« Freddie the Beetle | Main | The WC? »

January 20, 2006

Comments

Jon Corzine, Gov. Dude

Well, considering that Virginia is one of four "States" that are actually "Commonwealths", it would seem that a D.C. official referring to a Virginian as "Out of State", would be more ambiguous than you had originally anticipated.....

R.J. Lehmann

But there's nothing contradictory about being both a commonwealth and a state. We also have a couple of states (California, Texas) whose official incorporation is "Republic of.." This doesn't render them not states.

In the U.S., there are some commonwealths that have been admitted to the union, and are considered states (VA, PA, MA, Ky) while others (Puerto Rico, Northern Mariannas) have not been admitted and are considered "territories."

But the District of Columbia is neither. It is a city, it is a district, it is a jurisdiction, but it is not a commonwealth, not a republic, not a territory, and specifically not a state.

In any case, the phrase "out of state" would seem to rely on the speaker being IN-state, not whether the item being referred to came from a state itself. Quebec is a province, not a state, but a Quebec license plate would still fall broadly under the category of an "out of state" plate, provided the speaker was IN a state.

Jon Corzine, Gov. Dude

Yes, you are correct, and I allude to you. I did not miss your point - was just enjoying the paradox. Following your rendition, how is it that we consider ourselves "United States"; when afterall, we are a conglomerate of states, commonwealths, and republics - and even territories? D.C. is autonomously Federal...where does that fit in?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Tip Jar

Change is good

Tip Jar