I get that, but I wasn't missing the point. I was arguing that it would be wrong to use the term "observer member" because that has a very different legal meaning than what was being described.
Except that you're the person who introduced the phrase "observer member."
wew just mentioned "observers" -- specifically, "observers from planets that are
not members of the Federation." If you thought that meant "observer member" in whatever specific legalistic sense you're imagining, I think you misread the post in question.
I don't think I misread the post, I think I made an understandable but inaccurate inference as to what
wew meant.
Wew had specifically cited the precedent of United Nations observer states. When I elaborated upon the difference between the UN and UFP -- the UN lacks statehood, whereas the Federation its clearly a state in its own right --
wew talked about designated observers from foreign states present at Federation government functions. At that point, I pointed out that there's already a term for such observers: "Ambassador."
Not really. There are only a few possibilities for a representative to a legislature that does not represent a fully equal member polity:
Only a few possibilities you know of from human history. You can't assume that aliens or future humans -- let alone the interaction of both -- would be incapable of producing possibilities beyond your experience.
No, it's an inherent fact of how power functions. Two polities can only have three basic relationships. Either they are legally foreign to one-another (and therefore both independent and sovereign), or one is a constituent part of the other. If one polity constitutes part of a larger polity, then that one polity is either an equal partner, or it is an unequal, to some degree dominated, constituent part. Power does not allow other possibilities: You are either foreign to, within but equal, or within but dominated.
1b. That representative is not actually a representative and not truly a part of that legislature, and is therefore actually an ambassador (whatever he or she might be called).
Wrong. Puerto Rico's non-voting representative in the US Congress is called a representative, at least
unofficially. Officially, he or she is the
Resident Commissioner. Non-voting representatives of other territories are called
Delegates. A Delegate or Resident Commissioner is
actually a member of the US Congress, simply one without voting rights. An ambassador is something altogether different, a diplomat based in his or her country's embassy.
If you read my post, you'd surely realize that my intent was to imply that Puerto Rico, along with the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the District of Columbia, would fall under category 2: They are unequal parts of the United States that are dominated rather than treated as equal partners. Option 1b would refer to, for instance, the High Commissioner of Canada to the Commonwealth of Australia -- or to
wew's idea of a representative of a foreign state empowered to observe Federation governmental functions on behalf of his/her world.
(And, once again, do keep in mind that the delegates -- a generally-accepted shorthand for both the territorial delegates and the Puerto Rican Resident Commissioner --
do have voting rights within US House committees.)
