Question: What newspaper suggested that Congress would ignore Puerto Rico's referendum?

The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Boston Herald have published opinion pieces expressing support for the statehood of Puerto Rico. On November 8, 2012, Washington, D.C. newspaper The Hill published an article saying that Congress will likely ignore the results of the referendum due to the circumstances behind the votes. and U.S. Congressman Luis Gutiérrez U.S. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez, both of Puerto Rican ancestry, agreed with the The Hill 's statements. Shortly after the results were published Puerto Rico-born U.S. Congressman José Enrique Serrano commented "I was particularly impressed with the outcome of the 'status' referendum in Puerto Rico. A majority of those voting signaled the desire to change the current territorial status. In a second question an even larger majority asked to become a state. This is an earthquake in Puerto Rican politics. It will demand the attention of Congress, and a definitive answer to the Puerto Rican request for change. This is a history-making moment where voters asked to move forward."

Answer: The Hill

The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Boston Herald have published opinion pieces expressing support for the statehood of Puerto Rico. <hl> On November 8, 2012, Washington, D.C. newspaper The Hill published an article saying that Congress will likely ignore the results of the referendum due to the circumstances behind the votes. <hl> and U.S. Congressman Luis Gutiérrez U.S. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez, both of Puerto Rican ancestry, agreed with the The Hill 's statements. Shortly after the results were published Puerto Rico-born U.S. Congressman José Enrique Serrano commented "I was particularly impressed with the outcome of the 'status' referendum in Puerto Rico. A majority of those voting signaled the desire to change the current territorial status. In a second question an even larger majority asked to become a state. This is an earthquake in Puerto Rican politics. It will demand the attention of Congress, and a definitive answer to the Puerto Rican request for change. This is a history-making moment where voters asked to move forward."

The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Boston Herald have published opinion pieces expressing support for the statehood of Puerto Rico. On November 8, 2012, Washington, D.C. newspaper <hl> The Hill <hl> published an article saying that Congress will likely ignore the results of the referendum due to the circumstances behind the votes. and U.S. Congressman Luis Gutiérrez U.S. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez, both of Puerto Rican ancestry, agreed with the The Hill 's statements. Shortly after the results were published Puerto Rico-born U.S. Congressman José Enrique Serrano commented "I was particularly impressed with the outcome of the 'status' referendum in Puerto Rico. A majority of those voting signaled the desire to change the current territorial status. In a second question an even larger majority asked to become a state. This is an earthquake in Puerto Rican politics. It will demand the attention of Congress, and a definitive answer to the Puerto Rican request for change. This is a history-making moment where voters asked to move forward."


Question: What newspapers have published opinion pieces expressing support for Puerto Rico's statehood?

Answer: The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Boston Herald

<hl> The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Boston Herald have published opinion pieces expressing support for the statehood of Puerto Rico. <hl> On November 8, 2012, Washington, D.C. newspaper The Hill published an article saying that Congress will likely ignore the results of the referendum due to the circumstances behind the votes. and U.S. Congressman Luis Gutiérrez U.S. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez, both of Puerto Rican ancestry, agreed with the The Hill 's statements. Shortly after the results were published Puerto Rico-born U.S. Congressman José Enrique Serrano commented "I was particularly impressed with the outcome of the 'status' referendum in Puerto Rico. A majority of those voting signaled the desire to change the current territorial status. In a second question an even larger majority asked to become a state. This is an earthquake in Puerto Rican politics. It will demand the attention of Congress, and a definitive answer to the Puerto Rican request for change. This is a history-making moment where voters asked to move forward."

<hl> The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Boston Herald <hl> have published opinion pieces expressing support for the statehood of Puerto Rico. On November 8, 2012, Washington, D.C. newspaper The Hill published an article saying that Congress will likely ignore the results of the referendum due to the circumstances behind the votes. and U.S. Congressman Luis Gutiérrez U.S. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez, both of Puerto Rican ancestry, agreed with the The Hill 's statements. Shortly after the results were published Puerto Rico-born U.S. Congressman José Enrique Serrano commented "I was particularly impressed with the outcome of the 'status' referendum in Puerto Rico. A majority of those voting signaled the desire to change the current territorial status. In a second question an even larger majority asked to become a state. This is an earthquake in Puerto Rican politics. It will demand the attention of Congress, and a definitive answer to the Puerto Rican request for change. This is a history-making moment where voters asked to move forward."


Question: When was that article published?

Answer: November 8, 2012

The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Boston Herald have published opinion pieces expressing support for the statehood of Puerto Rico. <hl> On November 8, 2012 , Washington, D.C. newspaper The Hill published an article saying that Congress will likely ignore the results of the referendum due to the circumstances behind the votes. <hl> and U.S. Congressman Luis Gutiérrez U.S. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez, both of Puerto Rican ancestry, agreed with the The Hill 's statements. Shortly after the results were published Puerto Rico-born U.S. Congressman José Enrique Serrano commented "I was particularly impressed with the outcome of the 'status' referendum in Puerto Rico. A majority of those voting signaled the desire to change the current territorial status. In a second question an even larger majority asked to become a state. This is an earthquake in Puerto Rican politics. It will demand the attention of Congress, and a definitive answer to the Puerto Rican request for change. This is a history-making moment where voters asked to move forward."

The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Boston Herald have published opinion pieces expressing support for the statehood of Puerto Rico. On <hl> November 8, 2012 <hl>, Washington, D.C. newspaper The Hill published an article saying that Congress will likely ignore the results of the referendum due to the circumstances behind the votes. and U.S. Congressman Luis Gutiérrez U.S. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez, both of Puerto Rican ancestry, agreed with the The Hill 's statements. Shortly after the results were published Puerto Rico-born U.S. Congressman José Enrique Serrano commented "I was particularly impressed with the outcome of the 'status' referendum in Puerto Rico. A majority of those voting signaled the desire to change the current territorial status. In a second question an even larger majority asked to become a state. This is an earthquake in Puerto Rican politics. It will demand the attention of Congress, and a definitive answer to the Puerto Rican request for change. This is a history-making moment where voters asked to move forward."

On <hl> November 8, 2012 <hl> , Washington, D.C. newspaper The Hill published an article saying that Congress will likely ignore the results of the referendum due to the circumstances behind the votes.


Question: What Congress members agreed with the Hill's assesment?

Answer: U.S. Congressman Luis Gutiérrez U.S. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez

The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Boston Herald have published opinion pieces expressing support for the statehood of Puerto Rico. On November 8, 2012, Washington, D.C. newspaper The Hill published an article saying that Congress will likely ignore the results of the referendum due to the circumstances behind the votes. <hl> and U.S. Congressman Luis Gutiérrez U.S. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez , both of Puerto Rican ancestry, agreed with the The Hill 's statements. <hl> Shortly after the results were published Puerto Rico-born U.S. Congressman José Enrique Serrano commented "I was particularly impressed with the outcome of the 'status' referendum in Puerto Rico. A majority of those voting signaled the desire to change the current territorial status. In a second question an even larger majority asked to become a state. This is an earthquake in Puerto Rican politics. It will demand the attention of Congress, and a definitive answer to the Puerto Rican request for change. This is a history-making moment where voters asked to move forward."

The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Boston Herald have published opinion pieces expressing support for the statehood of Puerto Rico. On November 8, 2012, Washington, D.C. newspaper The Hill published an article saying that Congress will likely ignore the results of the referendum due to the circumstances behind the votes. and <hl> U.S. Congressman Luis Gutiérrez U.S. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez <hl>, both of Puerto Rican ancestry, agreed with the The Hill 's statements. Shortly after the results were published Puerto Rico-born U.S. Congressman José Enrique Serrano commented "I was particularly impressed with the outcome of the 'status' referendum in Puerto Rico. A majority of those voting signaled the desire to change the current territorial status. In a second question an even larger majority asked to become a state. This is an earthquake in Puerto Rican politics. It will demand the attention of Congress, and a definitive answer to the Puerto Rican request for change. This is a history-making moment where voters asked to move forward."

and <hl> U.S. Congressman Luis Gutiérrez U.S. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez <hl> , both of Puerto Rican ancestry, agreed with the The Hill 's statements.


Question: What politicians pushed for statehood for Puerto Rico?

Several days after the referendum, the Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Governor Luis Fortuño, and Governor-elect Alejandro García Padilla wrote separate letters to the President of the United States Barack Obama addressing the results of the voting. Pierluisi urged Obama to begin legislation in favor of the statehood of Puerto Rico, in light of its win in the referendum. Fortuño urged him to move the process forward. García Padilla asked him to reject the results because of their ambiguity. The White House stance related to the November 2012 plebiscite was that the results were clear, the people of Puerto Rico want the issue of status resolved, and a majority chose statehood in the second question. Former White House director of Hispanic media stated, "Now it is time for Congress to act and the administration will work with them on that effort, so that the people of Puerto Rico can determine their own future."

