Supreme Court punting statehood is not the story. Eleanor Holmes Norton punting tax free is!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court was never going to side with the Statehood initiative. A little thing called the Constitution stand in its way. But I am floored that DC was offered a bill which would have rescinded DC Federal income tax and Eleanor Holmes Norton would not even entertain in. We were offered the No Taxation part of our moto but turned it down...

Texas GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert said Democrats’ push for statehood for D.C. is based on an argument of “no taxation without representation.”

“They’re right: This should not be taxation without representation,” Gohmert said, noting other U.S. territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands do not pay federal income tax because they do not elect a full voting representative.

“When I realized that, I filed a bill that would eliminate federal income tax for people in the District of Columbia,” he added to host Carl Higbie. “But even Eleanor Holmes Norton will not sign on to my bill, and no Democrats will.”

For the millionth time, the Constitution doesn't stand in the way of DC statehood.

Yes... I am sure that the Supreme Court o erlooked that when they took five minutes and four sentances to end this debate for the second time. Meanwhile we could be paying no taxes.

I am with OP on this one. Why did our congressional rep not work for us here and help get us relieved of our income tax. Yet another reason why EHN is an awful politico who is genuinely only concerned about her personal power and does not care about us DC residents.

DP. The Constitution does not define the boundaries of the federal territory that was intended to be the seat of federal government and which is not entitled to representation. It could be redefined as the portion of downtown where federal buildings are, while the rest of DC is added to the union as a state just as other states previously were. This would not require a constitutional amendment. If you aren't aware of this argument, you haven't been paying attention. I am a DC resident and don't want to be exempt from federal taxes; I want a voice in how our country is run. And I want Congress to stop interfering in how DC is run.

In which case the argument for MD to reabsorb parts of DC Would be more compelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court was never going to side with the Statehood initiative. A little thing called the Constitution stand in its way. But I am floored that DC was offered a bill which would have rescinded DC Federal income tax and Eleanor Holmes Norton would not even entertain in. We were offered the No Taxation part of our moto but turned it down...

Texas GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert said Democrats’ push for statehood for D.C. is based on an argument of “no taxation without representation.”

“They’re right: This should not be taxation without representation,” Gohmert said, noting other U.S. territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands do not pay federal income tax because they do not elect a full voting representative.

“When I realized that, I filed a bill that would eliminate federal income tax for people in the District of Columbia,” he added to host Carl Higbie. “But even Eleanor Holmes Norton will not sign on to my bill, and no Democrats will.”

For the millionth time, the Constitution doesn't stand in the way of DC statehood.

Yes... I am sure that the Supreme Court o erlooked that when they took five minutes and four sentances to end this debate for the second time. Meanwhile we could be paying no taxes.

I am with OP on this one. Why did our congressional rep not work for us here and help get us relieved of our income tax. Yet another reason why EHN is an awful politico who is genuinely only concerned about her personal power and does not care about us DC residents.

DP. The Constitution does not define the boundaries of the federal territory that was intended to be the seat of federal government and which is not entitled to representation. It could be redefined as the portion of downtown where federal buildings are, while the rest of DC is added to the union as a state just as other states previously were. This would not require a constitutional amendment. If you aren't aware of this argument, you haven't been paying attention. I am a DC resident and don't want to be exempt from federal taxes; I want a voice in how our country is run. And I want Congress to stop interfering in how DC is run.

In which case the argument for MD to reabsorb parts of DC Would be more compelling.

Not to MD, it isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In which case the argument for MD to reabsorb parts of DC Would be more compelling.

Your plan for retrocession of DC to Maryland has two major problems:

1. Maryland doesn't want it.
2. DC doesn't want it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In which case the argument for MD to reabsorb parts of DC Would be more compelling.

Your plan for retrocession of DC to Maryland has two major problems:

1. Maryland doesn't want it.
2. DC doesn't want it.

Who cares. This is the easiest way to give DC residents representation. And it has precedence. Just get it done... Or creat a tax free city...

Either way I would be happy. But 51st state will never happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In which case the argument for MD to reabsorb parts of DC Would be more compelling.

Your plan for retrocession of DC to Maryland has two major problems:

1. Maryland doesn't want it.
2. DC doesn't want it.

Who cares. This is the easiest way to give DC residents representation. And it has precedence. Just get it done... Or creat a tax free city...

Either way I would be happy. But 51st state will never happen.

Considering MD has to agree, and won't, I'd say you should care.

[Anonymous]

What is the downside for MD?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to start a petition against statehood, but yes to becoming a federal tax haven. Anyone with me?

No. I would rather have representation.

Like EHN?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the downside for MD?

Their votes and voices in Congress are diluted. Why would they want it?

And, blue crab is really overrated. There. I said it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to start a petition against statehood, but yes to becoming a federal tax haven. Anyone with me?

No. I would rather have representation.

Like EHN?

Voting representation. So, not like EHN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to start a petition against statehood, but yes to becoming a federal tax haven. Anyone with me?

No. I would rather have representation.

Like EHN?

Voting representation. So, not like EHN.

I mean, I would still be her..with a vote. Whoop de Doo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to start a petition against statehood, but yes to becoming a federal tax haven. Anyone with me?

No. I would rather have representation.

Like EHN?

Voting representation. So, not like EHN.

I mean, I would still be her..with a vote. Whoop de Doo.

And two Senators. Shoo be doo be doo.

[Anonymous]

Give DC Statehood and spread the Federal Gov to the rest of the various states. DC could keep Congress and the WH and the Mall but all the bureaus and jobs gets spread out across the country. Fed jobs are great for local economies so it’s only fair that job location be done on a parity basis across all states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to start a petition against statehood, but yes to becoming a federal tax haven. Anyone with me?

No. I would rather have representation.

Like EHN?

Voting representation. So, not like EHN.

I mean, I would still be her..with a vote. Whoop de Doo.

And two Senators. Shoo be doo be doo.

Yes. One representative with a vote, two senators each with a vote, hey nonny nonny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Give DC Statehood and spread the Federal Gov to the rest of the various states. DC could keep Congress and the WH and the Mall but all the bureaus and jobs gets spread out across the country. Fed jobs are great for local economies so it’s only fair that job location be done on a parity basis across all states.

They already are. 85% of federal employees are not in the DC area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the downside for MD?

Are you kidding? Adding DC to Montgomery and Prince Georges County in MD creates a new power center in MD that would eclipse both Baltimore and Annapolis. It completely changes the dynamic of the state.