Let me get this straight. If we’re having this conversation before the establishment of the UE, your sovereignty rules are untenable. We must evaluate the situation without that untenable standard, and without it we can find that the Omegans are sovereign? And they lose their sovereignty when UE is established?I readily agree that without the UE, my position could be considered untenable. But it makes a huge difference.
What if USA and PROC are united under the rule of the Augments, reestablished as separate nations after the overthrow of the Augments, and then reunited again under United Earth? Does Omega keep bouncing back and forth between sovereign and not?
I think you’re being inconsistent here. You have maintained that the descendants of Britons who leave colonial New York for uncharted lands become American when, as a result of the Revolutionary War, New York ceases to be British and becomes American. Why do New York and California have different rules?In the Spaniards' case, they would likeliest, I think, assumed to be citizens of Spain, although they may be able to claim Mexican citizneship or American citizenship. Their island would probably be Spanish as well, although Mexican is a strong possibility; I don't think it would be American, as the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, I believe, specifically ceded only North American holdings.
Obviously this has never been adjudicated IRL, so you and I (and anybody else who cares to chime in, but it looks like just the two of us) will have to do the adjudication based on logic and the Roddenberrian values on which TOS is based.I really think the main problem is that this is a problem that no court today could face. To frame the issue thusly: to what extent does the political unification of the human race affect human beings born prior to such unification and in a location unreachable by any then-extant government's sovereignty.
I think Roddenberry would have envisioned UE as the political unification of Earth rather than the political unification of the human race. The idea that different people are subject to different laws based on their race would have been horrific to Roddenberry and contrary to the ideals of the UFP. It also creates confusion with regard to people whose ancestry is partly but not entirely human — does the one-drop rule apply?



.) Even so, I do remember being jarred by a few of the things I saw during that first run. It really wasn't the Dark Ages even in 1966 and they were supposedly showing a very progressive future. However, being female probably gave me the chip on the shoulder I needed to see the put-downs. I've tried to challenge myself as to whether I'm really remembering correctly, and I definitely remember being affronted by some of the dialogue, simply because they did seem to be making such an effort to present a progressive future, but then these anachronistic exchanges would slip through. I still think a large part of the reason was that most of the people who created and executed the show were part of a generation or even two behind us and this stuff was so ingrained it didn't even register. Or maybe you're right and they just didn't want to get too far ahead of their target audience. Who knows, maybe by the 23rd century the pendulum will have swung all the way back again, and ST will have got it just right after all!