Answer: Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Governor Luis Fortuño

<hl> Several days after the referendum, the Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Governor Luis Fortuño , and Governor-elect Alejandro García Padilla wrote separate letters to the President of the United States Barack Obama addressing the results of the voting. <hl> Pierluisi urged Obama to begin legislation in favor of the statehood of Puerto Rico, in light of its win in the referendum. Fortuño urged him to move the process forward. García Padilla asked him to reject the results because of their ambiguity. The White House stance related to the November 2012 plebiscite was that the results were clear, the people of Puerto Rico want the issue of status resolved, and a majority chose statehood in the second question. Former White House director of Hispanic media stated, "Now it is time for Congress to act and the administration will work with them on that effort, so that the people of Puerto Rico can determine their own future."

Several days after the referendum, the <hl> Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Governor Luis Fortuño <hl>, and Governor-elect Alejandro García Padilla wrote separate letters to the President of the United States Barack Obama addressing the results of the voting. Pierluisi urged Obama to begin legislation in favor of the statehood of Puerto Rico, in light of its win in the referendum. Fortuño urged him to move the process forward. García Padilla asked him to reject the results because of their ambiguity. The White House stance related to the November 2012 plebiscite was that the results were clear, the people of Puerto Rico want the issue of status resolved, and a majority chose statehood in the second question. Former White House director of Hispanic media stated, "Now it is time for Congress to act and the administration will work with them on that effort, so that the people of Puerto Rico can determine their own future."

Several days after the referendum, the <hl> Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Governor Luis Fortuño <hl> , and Governor-elect Alejandro García Padilla wrote separate letters to the President of the United States Barack Obama addressing the results of the voting.


Question: What politician fought against statehood for Puerto Rico?

Answer: Governor-elect Alejandro García Padilla

<hl> Several days after the referendum, the Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Governor Luis Fortuño, and Governor-elect Alejandro García Padilla wrote separate letters to the President of the United States Barack Obama addressing the results of the voting. <hl> Pierluisi urged Obama to begin legislation in favor of the statehood of Puerto Rico, in light of its win in the referendum. Fortuño urged him to move the process forward. García Padilla asked him to reject the results because of their ambiguity. The White House stance related to the November 2012 plebiscite was that the results were clear, the people of Puerto Rico want the issue of status resolved, and a majority chose statehood in the second question. Former White House director of Hispanic media stated, "Now it is time for Congress to act and the administration will work with them on that effort, so that the people of Puerto Rico can determine their own future."

Several days after the referendum, the Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Governor Luis Fortuño, and <hl> Governor-elect Alejandro García Padilla <hl> wrote separate letters to the President of the United States Barack Obama addressing the results of the voting. Pierluisi urged Obama to begin legislation in favor of the statehood of Puerto Rico, in light of its win in the referendum. Fortuño urged him to move the process forward. García Padilla asked him to reject the results because of their ambiguity. The White House stance related to the November 2012 plebiscite was that the results were clear, the people of Puerto Rico want the issue of status resolved, and a majority chose statehood in the second question. Former White House director of Hispanic media stated, "Now it is time for Congress to act and the administration will work with them on that effort, so that the people of Puerto Rico can determine their own future."


Question: How did these politicians voice their concerns?

Answer: wrote separate letters to the President of the United States Barack Obama

<hl> Several days after the referendum, the Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Governor Luis Fortuño, and Governor-elect Alejandro García Padilla wrote separate letters to the President of the United States Barack Obama addressing the results of the voting. <hl> Pierluisi urged Obama to begin legislation in favor of the statehood of Puerto Rico, in light of its win in the referendum. Fortuño urged him to move the process forward. García Padilla asked him to reject the results because of their ambiguity. The White House stance related to the November 2012 plebiscite was that the results were clear, the people of Puerto Rico want the issue of status resolved, and a majority chose statehood in the second question. Former White House director of Hispanic media stated, "Now it is time for Congress to act and the administration will work with them on that effort, so that the people of Puerto Rico can determine their own future."

Several days after the referendum, the Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Governor Luis Fortuño, and Governor-elect Alejandro García Padilla <hl> wrote separate letters to the President of the United States Barack Obama <hl> addressing the results of the voting. Pierluisi urged Obama to begin legislation in favor of the statehood of Puerto Rico, in light of its win in the referendum. Fortuño urged him to move the process forward. García Padilla asked him to reject the results because of their ambiguity. The White House stance related to the November 2012 plebiscite was that the results were clear, the people of Puerto Rico want the issue of status resolved, and a majority chose statehood in the second question. Former White House director of Hispanic media stated, "Now it is time for Congress to act and the administration will work with them on that effort, so that the people of Puerto Rico can determine their own future."


Question: What was the White House stance?

Answer: the results were clear, the people of Puerto Rico want the issue of status resolved

Several days after the referendum, the Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Governor Luis Fortuño, and Governor-elect Alejandro García Padilla wrote separate letters to the President of the United States Barack Obama addressing the results of the voting. Pierluisi urged Obama to begin legislation in favor of the statehood of Puerto Rico, in light of its win in the referendum. Fortuño urged him to move the process forward. García Padilla asked him to reject the results because of their ambiguity. <hl> The White House stance related to the November 2012 plebiscite was that the results were clear, the people of Puerto Rico want the issue of status resolved , and a majority chose statehood in the second question. <hl> Former White House director of Hispanic media stated, "Now it is time for Congress to act and the administration will work with them on that effort, so that the people of Puerto Rico can determine their own future."

Several days after the referendum, the Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Governor Luis Fortuño, and Governor-elect Alejandro García Padilla wrote separate letters to the President of the United States Barack Obama addressing the results of the voting. Pierluisi urged Obama to begin legislation in favor of the statehood of Puerto Rico, in light of its win in the referendum. Fortuño urged him to move the process forward. García Padilla asked him to reject the results because of their ambiguity. The White House stance related to the November 2012 plebiscite was that <hl> the results were clear, the people of Puerto Rico want the issue of status resolved <hl>, and a majority chose statehood in the second question. Former White House director of Hispanic media stated, "Now it is time for Congress to act and the administration will work with them on that effort, so that the people of Puerto Rico can determine their own future."

The White House stance related to the November 2012 plebiscite was that <hl> the results were clear, the people of Puerto Rico want the issue of status resolved <hl> , and a majority chose statehood in the second question.


Question: When was H.R. 2000 introduced?

On May 15, 2013, Resident Commissioner Pierluisi introduced H.R. 2000 to Congress to "set forth the process for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state of the Union," asking for Congress to vote on ratifying Puerto Rico as the 51st state. On February 12, 2014, Senator Martin Heinrich introduced a bill in the US Senate. The bill would require a binding referendum to be held in Puerto Rico asking whether the territory wants to be admitted as a state. In the event of a yes vote, the president would be asked to submit legislation to Congress to admit Puerto Rico as a state.

Answer: On May 15, 2013

<hl> On May 15, 2013 , Resident Commissioner Pierluisi introduced H.R. 2000 to Congress to "set forth the process for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state of the Union," asking for Congress to vote on ratifying Puerto Rico as the 51st state. <hl> On February 12, 2014, Senator Martin Heinrich introduced a bill in the US Senate. The bill would require a binding referendum to be held in Puerto Rico asking whether the territory wants to be admitted as a state. In the event of a yes vote, the president would be asked to submit legislation to Congress to admit Puerto Rico as a state.

<hl> On May 15, 2013 <hl>, Resident Commissioner Pierluisi introduced H.R. 2000 to Congress to "set forth the process for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state of the Union," asking for Congress to vote on ratifying Puerto Rico as the 51st state. On February 12, 2014, Senator Martin Heinrich introduced a bill in the US Senate. The bill would require a binding referendum to be held in Puerto Rico asking whether the territory wants to be admitted as a state. In the event of a yes vote, the president would be asked to submit legislation to Congress to admit Puerto Rico as a state.

<hl> On May 15, 2013 <hl> , Resident Commissioner Pierluisi introduced H.R. 2000 to Congress to "set forth the process for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state of the Union," asking for Congress to vote on ratifying Puerto Rico as the 51st state.


Question: What did Senator Heinrich's bill require?

Answer: a binding referendum to be held in Puerto Rico asking whether the territory wants to be admitted as a state.

On May 15, 2013, Resident Commissioner Pierluisi introduced H.R. 2000 to Congress to "set forth the process for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state of the Union," asking for Congress to vote on ratifying Puerto Rico as the 51st state. On February 12, 2014, Senator Martin Heinrich introduced a bill in the US Senate. <hl> The bill would require a binding referendum to be held in Puerto Rico asking whether the territory wants to be admitted as a state. In the event of a yes vote, the president would be asked to submit legislation to Congress to admit Puerto Rico as a state. <hl>

On May 15, 2013, Resident Commissioner Pierluisi introduced H.R. 2000 to Congress to "set forth the process for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state of the Union," asking for Congress to vote on ratifying Puerto Rico as the 51st state. On February 12, 2014, Senator Martin Heinrich introduced a bill in the US Senate. The bill would require <hl> a binding referendum to be held in Puerto Rico asking whether the territory wants to be admitted as a state. <hl> In the event of a yes vote, the president would be asked to submit legislation to Congress to admit Puerto Rico as a state.


