, it recommended that all relevant parties—the President, Congress, and the leadership and people of Puerto Rico—work to ensure that Puerto Ricans are able to express their will about status options and have that will acted upon by the end of 2012 or soon thereafter.^[19] The report further recommends, "... if efforts on the Island do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of acceptable status options, including the Statehood, that the United States is politically committed to fulfilling. This legislation should commit the United States to honor the choice of the people of Puerto Rico (provided it is one of the status options specified in the legislation) and should specify the means by which such a choice would be made. The Task Force recommends that, by the end of 2012, the Administration develop, draft, and work with Congress to enact the proposed legislation."^[19]

Washington, D.C.[link]

The intention of the Founding Fathers was that the United States capital should be at a neutral site, not giving favor to any existing state; as a result, the District of Columbia was created in 1800 to serve as the seat of government. The inhabitants of the District do not have full representation in Congress or a sovereign elected government (they were allotted presidential electors by the 23rd amendment, and have a non-voting delegate in Congress). Some residents of the District support statehood of some form for that jurisdiction—either statehood for the whole district or for the inhabited part, with the remainder remaining under federal jurisdiction. While statehood is always a live political question in the District, the prospects for any movement in that direction in the immediate future seem dim.

According to Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."^[20] This was the case when Maine was split off from Massachusetts; and when West Virginia was split from Virginia during the Civil War. When Texas was admitted to the union in 1845, it was much larger than any other state and was specifically granted the right to divide itself into as many as five separate states.^[21]

Unrecognized entities[link]

See also: Historical regions of the United States

• The State of Franklin existed for four years not long after the end of the American Revolution, but was never recognized by the union, which ultimately recognized North Carolina's claim of sovereignty over the area. A majority of the states were willing to recognize Franklin, but the number of states in favor fell short of the two-thirds majority required to admit a territory to statehood under the Articles of Confederation. The territory comprising Franklin later became part of the state of Tennessee.
• The State of Superior was a proposed state formed out of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Several prominent legislators including local politician Dominic Jacobetti formally attempted this legislation in the 1970s, with no success. As a state, it would have had, by far, the smallest population, and remaining so through the present day. Its 320,000 residents would equal only 60% of Wyoming's population, and less than 50% of Alaska's population.
• The State of Deseret was a provisional state of the United States, proposed in 1849 by the Mormon settlers in Salt Lake City. The provisional state existed for slightly over two years and was never accepted by the United States Congress. Its name was derived from the word for "honeybee" in the Book of Mormon. Its territory included most of what is now Utah and Nevada.
• State of Jefferson
  • On July 24, 1859, voters defeated the formation of the proposed State of Jefferson in the Southern Rocky Mountains. On October 24, 1859, voters instead approved the formation of the Jefferson Territory, which was superseded by the Territory of Colorado on February 28, 1861.
  • In 1915, a second State of Jefferson was proposed for the northern third of Texas but failed to obtain majority approval by the Texas Senate.
  • In 1941, a third State of Jefferson was proposed in the mostly rural area of southern Oregon and northern California, but was cancelled as a result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. This proposal has been raised several times since.
• State of Lincoln
  • Lincoln is another state that has been proposed multiple times. It generally consists of the eastern portion of Washington state and the panhandle or northern portion of Idaho. It was originally proposed by Idaho in 1864 to include just the panhandle of Idaho, and again in 1901 to include eastern Washington. Proposals have come up in 1996, 1999, and 2005.
  • Lincoln is also the name of a failed state proposal after the U.S. Civil War in 1869. It consisted of the area south and west of Texas' Colorado River.

Secession[link]

The Constitution is silent on the issue of the secession of a state from the union. However, its predecessor document, the Articles of Confederation, stated that the United States of America "shall be perpetual." The question of whether or not individual states held the right to unilateral secession remained a difficult and divisive one until the American Civil War. In 1860 and 1861, eleven southern states seceded, but following their defeat in the American Civil War were brought back into the Union during the Reconstruction Era. The federal government never recognized the secession of any of the rebellious states. Following the Civil War, the United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, held that states did not have the right to secede and that any act of secession was legally void. Drawing on the Preamble to the Constitution, which states that the Constitution was intended to "form a more perfect union" and speaks of the people of the United States of America in effect as a single body politic, as well as the language of the Articles of Confederation, the Supreme Court maintained that states did not have a right to secede. However, the court's reference in the same decision to the possibility of such changes occurring "through revolution, or through consent of the States," essentially means that this decision holds that no state has a right to unilaterally decide to leave the Union.^[2][3]

Commonwealths[link]

Four of the states bear the formal title of commonwealth: Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. This is merely a legacy of all four states' history, and their formal name has no effect on their legal status as states.

