Guy Gardener wrote:
Harry Groener played "Minister" Nathan Samuels in Enterprise, a representative of the Earth government ...
A ministers could also be a diplomat. A minister is someone below the level of ambassador, but still with plenipotentiary powers to represent the government. I believe the title has fallen out of use in the last few decades, but in a century and a half could be back in full force.
It would depend on what kind of relationship United Earth has with foreign planets. The term "ambassador" used to be reserved for the representatives of monarchs; republics like the United States would proudly send ministers plenipotentiary because they had no kings, while monarchies viewed the title of "ambassador" as more prestigious.
Eventually, the title of "ambassador" came to be applied to the heads of even republican diplomatic missions, because this was a way of the international system coming to acknowledge that republics were the equals of monarchies.
So it would really depend on the prestige associated with titles like "minister" or "ambassador."
But we do
know this much, too: Both Vulcan and Andor sent ambassadors
to United Earth, not ministers. And Samuels briefed Archer on political decisions made by the U.E. government -- which is not something one would think a minister plenipotentiary, whose job it would be to represent United Earth to foreign states, would do. But which an actual member of the U.E. Cabinet might.
For whatever it's worth, the ENT novels have established that Nathan Samuels was the United Earth Prime Minister throughout the Earth-Romulan War.
The two states of Maryland and Virginia donated land to form the federal district, Congress returned a third of Washington DC to Virginia in September of 1846 (and six month later Virginia accepted it).
R. Star wrote:
If that means making them part of Maryland/Virginia respectively then I don't see the big deal. I am against them getting full benefits of statehood ...
This is called retrocession.
Simply continuing the process with much of the rest of Washington DC would solve many problems,
Not really. You have a politically distinct population that you'd be trying to shoe-horn into someone else's state. Would you advocate trying to integrate Louisiana and Texas just because they happen to be adjacent to one-another? Ohio and Michigan? New York and Vermont? Nevada and Utah? The idea is just offensive on its face.