Question: What would happen in the event of a yes vote in this referendum?

Answer: the president would be asked to submit legislation to Congress to admit Puerto Rico as a state

On May 15, 2013, Resident Commissioner Pierluisi introduced H.R. 2000 to Congress to "set forth the process for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state of the Union," asking for Congress to vote on ratifying Puerto Rico as the 51st state. On February 12, 2014, Senator Martin Heinrich introduced a bill in the US Senate. The bill would require a binding referendum to be held in Puerto Rico asking whether the territory wants to be admitted as a state. <hl> In the event of a yes vote, the president would be asked to submit legislation to Congress to admit Puerto Rico as a state . <hl>

On May 15, 2013, Resident Commissioner Pierluisi introduced H.R. 2000 to Congress to "set forth the process for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state of the Union," asking for Congress to vote on ratifying Puerto Rico as the 51st state. On February 12, 2014, Senator Martin Heinrich introduced a bill in the US Senate. The bill would require a binding referendum to be held in Puerto Rico asking whether the territory wants to be admitted as a state. In the event of a yes vote, <hl> the president would be asked to submit legislation to Congress to admit Puerto Rico as a state <hl>.

In the event of a yes vote, <hl> the president would be asked to submit legislation to Congress to admit Puerto Rico as a state <hl> .


Question: What would H.R. 2000 do?

Answer: set forth the process for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state of the Union

<hl> On May 15, 2013, Resident Commissioner Pierluisi introduced H.R. 2000 to Congress to " set forth the process for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state of the Union ," asking for Congress to vote on ratifying Puerto Rico as the 51st state. <hl> On February 12, 2014, Senator Martin Heinrich introduced a bill in the US Senate. The bill would require a binding referendum to be held in Puerto Rico asking whether the territory wants to be admitted as a state. In the event of a yes vote, the president would be asked to submit legislation to Congress to admit Puerto Rico as a state.

On May 15, 2013, Resident Commissioner Pierluisi introduced H.R. 2000 to Congress to "<hl> set forth the process for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state of the Union <hl>," asking for Congress to vote on ratifying Puerto Rico as the 51st state. On February 12, 2014, Senator Martin Heinrich introduced a bill in the US Senate. The bill would require a binding referendum to be held in Puerto Rico asking whether the territory wants to be admitted as a state. In the event of a yes vote, the president would be asked to submit legislation to Congress to admit Puerto Rico as a state.

On May 15, 2013, Resident Commissioner Pierluisi introduced H.R. 2000 to Congress to " <hl> set forth the process for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state of the Union <hl> ," asking for Congress to vote on ratifying Puerto Rico as the 51st state.


Question: Who considered the implications of the definition of the seat of government in the Constitution?

Washington, D.C. is often mentioned as a candidate for statehood. In Federalist No. 43 of The Federalist Papers, James Madison considered the implications of the definition of the "seat of government" found in the United States Constitution. Although he noted potential conflicts of interest, and the need for a "municipal legislature for local purposes," Madison did not address the district's role in national voting. Legal scholars disagree on whether a simple act of Congress can admit the District as a state, due to its status as the seat of government of the United States, which Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution requires to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress; depending on the interpretation of this text, admission of the full District as a state may require a Constitutional amendment, which is much more difficult to enact. However, the Constitution does not set a minimum size for the District. Its size has already changed once before, when Virginia reclaimed the portion of the District south of the Potomac. So the constitutional requirement for a federal district can be satisfied by reducing its size to the small central core of government buildings and monuments, giving the rest of the territory to the new state.

Answer: James Madison

Washington, D.C. is often mentioned as a candidate for statehood. <hl> In Federalist No. 43 of The Federalist Papers, James Madison considered the implications of the definition of the "seat of government" found in the United States Constitution. <hl> Although he noted potential conflicts of interest, and the need for a "municipal legislature for local purposes," Madison did not address the district's role in national voting. Legal scholars disagree on whether a simple act of Congress can admit the District as a state, due to its status as the seat of government of the United States, which Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution requires to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress; depending on the interpretation of this text, admission of the full District as a state may require a Constitutional amendment, which is much more difficult to enact. However, the Constitution does not set a minimum size for the District. Its size has already changed once before, when Virginia reclaimed the portion of the District south of the Potomac. So the constitutional requirement for a federal district can be satisfied by reducing its size to the small central core of government buildings and monuments, giving the rest of the territory to the new state.

Washington, D.C. is often mentioned as a candidate for statehood. In Federalist No. 43 of The Federalist Papers, <hl> James Madison <hl> considered the implications of the definition of the "seat of government" found in the United States Constitution. Although he noted potential conflicts of interest, and the need for a "municipal legislature for local purposes," Madison did not address the district's role in national voting. Legal scholars disagree on whether a simple act of Congress can admit the District as a state, due to its status as the seat of government of the United States, which Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution requires to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress; depending on the interpretation of this text, admission of the full District as a state may require a Constitutional amendment, which is much more difficult to enact. However, the Constitution does not set a minimum size for the District. Its size has already changed once before, when Virginia reclaimed the portion of the District south of the Potomac. So the constitutional requirement for a federal district can be satisfied by reducing its size to the small central core of government buildings and monuments, giving the rest of the territory to the new state.


Question: Where are these ideas located in the Federalist Papers?

Answer: Federalist No. 43

Washington, D.C. is often mentioned as a candidate for statehood. <hl> In Federalist No. 43 of The Federalist Papers, James Madison considered the implications of the definition of the "seat of government" found in the United States Constitution. <hl> Although he noted potential conflicts of interest, and the need for a "municipal legislature for local purposes," Madison did not address the district's role in national voting. Legal scholars disagree on whether a simple act of Congress can admit the District as a state, due to its status as the seat of government of the United States, which Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution requires to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress; depending on the interpretation of this text, admission of the full District as a state may require a Constitutional amendment, which is much more difficult to enact. However, the Constitution does not set a minimum size for the District. Its size has already changed once before, when Virginia reclaimed the portion of the District south of the Potomac. So the constitutional requirement for a federal district can be satisfied by reducing its size to the small central core of government buildings and monuments, giving the rest of the territory to the new state.

Washington, D.C. is often mentioned as a candidate for statehood. In <hl> Federalist No. 43 <hl> of The Federalist Papers, James Madison considered the implications of the definition of the "seat of government" found in the United States Constitution. Although he noted potential conflicts of interest, and the need for a "municipal legislature for local purposes," Madison did not address the district's role in national voting. Legal scholars disagree on whether a simple act of Congress can admit the District as a state, due to its status as the seat of government of the United States, which Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution requires to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress; depending on the interpretation of this text, admission of the full District as a state may require a Constitutional amendment, which is much more difficult to enact. However, the Constitution does not set a minimum size for the District. Its size has already changed once before, when Virginia reclaimed the portion of the District south of the Potomac. So the constitutional requirement for a federal district can be satisfied by reducing its size to the small central core of government buildings and monuments, giving the rest of the territory to the new state.


Question: What limits does the constitution have for the size of Washington, D.C.?

Answer: the Constitution does not set a minimum size for the District

Washington, D.C. is often mentioned as a candidate for statehood. In Federalist No. 43 of The Federalist Papers, James Madison considered the implications of the definition of the "seat of government" found in the United States Constitution. Although he noted potential conflicts of interest, and the need for a "municipal legislature for local purposes," Madison did not address the district's role in national voting. Legal scholars disagree on whether a simple act of Congress can admit the District as a state, due to its status as the seat of government of the United States, which Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution requires to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress; depending on the interpretation of this text, admission of the full District as a state may require a Constitutional amendment, which is much more difficult to enact. <hl> However, the Constitution does not set a minimum size for the District . <hl> Its size has already changed once before, when Virginia reclaimed the portion of the District south of the Potomac. So the constitutional requirement for a federal district can be satisfied by reducing its size to the small central core of government buildings and monuments, giving the rest of the territory to the new state.

Washington, D.C. is often mentioned as a candidate for statehood. In Federalist No. 43 of The Federalist Papers, James Madison considered the implications of the definition of the "seat of government" found in the United States Constitution. Although he noted potential conflicts of interest, and the need for a "municipal legislature for local purposes," Madison did not address the district's role in national voting. Legal scholars disagree on whether a simple act of Congress can admit the District as a state, due to its status as the seat of government of the United States, which Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution requires to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress; depending on the interpretation of this text, admission of the full District as a state may require a Constitutional amendment, which is much more difficult to enact. However, <hl> the Constitution does not set a minimum size for the District <hl>. Its size has already changed once before, when Virginia reclaimed the portion of the District south of the Potomac. So the constitutional requirement for a federal district can be satisfied by reducing its size to the small central core of government buildings and monuments, giving the rest of the territory to the new state.