Somewhat confusingly, the U.S. territories of the Northern Marianas and Puerto Rico are also referred to as commonwealths, and that designation does have a legal status different from that of the 50 states. Both of these commonwealths are unincorporated territories of the United States.

Origin of states' names[link]

Map showing the source languages of state names

Twenty-four of the states' names originate from Native American languages. Of these, eight are from Algonquian languages, seven are from Siouan languages, one is from Uto-Aztecan languages and five others are from other indigenous languages. Hawaii's name is derived from the Polynesian Hawaiian Language.

Of the remaining names, 22 are from European languages: Seven from Latin (mainly Latinized forms of English names), the rest are from English, Spanish and French. Eleven states are named after people, including seven named for royalty and one named after an American president. The origins of six state names are unknown or disputed.

Regional grouping[link]

U.S. Census Bureau regions:
The West, The Midwest, The South and The Northeast.

States may be grouped in regions; there are endless variations and possible groupings, as most states are not defined by obvious geographic or cultural borders. For further discussion of regions of the U.S., see the list of regions of the United States.

Borders[link]

The northern and southern borders of the Thirteen Colonies on the East Coast were largely determined by colonial charters and anchoring coastal settlements. The western boundaries were determined by the limits of transportation, the infeasibility of settling areas dominated by Native Americans and foreign powers, and the decision to create new states out of western territories.

River borders between states are common. At various times, national borders with territories formerly controlled by other countries (namely the British colonies of Canada, New France, New Spain including Spanish Florida, and Russian North America) became institutionalized as the borders of U.S. states. Alaska was formerly the colony of Russian America.

Most borders beyond the Thirteen Colonies were created by Congress as it created territories, divided them, and turned them into states as they became more populated. Territorial and new state lines followed various geographic features, economic units, and the pattern of settlement. In the West, relatively arbitrary straight lines following latitude and longitude often prevail, due to the sparseness of settlement west of the Mississippi River. Faster transportation also meant that larger states were more feasible to govern from a single capital. Vermont, California, and Texas were each briefly independent nations, as was Hawaii for a more extensive period of time. Some states were previously part of other states, including Maine, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Occasionally the United States Congress or the United States Supreme Court have settled state border disputes.

See also[link]

United States census statistical areas by state, district, or territory

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KS

KY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY

AS

MP

PR

GU

VI

• 50 State Quarters
• 51st state
• Extreme points of the United States
• Geography of the United States
• List of fictional U.S. states
• List of regions of the United States
• List of U.S. counties that share names with U.S. states
• Lists of U.S. states
• Organized incorporated territories of the United States
• Political divisions of the United States
• States' rights
• United States Constitution
• United States Declaration of Independence
  • United States Declaration of Independence (text)
• United States territorial acquisitions
• Territorial evolution of the United States
• United States territory
• Territories of the United States
• Comparison of U.S. state governments

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Stein, Mark, How the States Got Their Shapes, New York : Smithsonian Books/Collins, 2008. ISBN 978-0-06-143138-8

External links[link]

• Information about All States from UCB Libraries GovPubs
• State Resource Guides, from the Library of Congress
• Tables with areas, populations, densities and more (in order of population)
• Tables with areas, populations, densities and more (alphabetical)
• State and Territorial Governments on USA.gov
• StateMaster – statistical database for US States.
• U.S. States: Comparisons, rankings, demographics

v t e Political divisions of the United States States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Federal district Washington, D.C. (District of Columbia) Insular areas American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico U.S. Virgin Islands Outlying islands Bajo Nuevo Bank Baker Island Howland Island Jarvis Island Johnston Atoll Kingman Reef Midway Atoll Navassa Island Palmyra Atoll Serranilla Bank Wake Island