The 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards Flag Bearers displaying flags from each of the 53 commonwealth nations in the forecourt of Buckingham Palace on April 19, 2013. | Photo (PO(Phot) Owen Cooban on Wikimedia Commons
Part XV of the “Pocketbook Politics” Series
This columnist proposes that voters in 46 states must petition their political leaders to change the name of their political territory from State to Commonwealth. They must emulate the peoples of the four commonwealth states of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. This can be an excellent New Year’s resolution for ordinary folks, especially the marginalized citizens of a country with the world’s most powerful military and biggest economy.
The term “commonwealth” is also used in the complete official names of two U.S. island territories: the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.
Political science professors say that the term “commonwealth” is used in the official names of these states. But in reality, the four commonwealth states have no legal or political significance. The four states are like any other state in their politics, laws, and relationship to the nation. Really?
It is public knowledge that the term “commonwealth” is a traditional English term describing a political community founded for the common good. It was popular in the era leading up to 1780 when the state constitutions of these four states were ratified. The term was also preferred by several political pundits and journalists who held some anti-monarchic and anti-strongman sentiment among the populace.
This columnist argues that the leaders of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia can initiate even amendments to the United States Constitution to create the change to the “commonwealth” status of their states. Why? “Commonwealth” should not only be in name but also more sharing of powers with the federal government. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico can help promote this double vision.
Political pundits and legal minds, especially experts on the U.S. Constitution, will agree that the four commonwealth states were all British colonial possessions before the formation of the United States in 1776. Some of their laws and institutions are strongly influenced by English common law.
Therefore, it can be argued that the peoples of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have the right to insist that their status as “commonwealth states” be preserved and expanded. Why? Because they had self-governance in place when they joined the United States of America.
A federal (or national) government has the right only to handle the commonwealth’s foreign affairs, military, treasury, and central bank, and its federal courts (as well as its Federal Supreme Court) must only handle cases that involve perceived or alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution. This writer argued it when he studied (from 1966 to 1970) in the Benedictine-run San Beda College of Law and the Ateneo de Manila College of Law, established by the Jesuits. One of the topics of class discussions was the “Commonwealth of the Philippines,” organized in 1934-1935 by the United States for the Philippine archipelago, which was then its colony from 1899 to 1946.
“The United States also has its version of “The Imperial Manila” in the juridical persons of corporate cartels. Yes, virtual monopolies from the OPEC-like Big Oil Industry to giant banks, pharmaceutical conglomerates, healthcare companies (and their medical-insurance allies or subsidiaries) to distribution firms …”
Before taking a four-year law course, this writer earned a Bachelor of Arts in Journalism. Then, he became the managing editor of the periodicals of both Colleges of Law (the Bedan Barrister during his first year and The Palladium, when he transferred as a sophomore to his senior year at Ateneo).
As a college student, this writer batted for renaming the “Republic of the Philippines” back to its former status as the “Commonwealth of the Philippines.” He also argued for turning the country’s 15 regions into 15 mini-commonwealths. He said that the government was controlled by “The Imperial Manila” (TIM), which concentrated its offices, factories, distribution centers, etc., in the national capital region called “Metropolitan (Metro) Manila.” TIM bankrolled most of the politicians that protected, of course, the “crony capitalists” and their cartels.
The United States also has its version of “The Imperial Manila” in the juridical persons of corporate cartels. Yes, virtual monopolies from the OPEC-like Big Oil Industry to giant banks, pharmaceutical conglomerates, healthcare companies (and their medical-insurance allies or subsidiaries) to distribution firms like Amazon, Walmart, and other marketing entities. The results are what this columnist has dubbed “Crony Capitalism” and “Avarician Economics.” Even if the majority of the people of some states do not want, for instance, federal land in their territory to be leased to the oil cartel, the federal government does the leasing. The state-elected leaders and its State Supreme Court cannot block the federal government.
On August 6, 2023, this columnist wrote an op-ed piece, “President Biden Can Reinvent an American-led Commonwealth of Countries.” It said in part, “If re-elected, President Biden has more than five years to lay the conceptual framework for reinventing geopolitics by pushing into law, and bipartisan at that, an American-led Commonwealth of Nations. Remember, Common + Wealth compose the word. It is meant to be a united effort by a group of independent nations (or states) working viably to generate and share more wealth for the common good.”
Now that President Biden’s term office ends on January 20, 2025, perhaps the Commonwealths of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia governors can pick up the cudgels for the “commonwealthnization” (sic) of the other 46 states. The mid-term elections in 2026, or if not the presidential election in 2028, can at the same time ask the voters in a referendum (or ballot initiative) of the said 46 states if they want their state to be called a “Commonwealth.” And their own state Supreme Courts to decide matters like women’s civil rights and other issues that presently only nine unelected Americans posing as Kings Solomon or Queens Cleopatra can decide by themselves? Why do the 50 State Supreme Courts have no power to dispute the wisdom and legality of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, a “cartel” of just nine justices?
However, the first step is for all states to be called “Commonwealths,” and if people and God are willing, the rest of the reforms will follow.