However, <hl> the Constitution does not set a minimum size for the District <hl> .


Question: What caused the size of Washington, D.C. to change?

Answer: Virginia reclaimed the portion of the District south of the Potomac

Washington, D.C. is often mentioned as a candidate for statehood. In Federalist No. 43 of The Federalist Papers, James Madison considered the implications of the definition of the "seat of government" found in the United States Constitution. Although he noted potential conflicts of interest, and the need for a "municipal legislature for local purposes," Madison did not address the district's role in national voting. Legal scholars disagree on whether a simple act of Congress can admit the District as a state, due to its status as the seat of government of the United States, which Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution requires to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress; depending on the interpretation of this text, admission of the full District as a state may require a Constitutional amendment, which is much more difficult to enact. However, the Constitution does not set a minimum size for the District. <hl> Its size has already changed once before, when Virginia reclaimed the portion of the District south of the Potomac . <hl> So the constitutional requirement for a federal district can be satisfied by reducing its size to the small central core of government buildings and monuments, giving the rest of the territory to the new state.

Washington, D.C. is often mentioned as a candidate for statehood. In Federalist No. 43 of The Federalist Papers, James Madison considered the implications of the definition of the "seat of government" found in the United States Constitution. Although he noted potential conflicts of interest, and the need for a "municipal legislature for local purposes," Madison did not address the district's role in national voting. Legal scholars disagree on whether a simple act of Congress can admit the District as a state, due to its status as the seat of government of the United States, which Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution requires to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress; depending on the interpretation of this text, admission of the full District as a state may require a Constitutional amendment, which is much more difficult to enact. However, the Constitution does not set a minimum size for the District. Its size has already changed once before, when <hl> Virginia reclaimed the portion of the District south of the Potomac <hl>. So the constitutional requirement for a federal district can be satisfied by reducing its size to the small central core of government buildings and monuments, giving the rest of the territory to the new state.

Its size has already changed once before, when <hl> Virginia reclaimed the portion of the District south of the Potomac <hl> .


Question: What Revolutionary War motto have Washington, D.C. statehood supporters modified and used?

Washington, D.C. residents who support the statehood movement sometimes use a shortened version of the Revolutionary War protest motto "No taxation without representation", omitting the initial "No", denoting their lack of Congressional representation; the phrase is now printed on newly issued Washington, D.C. license plates (although a driver may choose to have the Washington, D.C. website address instead). President Bill Clinton's presidential limousine had the "Taxation without representation" license plate late in his term, while President George W. Bush had the vehicle's plates changed shortly after beginning his term in office. President Barack Obama had the license plates changed back to the protest style at the beginning of his second term.

Answer: "No taxation without representation", omitting the initial "No"

<hl> Washington, D.C. residents who support the statehood movement sometimes use a shortened version of the Revolutionary War protest motto "No taxation without representation", omitting the initial "No" , denoting their lack of Congressional representation; the phrase is now printed on newly issued Washington, D.C. license plates (although a driver may choose to have the Washington, D.C. website address instead). <hl> President Bill Clinton's presidential limousine had the "Taxation without representation" license plate late in his term, while President George W. Bush had the vehicle's plates changed shortly after beginning his term in office. President Barack Obama had the license plates changed back to the protest style at the beginning of his second term.

Washington, D.C. residents who support the statehood movement sometimes use a shortened version of the Revolutionary War protest motto <hl> "No taxation without representation", omitting the initial "No" <hl>, denoting their lack of Congressional representation; the phrase is now printed on newly issued Washington, D.C. license plates (although a driver may choose to have the Washington, D.C. website address instead). President Bill Clinton's presidential limousine had the "Taxation without representation" license plate late in his term, while President George W. Bush had the vehicle's plates changed shortly after beginning his term in office. President Barack Obama had the license plates changed back to the protest style at the beginning of his second term.

Washington, D.C. residents who support the statehood movement sometimes use a shortened version of the Revolutionary War protest motto <hl> "No taxation without representation", omitting the initial "No" <hl> , denoting their lack of Congressional representation; the phrase is now printed on newly issued Washington, D.C. license plates (although a driver may choose to have the Washington, D.C. website address instead).


Question: What does the phrase protest?

Answer: their lack of Congressional representation

<hl> Washington, D.C. residents who support the statehood movement sometimes use a shortened version of the Revolutionary War protest motto "No taxation without representation", omitting the initial "No", denoting their lack of Congressional representation ; the phrase is now printed on newly issued Washington, D.C. license plates (although a driver may choose to have the Washington, D.C. website address instead). <hl> President Bill Clinton's presidential limousine had the "Taxation without representation" license plate late in his term, while President George W. Bush had the vehicle's plates changed shortly after beginning his term in office. President Barack Obama had the license plates changed back to the protest style at the beginning of his second term.

Washington, D.C. residents who support the statehood movement sometimes use a shortened version of the Revolutionary War protest motto "No taxation without representation", omitting the initial "No", denoting <hl> their lack of Congressional representation <hl>; the phrase is now printed on newly issued Washington, D.C. license plates (although a driver may choose to have the Washington, D.C. website address instead). President Bill Clinton's presidential limousine had the "Taxation without representation" license plate late in his term, while President George W. Bush had the vehicle's plates changed shortly after beginning his term in office. President Barack Obama had the license plates changed back to the protest style at the beginning of his second term.

Washington, D.C. residents who support the statehood movement sometimes use a shortened version of the Revolutionary War protest motto "No taxation without representation", omitting the initial "No", denoting <hl> their lack of Congressional representation <hl> ; the phrase is now printed on newly issued Washington, D.C. license plates (although a driver may choose to have the Washington, D.C. website address instead).


Question: In what way has the phrase been spread wide?

Answer: the phrase is now printed on newly issued Washington, D.C. license plates

<hl> Washington, D.C. residents who support the statehood movement sometimes use a shortened version of the Revolutionary War protest motto "No taxation without representation", omitting the initial "No", denoting their lack of Congressional representation; the phrase is now printed on newly issued Washington, D.C. license plates (although a driver may choose to have the Washington, D.C. website address instead). <hl> President Bill Clinton's presidential limousine had the "Taxation without representation" license plate late in his term, while President George W. Bush had the vehicle's plates changed shortly after beginning his term in office. President Barack Obama had the license plates changed back to the protest style at the beginning of his second term.

Washington, D.C. residents who support the statehood movement sometimes use a shortened version of the Revolutionary War protest motto "No taxation without representation", omitting the initial "No", denoting their lack of Congressional representation; <hl> the phrase is now printed on newly issued Washington, D.C. license plates <hl> (although a driver may choose to have the Washington, D.C. website address instead). President Bill Clinton's presidential limousine had the "Taxation without representation" license plate late in his term, while President George W. Bush had the vehicle's plates changed shortly after beginning his term in office. President Barack Obama had the license plates changed back to the protest style at the beginning of his second term.


Question: When did Obama have the protest plates put on his Presidential limousine?

Answer: at the beginning of his second term

Washington, D.C. residents who support the statehood movement sometimes use a shortened version of the Revolutionary War protest motto "No taxation without representation", omitting the initial "No", denoting their lack of Congressional representation; the phrase is now printed on newly issued Washington, D.C. license plates (although a driver may choose to have the Washington, D.C. website address instead). President Bill Clinton's presidential limousine had the "Taxation without representation" license plate late in his term, while President George W. Bush had the vehicle's plates changed shortly after beginning his term in office. <hl> President Barack Obama had the license plates changed back to the protest style at the beginning of his second term . <hl>

Washington, D.C. residents who support the statehood movement sometimes use a shortened version of the Revolutionary War protest motto "No taxation without representation", omitting the initial "No", denoting their lack of Congressional representation; the phrase is now printed on newly issued Washington, D.C. license plates (although a driver may choose to have the Washington, D.C. website address instead). President Bill Clinton's presidential limousine had the "Taxation without representation" license plate late in his term, while President George W. Bush had the vehicle's plates changed shortly after beginning his term in office. President Barack Obama had the license plates changed back to the protest style <hl> at the beginning of his second term <hl>.

President Barack Obama had the license plates changed back to the protest style <hl> at the beginning of his second term <hl> .


Question: What party carried the position of D.C. Statehood?

This position was carried by the D.C. Statehood Party, a political party; it has since merged with the local Green Party affiliate to form the D.C. Statehood Green Party. The nearest this movement ever came to success was in 1978, when Congress passed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Two years later in 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of the state, which was to be called New Columbia. The drive for statehood stalled in 1985, however, when the Washington, D.C. Voting Rights Amendment failed because not enough states ratified the amendment within the seven-year span specified.

Answer: D.C. Statehood Party

<hl> This position was carried by the D.C. Statehood Party , a political party; it has since merged with the local Green Party affiliate to form the D.C. Statehood Green Party. <hl> The nearest this movement ever came to success was in 1978, when Congress passed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Two years later in 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of the state, which was to be called New Columbia. The drive for statehood stalled in 1985, however, when the Washington, D.C. Voting Rights Amendment failed because not enough states ratified the amendment within the seven-year span specified.

This position was carried by the <hl> D.C. Statehood Party <hl>, a political party; it has since merged with the local Green Party affiliate to form the D.C. Statehood Green Party. The nearest this movement ever came to success was in 1978, when Congress passed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Two years later in 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of the state, which was to be called New Columbia. The drive for statehood stalled in 1985, however, when the Washington, D.C. Voting Rights Amendment failed because not enough states ratified the amendment within the seven-year span specified.

This position was carried by the <hl> D.C. Statehood Party <hl> , a political party; it has since merged with the local Green Party affiliate to form the D.C. Statehood Green Party.


Question: What party did the D.C. Statehood Party merge when?

Answer: the local Green Party affiliate

<hl> This position was carried by the D.C. Statehood Party, a political party; it has since merged with the local Green Party affiliate to form the D.C. Statehood Green Party. <hl> The nearest this movement ever came to success was in 1978, when Congress passed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Two years later in 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of the state, which was to be called New Columbia. The drive for statehood stalled in 1985, however, when the Washington, D.C. Voting Rights Amendment failed because not enough states ratified the amendment within the seven-year span specified.

This position was carried by the D.C. Statehood Party, a political party; it has since merged with <hl> the local Green Party affiliate <hl> to form the D.C. Statehood Green Party. The nearest this movement ever came to success was in 1978, when Congress passed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Two years later in 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of the state, which was to be called New Columbia. The drive for statehood stalled in 1985, however, when the Washington, D.C. Voting Rights Amendment failed because not enough states ratified the amendment within the seven-year span specified.


Question: When did the movement get closest to success?

Answer: 1978

This position was carried by the D.C. Statehood Party, a political party; it has since merged with the local Green Party affiliate to form the D.C. Statehood Green Party. <hl> The nearest this movement ever came to success was in 1978 , when Congress passed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. <hl> Two years later in 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of the state, which was to be called New Columbia. The drive for statehood stalled in 1985, however, when the Washington, D.C. Voting Rights Amendment failed because not enough states ratified the amendment within the seven-year span specified.

This position was carried by the D.C. Statehood Party, a political party; it has since merged with the local Green Party affiliate to form the D.C. Statehood Green Party. The nearest this movement ever came to success was in <hl> 1978 <hl>, when Congress passed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Two years later in 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of the state, which was to be called New Columbia. The drive for statehood stalled in 1985, however, when the Washington, D.C. Voting Rights Amendment failed because not enough states ratified the amendment within the seven-year span specified.

The nearest this movement ever came to success was in <hl> 1978 <hl> , when Congress passed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment.


Question: What would be the new name of the D.C. State?

Answer: New Columbia

This position was carried by the D.C. Statehood Party, a political party; it has since merged with the local Green Party affiliate to form the D.C. Statehood Green Party. The nearest this movement ever came to success was in 1978, when Congress passed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Two years later in 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. <hl> In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of the state, which was to be called New Columbia . <hl> The drive for statehood stalled in 1985, however, when the Washington, D.C. Voting Rights Amendment failed because not enough states ratified the amendment within the seven-year span specified.

This position was carried by the D.C. Statehood Party, a political party; it has since merged with the local Green Party affiliate to form the D.C. Statehood Green Party. The nearest this movement ever came to success was in 1978, when Congress passed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Two years later in 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of the state, which was to be called <hl> New Columbia <hl>. The drive for statehood stalled in 1985, however, when the Washington, D.C. Voting Rights Amendment failed because not enough states ratified the amendment within the seven-year span specified.

In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of the state, which was to be called <hl> New Columbia <hl> .


Question: When did the drive for statehood falter?

Answer: 1985

This position was carried by the D.C. Statehood Party, a political party; it has since merged with the local Green Party affiliate to form the D.C. Statehood Green Party. The nearest this movement ever came to success was in 1978, when Congress passed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Two years later in 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of the state, which was to be called New Columbia. <hl> The drive for statehood stalled in 1985 , however, when the Washington, D.C. Voting Rights Amendment failed because not enough states ratified the amendment within the seven-year span specified. <hl>

This position was carried by the D.C. Statehood Party, a political party; it has since merged with the local Green Party affiliate to form the D.C. Statehood Green Party. The nearest this movement ever came to success was in 1978, when Congress passed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Two years later in 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of the state, which was to be called New Columbia. The drive for statehood stalled in <hl> 1985 <hl>, however, when the Washington, D.C. Voting Rights Amendment failed because not enough states ratified the amendment within the seven-year span specified.

The drive for statehood stalled in <hl> 1985 <hl> , however, when the Washington, D.C. Voting Rights Amendment failed because not enough states ratified the amendment within the seven-year span specified.


Question: What is another likely country for statehood?

Other less likely contenders are Guam and the United States Virgin Islands, both of which are unincorporated organized territories of the United States. Also, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa, an unorganized, unincorporated territory, could both attempt to gain statehood. Some proposals call for the Virgin Islands to be admitted with Puerto Rico as one state (often known as the proposed "Commonwealth of Prusvi", for Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands, or as "Puerto Virgo"), and for the amalgamation of U.S. territories or former territories in the Pacific Ocean, in the manner of the "Greater Hawaii" concept of the 1960s. Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands would be admitted as one state, along with Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands (although these latter three entities are now separate sovereign nations, which have Compact of Free Association relationships with the United States). Such a state would have a population of 412,381 (slightly lower than Wyoming's population) and a land area of 911.82 square miles (2,361.6 km2) (slightly smaller than Rhode Island). American Samoa could possibly be part of such a state, increasing the population to 467,900 and the area to 988.65 square miles (2,560.6 km2). Radio Australia, in late May 2008, issued signs of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands becoming one again and becoming the 51st state.

Answer: Guam

<hl> Other less likely contenders are Guam and the United States Virgin Islands, both of which are unincorporated organized territories of the United States. <hl> Also, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa, an unorganized, unincorporated territory, could both attempt to gain statehood. Some proposals call for the Virgin Islands to be admitted with Puerto Rico as one state (often known as the proposed "Commonwealth of Prusvi", for Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands, or as "Puerto Virgo"), and for the amalgamation of U.S. territories or former territories in the Pacific Ocean, in the manner of the "Greater Hawaii" concept of the 1960s. Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands would be admitted as one state, along with Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands (although these latter three entities are now separate sovereign nations, which have Compact of Free Association relationships with the United States). Such a state would have a population of 412,381 (slightly lower than Wyoming's population) and a land area of 911.82 square miles (2,361.6 km2) (slightly smaller than Rhode Island). American Samoa could possibly be part of such a state, increasing the population to 467,900 and the area to 988.65 square miles (2,560.6 km2). Radio Australia, in late May 2008, issued signs of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands becoming one again and becoming the 51st state.

Other less likely contenders are <hl> Guam <hl> and the United States Virgin Islands, both of which are unincorporated organized territories of the United States. Also, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa, an unorganized, unincorporated territory, could both attempt to gain statehood. Some proposals call for the Virgin Islands to be admitted with Puerto Rico as one state (often known as the proposed "Commonwealth of Prusvi", for Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands, or as "Puerto Virgo"), and for the amalgamation of U.S. territories or former territories in the Pacific Ocean, in the manner of the "Greater Hawaii" concept of the 1960s. Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands would be admitted as one state, along with Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands (although these latter three entities are now separate sovereign nations, which have Compact of Free Association relationships with the United States). Such a state would have a population of 412,381 (slightly lower than Wyoming's population) and a land area of 911.82 square miles (2,361.6 km2) (slightly smaller than Rhode Island). American Samoa could possibly be part of such a state, increasing the population to 467,900 and the area to 988.65 square miles (2,560.6 km2). Radio Australia, in late May 2008, issued signs of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands becoming one again and becoming the 51st state.


Question: What is another likely country for statehood?

Answer: United States Virgin Islands

<hl> Other less likely contenders are Guam and the United States Virgin Islands , both of which are unincorporated organized territories of the United States. <hl> Also, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa, an unorganized, unincorporated territory, could both attempt to gain statehood. Some proposals call for the Virgin Islands to be admitted with Puerto Rico as one state (often known as the proposed "Commonwealth of Prusvi", for Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands, or as "Puerto Virgo"), and for the amalgamation of U.S. territories or former territories in the Pacific Ocean, in the manner of the "Greater Hawaii" concept of the 1960s. Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands would be admitted as one state, along with Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands (although these latter three entities are now separate sovereign nations, which have Compact of Free Association relationships with the United States). Such a state would have a population of 412,381 (slightly lower than Wyoming's population) and a land area of 911.82 square miles (2,361.6 km2) (slightly smaller than Rhode Island). American Samoa could possibly be part of such a state, increasing the population to 467,900 and the area to 988.65 square miles (2,560.6 km2). Radio Australia, in late May 2008, issued signs of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands becoming one again and becoming the 51st state.

Other less likely contenders are Guam and the <hl> United States Virgin Islands <hl>, both of which are unincorporated organized territories of the United States. Also, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa, an unorganized, unincorporated territory, could both attempt to gain statehood. Some proposals call for the Virgin Islands to be admitted with Puerto Rico as one state (often known as the proposed "Commonwealth of Prusvi", for Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands, or as "Puerto Virgo"), and for the amalgamation of U.S. territories or former territories in the Pacific Ocean, in the manner of the "Greater Hawaii" concept of the 1960s. Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands would be admitted as one state, along with Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands (although these latter three entities are now separate sovereign nations, which have Compact of Free Association relationships with the United States). Such a state would have a population of 412,381 (slightly lower than Wyoming's population) and a land area of 911.82 square miles (2,361.6 km2) (slightly smaller than Rhode Island). American Samoa could possibly be part of such a state, increasing the population to 467,900 and the area to 988.65 square miles (2,560.6 km2). Radio Australia, in late May 2008, issued signs of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands becoming one again and becoming the 51st state.

Other less likely contenders are Guam and the <hl> United States Virgin Islands <hl> , both of which are unincorporated organized territories of the United States.


Question: What entity reported on Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands becoming one again?

Answer: Radio Australia

Other less likely contenders are Guam and the United States Virgin Islands, both of which are unincorporated organized territories of the United States. Also, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa, an unorganized, unincorporated territory, could both attempt to gain statehood. Some proposals call for the Virgin Islands to be admitted with Puerto Rico as one state (often known as the proposed "Commonwealth of Prusvi", for Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands, or as "Puerto Virgo"), and for the amalgamation of U.S. territories or former territories in the Pacific Ocean, in the manner of the "Greater Hawaii" concept of the 1960s. Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands would be admitted as one state, along with Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands (although these latter three entities are now separate sovereign nations, which have Compact of Free Association relationships with the United States). Such a state would have a population of 412,381 (slightly lower than Wyoming's population) and a land area of 911.82 square miles (2,361.6 km2) (slightly smaller than Rhode Island). American Samoa could possibly be part of such a state, increasing the population to 467,900 and the area to 988.65 square miles (2,560.6 km2). <hl> Radio Australia , in late May 2008, issued signs of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands becoming one again and becoming the 51st state. <hl>

Other less likely contenders are Guam and the United States Virgin Islands, both of which are unincorporated organized territories of the United States. Also, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa, an unorganized, unincorporated territory, could both attempt to gain statehood. Some proposals call for the Virgin Islands to be admitted with Puerto Rico as one state (often known as the proposed "Commonwealth of Prusvi", for Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands, or as "Puerto Virgo"), and for the amalgamation of U.S. territories or former territories in the Pacific Ocean, in the manner of the "Greater Hawaii" concept of the 1960s. Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands would be admitted as one state, along with Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands (although these latter three entities are now separate sovereign nations, which have Compact of Free Association relationships with the United States). Such a state would have a population of 412,381 (slightly lower than Wyoming's population) and a land area of 911.82 square miles (2,361.6 km2) (slightly smaller than Rhode Island). American Samoa could possibly be part of such a state, increasing the population to 467,900 and the area to 988.65 square miles (2,560.6 km2). <hl> Radio Australia <hl>, in late May 2008, issued signs of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands becoming one again and becoming the 51st state.

<hl> Radio Australia <hl> , in late May 2008, issued signs of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands becoming one again and becoming the 51st state.


Question: What country had small grassroots movement for US Statehood?

The Philippines has had small grassroots movements for U.S. statehood. Originally part of the platform of the Progressive Party, then known as the Federalista Party, the party dropped it in 1907, which coincided with the name change. As recently as 2004, the concept of the Philippines becoming a U.S. state has been part of a political platform in the Philippines. Supporters of this movement include Filipinos who believe that the quality of life in the Philippines would be higher and that there would be less poverty there if the Philippines were an American state or territory. Supporters also include Filipinos that had fought as members of the United States Armed Forces in various wars during the Commonwealth period.

Answer: The Philippines

<hl> The Philippines has had small grassroots movements for U.S. statehood. <hl> Originally part of the platform of the Progressive Party, then known as the Federalista Party, the party dropped it in 1907, which coincided with the name change. As recently as 2004, the concept of the Philippines becoming a U.S. state has been part of a political platform in the Philippines. Supporters of this movement include Filipinos who believe that the quality of life in the Philippines would be higher and that there would be less poverty there if the Philippines were an American state or territory. Supporters also include Filipinos that had fought as members of the United States Armed Forces in various wars during the Commonwealth period.

<hl> The Philippines <hl> has had small grassroots movements for U.S. statehood. Originally part of the platform of the Progressive Party, then known as the Federalista Party, the party dropped it in 1907, which coincided with the name change. As recently as 2004, the concept of the Philippines becoming a U.S. state has been part of a political platform in the Philippines. Supporters of this movement include Filipinos who believe that the quality of life in the Philippines would be higher and that there would be less poverty there if the Philippines were an American state or territory. Supporters also include Filipinos that had fought as members of the United States Armed Forces in various wars during the Commonwealth period.


Question: What party used to be known as the Federalista Party?

Answer: Federalista Party

The Philippines has had small grassroots movements for U.S. statehood. <hl> Originally part of the platform of the Progressive Party, then known as the Federalista Party , the party dropped it in 1907, which coincided with the name change. <hl> As recently as 2004, the concept of the Philippines becoming a U.S. state has been part of a political platform in the Philippines. Supporters of this movement include Filipinos who believe that the quality of life in the Philippines would be higher and that there would be less poverty there if the Philippines were an American state or territory. Supporters also include Filipinos that had fought as members of the United States Armed Forces in various wars during the Commonwealth period.

The Philippines has had small grassroots movements for U.S. statehood. Originally part of the platform of the Progressive Party, then known as the <hl> Federalista Party <hl>, the party dropped it in 1907, which coincided with the name change. As recently as 2004, the concept of the Philippines becoming a U.S. state has been part of a political platform in the Philippines. Supporters of this movement include Filipinos who believe that the quality of life in the Philippines would be higher and that there would be less poverty there if the Philippines were an American state or territory. Supporters also include Filipinos that had fought as members of the United States Armed Forces in various wars during the Commonwealth period.

Originally part of the platform of the Progressive Party, then known as the <hl> Federalista Party <hl> , the party dropped it in 1907, which coincided with the name change.


Question: What was the most recent year of the Phillipines pushing for statehood?

Answer: 2004

The Philippines has had small grassroots movements for U.S. statehood. Originally part of the platform of the Progressive Party, then known as the Federalista Party, the party dropped it in 1907, which coincided with the name change. <hl> As recently as 2004 , the concept of the Philippines becoming a U.S. state has been part of a political platform in the Philippines. <hl> Supporters of this movement include Filipinos who believe that the quality of life in the Philippines would be higher and that there would be less poverty there if the Philippines were an American state or territory. Supporters also include Filipinos that had fought as members of the United States Armed Forces in various wars during the Commonwealth period.

The Philippines has had small grassroots movements for U.S. statehood. Originally part of the platform of the Progressive Party, then known as the Federalista Party, the party dropped it in 1907, which coincided with the name change. As recently as <hl> 2004 <hl>, the concept of the Philippines becoming a U.S. state has been part of a political platform in the Philippines. Supporters of this movement include Filipinos who believe that the quality of life in the Philippines would be higher and that there would be less poverty there if the Philippines were an American state or territory. Supporters also include Filipinos that had fought as members of the United States Armed Forces in various wars during the Commonwealth period.

As recently as <hl> 2004 <hl> , the concept of the Philippines becoming a U.S. state has been part of a political platform in the Philippines.


Question: What is another connotation for the 51st state label?

In Canada, "the 51st state" is a phrase generally used in such a way as to imply that if a certain political course is taken, Canada's destiny will be as little more than a part of the United States. Examples include the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the debate over the creation of a common defense perimeter, and as a potential consequence of not adopting proposals intended to resolve the issue of Quebec sovereignty, the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 and the Clarity Act in 1999.

Answer: if a certain political course is taken, Canada's destiny will be as little more than a part of the United States

<hl> In Canada, "the 51st state" is a phrase generally used in such a way as to imply that if a certain political course is taken, Canada's destiny will be as little more than a part of the United States . <hl> Examples include the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the debate over the creation of a common defense perimeter, and as a potential consequence of not adopting proposals intended to resolve the issue of Quebec sovereignty, the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 and the Clarity Act in 1999.

In Canada, "the 51st state" is a phrase generally used in such a way as to imply that <hl> if a certain political course is taken, Canada's destiny will be as little more than a part of the United States <hl>. Examples include the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the debate over the creation of a common defense perimeter, and as a potential consequence of not adopting proposals intended to resolve the issue of Quebec sovereignty, the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 and the Clarity Act in 1999.

In Canada, "the 51st state" is a phrase generally used in such a way as to imply that <hl> if a certain political course is taken, Canada's destiny will be as little more than a part of the United States <hl> .


Question: When was the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement enacted?

Answer: 1988

In Canada, "the 51st state" is a phrase generally used in such a way as to imply that if a certain political course is taken, Canada's destiny will be as little more than a part of the United States. <hl> Examples include the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988 , the debate over the creation of a common defense perimeter, and as a potential consequence of not adopting proposals intended to resolve the issue of Quebec sovereignty, the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 and the Clarity Act in 1999. <hl>

In Canada, "the 51st state" is a phrase generally used in such a way as to imply that if a certain political course is taken, Canada's destiny will be as little more than a part of the United States. Examples include the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement in <hl> 1988 <hl>, the debate over the creation of a common defense perimeter, and as a potential consequence of not adopting proposals intended to resolve the issue of Quebec sovereignty, the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 and the Clarity Act in 1999.

Examples include the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement in <hl> 1988 <hl> , the debate over the creation of a common defense perimeter, and as a potential consequence of not adopting proposals intended to resolve the issue of Quebec sovereignty, the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 and the Clarity Act in 1999.


Question: When was the Charlottetown Accord signed?

Answer: 1992

In Canada, "the 51st state" is a phrase generally used in such a way as to imply that if a certain political course is taken, Canada's destiny will be as little more than a part of the United States. <hl> Examples include the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the debate over the creation of a common defense perimeter, and as a potential consequence of not adopting proposals intended to resolve the issue of Quebec sovereignty, the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 and the Clarity Act in 1999. <hl>

In Canada, "the 51st state" is a phrase generally used in such a way as to imply that if a certain political course is taken, Canada's destiny will be as little more than a part of the United States. Examples include the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the debate over the creation of a common defense perimeter, and as a potential consequence of not adopting proposals intended to resolve the issue of Quebec sovereignty, the Charlottetown Accord in <hl> 1992 <hl> and the Clarity Act in 1999.


Question: When did the Clarity Act go into effect?

Answer: 1999

In Canada, "the 51st state" is a phrase generally used in such a way as to imply that if a certain political course is taken, Canada's destiny will be as little more than a part of the United States. <hl> Examples include the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the debate over the creation of a common defense perimeter, and as a potential consequence of not adopting proposals intended to resolve the issue of Quebec sovereignty, the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 and the Clarity Act in 1999 . <hl>

In Canada, "the 51st state" is a phrase generally used in such a way as to imply that if a certain political course is taken, Canada's destiny will be as little more than a part of the United States. Examples include the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the debate over the creation of a common defense perimeter, and as a potential consequence of not adopting proposals intended to resolve the issue of Quebec sovereignty, the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 and the Clarity Act in <hl> 1999 <hl>.

Examples include the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the debate over the creation of a common defense perimeter, and as a potential consequence of not adopting proposals intended to resolve the issue of Quebec sovereignty, the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 and the Clarity Act in <hl> 1999 <hl> .


Question: Who suggested that the Free Trade Agreement amounted to an American takeover of Canada?

The phrase is usually used in local political debates, in polemic writing or in private conversations. It is rarely used by politicians themselves in a public context, although at certain times in Canadian history political parties have used other similarly loaded imagery. In the 1988 federal election, the Liberals asserted that the proposed Free Trade Agreement amounted to an American takeover of Canada—notably, the party ran an ad in which Progressive Conservative (PC) strategists, upon the adoption of the agreement, slowly erased the Canada-U.S. border from a desktop map of North America. Within days, however, the PCs responded with an ad which featured the border being drawn back on with a permanent marker, as an announcer intoned "Here's where we draw the line."

Answer: Liberals

The phrase is usually used in local political debates, in polemic writing or in private conversations. It is rarely used by politicians themselves in a public context, although at certain times in Canadian history political parties have used other similarly loaded imagery. <hl> In the 1988 federal election, the Liberals asserted that the proposed Free Trade Agreement amounted to an American takeover of Canada—notably, the party ran an ad in which Progressive Conservative (PC) strategists, upon the adoption of the agreement, slowly erased the Canada-U.S. border from a desktop map of North America. <hl> Within days, however, the PCs responded with an ad which featured the border being drawn back on with a permanent marker, as an announcer intoned "Here's where we draw the line."

The phrase is usually used in local political debates, in polemic writing or in private conversations. It is rarely used by politicians themselves in a public context, although at certain times in Canadian history political parties have used other similarly loaded imagery. In the 1988 federal election, the <hl> Liberals <hl> asserted that the proposed Free Trade Agreement amounted to an American takeover of Canada—notably, the party ran an ad in which Progressive Conservative (PC) strategists, upon the adoption of the agreement, slowly erased the Canada-U.S. border from a desktop map of North America. Within days, however, the PCs responded with an ad which featured the border being drawn back on with a permanent marker, as an announcer intoned "Here's where we draw the line."


Question: When was this campaign ran?

Answer: In the 1988 federal election

The phrase is usually used in local political debates, in polemic writing or in private conversations. It is rarely used by politicians themselves in a public context, although at certain times in Canadian history political parties have used other similarly loaded imagery. <hl> In the 1988 federal election , the Liberals asserted that the proposed Free Trade Agreement amounted to an American takeover of Canada—notably, the party ran an ad in which Progressive Conservative (PC) strategists, upon the adoption of the agreement, slowly erased the Canada-U.S. border from a desktop map of North America. <hl> Within days, however, the PCs responded with an ad which featured the border being drawn back on with a permanent marker, as an announcer intoned "Here's where we draw the line."

The phrase is usually used in local political debates, in polemic writing or in private conversations. It is rarely used by politicians themselves in a public context, although at certain times in Canadian history political parties have used other similarly loaded imagery. <hl> In the 1988 federal election <hl>, the Liberals asserted that the proposed Free Trade Agreement amounted to an American takeover of Canada—notably, the party ran an ad in which Progressive Conservative (PC) strategists, upon the adoption of the agreement, slowly erased the Canada-U.S. border from a desktop map of North America. Within days, however, the PCs responded with an ad which featured the border being drawn back on with a permanent marker, as an announcer intoned "Here's where we draw the line."

<hl> In the 1988 federal election <hl> , the Liberals asserted that the proposed Free Trade Agreement amounted to an American takeover of Canada—notably, the party ran an ad in which Progressive Conservative (PC) strategists, upon the adoption of the agreement, slowly erased the Canada-U.S. border from a desktop map of North America.


Question: Who erased the border in the ad?

Answer: Progressive Conservative (PC) strategists

The phrase is usually used in local political debates, in polemic writing or in private conversations. It is rarely used by politicians themselves in a public context, although at certain times in Canadian history political parties have used other similarly loaded imagery. <hl> In the 1988 federal election, the Liberals asserted that the proposed Free Trade Agreement amounted to an American takeover of Canada—notably, the party ran an ad in which Progressive Conservative (PC) strategists , upon the adoption of the agreement, slowly erased the Canada-U.S. border from a desktop map of North America. <hl> Within days, however, the PCs responded with an ad which featured the border being drawn back on with a permanent marker, as an announcer intoned "Here's where we draw the line."

The phrase is usually used in local political debates, in polemic writing or in private conversations. It is rarely used by politicians themselves in a public context, although at certain times in Canadian history political parties have used other similarly loaded imagery. In the 1988 federal election, the Liberals asserted that the proposed Free Trade Agreement amounted to an American takeover of Canada—notably, the party ran an ad in which <hl> Progressive Conservative (PC) strategists <hl>, upon the adoption of the agreement, slowly erased the Canada-U.S. border from a desktop map of North America. Within days, however, the PCs responded with an ad which featured the border being drawn back on with a permanent marker, as an announcer intoned "Here's where we draw the line."

In the 1988 federal election, the Liberals asserted that the proposed Free Trade Agreement amounted to an American takeover of Canada—notably, the party ran an ad in which <hl> Progressive Conservative (PC) strategists <hl> , upon the adoption of the agreement, slowly erased the Canada-U.S. border from a desktop map of North America.


Question: What was the slogan of this ad?

Answer: "Here's where we draw the line."

The phrase is usually used in local political debates, in polemic writing or in private conversations. It is rarely used by politicians themselves in a public context, although at certain times in Canadian history political parties have used other similarly loaded imagery. In the 1988 federal election, the Liberals asserted that the proposed Free Trade Agreement amounted to an American takeover of Canada—notably, the party ran an ad in which Progressive Conservative (PC) strategists, upon the adoption of the agreement, slowly erased the Canada-U.S. border from a desktop map of North America. <hl> Within days, however, the PCs responded with an ad which featured the border being drawn back on with a permanent marker, as an announcer intoned "Here's where we draw the line." <hl>

The phrase is usually used in local political debates, in polemic writing or in private conversations. It is rarely used by politicians themselves in a public context, although at certain times in Canadian history political parties have used other similarly loaded imagery. In the 1988 federal election, the Liberals asserted that the proposed Free Trade Agreement amounted to an American takeover of Canada—notably, the party ran an ad in which Progressive Conservative (PC) strategists, upon the adoption of the agreement, slowly erased the Canada-U.S. border from a desktop map of North America. Within days, however, the PCs responded with an ad which featured the border being drawn back on with a permanent marker, as an announcer intoned <hl> "Here's where we draw the line." <hl>


Question: When did Quebec land in British hands?

The implication has historical basis and dates to the breakup of British America during the American Revolution. The colonies that had confederated to form the United States invaded Canada (at the time a term referring specifically to the modern-day provinces of Quebec and Ontario, which had only been in British hands since 1763) at least twice, neither time succeeding in taking control of the territory. The first invasion was during the Revolution, under the assumption that French-speaking Canadians' presumed hostility towards British colonial rule combined with the Franco-American alliance would make them natural allies to the American cause; the Continental Army successfully recruited two Canadian regiments for the invasion. That invasion's failure forced the members of those regiments into exile, and they settled mostly in upstate New York. The Articles of Confederation, written during the Revolution, included a provision for Canada to join the United States, should they ever decide to do so, without needing to seek U.S. permission as other states would. The United States again invaded Canada during the War of 1812, but this effort was made more difficult due to the large number of Loyalist Americans that had fled to what is now Ontario and still resisted joining the republic. The Hunter Patriots in the 1830s and the Fenian raids after the American Civil War were private attacks on Canada from the U.S. Several U.S. politicians in the 19th century also spoke in favour of annexing Canada.

Answer: 1763

The implication has historical basis and dates to the breakup of British America during the American Revolution. <hl> The colonies that had confederated to form the United States invaded Canada (at the time a term referring specifically to the modern-day provinces of Quebec and Ontario, which had only been in British hands since 1763 ) at least twice, neither time succeeding in taking control of the territory. <hl> The first invasion was during the Revolution, under the assumption that French-speaking Canadians' presumed hostility towards British colonial rule combined with the Franco-American alliance would make them natural allies to the American cause; the Continental Army successfully recruited two Canadian regiments for the invasion. That invasion's failure forced the members of those regiments into exile, and they settled mostly in upstate New York. The Articles of Confederation, written during the Revolution, included a provision for Canada to join the United States, should they ever decide to do so, without needing to seek U.S. permission as other states would. The United States again invaded Canada during the War of 1812, but this effort was made more difficult due to the large number of Loyalist Americans that had fled to what is now Ontario and still resisted joining the republic. The Hunter Patriots in the 1830s and the Fenian raids after the American Civil War were private attacks on Canada from the U.S. Several U.S. politicians in the 19th century also spoke in favour of annexing Canada.

The implication has historical basis and dates to the breakup of British America during the American Revolution. The colonies that had confederated to form the United States invaded Canada (at the time a term referring specifically to the modern-day provinces of Quebec and Ontario, which had only been in British hands since <hl> 1763 <hl>) at least twice, neither time succeeding in taking control of the territory. The first invasion was during the Revolution, under the assumption that French-speaking Canadians' presumed hostility towards British colonial rule combined with the Franco-American alliance would make them natural allies to the American cause; the Continental Army successfully recruited two Canadian regiments for the invasion. That invasion's failure forced the members of those regiments into exile, and they settled mostly in upstate New York. The Articles of Confederation, written during the Revolution, included a provision for Canada to join the United States, should they ever decide to do so, without needing to seek U.S. permission as other states would. The United States again invaded Canada during the War of 1812, but this effort was made more difficult due to the large number of Loyalist Americans that had fled to what is now Ontario and still resisted joining the republic. The Hunter Patriots in the 1830s and the Fenian raids after the American Civil War were private attacks on Canada from the U.S. Several U.S. politicians in the 19th century also spoke in favour of annexing Canada.

The colonies that had confederated to form the United States invaded Canada (at the time a term referring specifically to the modern-day provinces of Quebec and Ontario, which had only been in British hands since <hl> 1763 <hl> ) at least twice, neither time succeeding in taking control of the territory.


Question: When did Ontario land in British hands?

Answer: 1763

The implication has historical basis and dates to the breakup of British America during the American Revolution. <hl> The colonies that had confederated to form the United States invaded Canada (at the time a term referring specifically to the modern-day provinces of Quebec and Ontario, which had only been in British hands since 1763 ) at least twice, neither time succeeding in taking control of the territory. <hl> The first invasion was during the Revolution, under the assumption that French-speaking Canadians' presumed hostility towards British colonial rule combined with the Franco-American alliance would make them natural allies to the American cause; the Continental Army successfully recruited two Canadian regiments for the invasion. That invasion's failure forced the members of those regiments into exile, and they settled mostly in upstate New York. The Articles of Confederation, written during the Revolution, included a provision for Canada to join the United States, should they ever decide to do so, without needing to seek U.S. permission as other states would. The United States again invaded Canada during the War of 1812, but this effort was made more difficult due to the large number of Loyalist Americans that had fled to what is now Ontario and still resisted joining the republic. The Hunter Patriots in the 1830s and the Fenian raids after the American Civil War were private attacks on Canada from the U.S. Several U.S. politicians in the 19th century also spoke in favour of annexing Canada.

The implication has historical basis and dates to the breakup of British America during the American Revolution. The colonies that had confederated to form the United States invaded Canada (at the time a term referring specifically to the modern-day provinces of Quebec and Ontario, which had only been in British hands since <hl> 1763 <hl>) at least twice, neither time succeeding in taking control of the territory. The first invasion was during the Revolution, under the assumption that French-speaking Canadians' presumed hostility towards British colonial rule combined with the Franco-American alliance would make them natural allies to the American cause; the Continental Army successfully recruited two Canadian regiments for the invasion. That invasion's failure forced the members of those regiments into exile, and they settled mostly in upstate New York. The Articles of Confederation, written during the Revolution, included a provision for Canada to join the United States, should they ever decide to do so, without needing to seek U.S. permission as other states would. The United States again invaded Canada during the War of 1812, but this effort was made more difficult due to the large number of Loyalist Americans that had fled to what is now Ontario and still resisted joining the republic. The Hunter Patriots in the 1830s and the Fenian raids after the American Civil War were private attacks on Canada from the U.S. Several U.S. politicians in the 19th century also spoke in favour of annexing Canada.

The colonies that had confederated to form the United States invaded Canada (at the time a term referring specifically to the modern-day provinces of Quebec and Ontario, which had only been in British hands since <hl> 1763 <hl> ) at least twice, neither time succeeding in taking control of the territory.


Question: During which the US invade Canada?

Answer: the War of 1812

The implication has historical basis and dates to the breakup of British America during the American Revolution. The colonies that had confederated to form the United States invaded Canada (at the time a term referring specifically to the modern-day provinces of Quebec and Ontario, which had only been in British hands since 1763) at least twice, neither time succeeding in taking control of the territory. The first invasion was during the Revolution, under the assumption that French-speaking Canadians' presumed hostility towards British colonial rule combined with the Franco-American alliance would make them natural allies to the American cause; the Continental Army successfully recruited two Canadian regiments for the invasion. That invasion's failure forced the members of those regiments into exile, and they settled mostly in upstate New York. The Articles of Confederation, written during the Revolution, included a provision for Canada to join the United States, should they ever decide to do so, without needing to seek U.S. permission as other states would. <hl> The United States again invaded Canada during the War of 1812 , but this effort was made more difficult due to the large number of Loyalist Americans that had fled to what is now Ontario and still resisted joining the republic. <hl> The Hunter Patriots in the 1830s and the Fenian raids after the American Civil War were private attacks on Canada from the U.S. Several U.S. politicians in the 19th century also spoke in favour of annexing Canada.

The implication has historical basis and dates to the breakup of British America during the American Revolution. The colonies that had confederated to form the United States invaded Canada (at the time a term referring specifically to the modern-day provinces of Quebec and Ontario, which had only been in British hands since 1763) at least twice, neither time succeeding in taking control of the territory. The first invasion was during the Revolution, under the assumption that French-speaking Canadians' presumed hostility towards British colonial rule combined with the Franco-American alliance would make them natural allies to the American cause; the Continental Army successfully recruited two Canadian regiments for the invasion. That invasion's failure forced the members of those regiments into exile, and they settled mostly in upstate New York. The Articles of Confederation, written during the Revolution, included a provision for Canada to join the United States, should they ever decide to do so, without needing to seek U.S. permission as other states would. The United States again invaded Canada during <hl> the War of 1812 <hl>, but this effort was made more difficult due to the large number of Loyalist Americans that had fled to what is now Ontario and still resisted joining the republic. The Hunter Patriots in the 1830s and the Fenian raids after the American Civil War were private attacks on Canada from the U.S. Several U.S. politicians in the 19th century also spoke in favour of annexing Canada.

The United States again invaded Canada during <hl> the War of 1812 <hl> , but this effort was made more difficult due to the large number of Loyalist Americans that had fled to what is now Ontario and still resisted joining the republic.