DC statehood: Things that make my blood boil:

[Anonymous]

At this point, I'd rather have Congress run D.C. Our government is the worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At this point, I'd rather have Congress run D.C. Our government is the worst.

That depends on who is in power in congress at the moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dc statehood will never happen.

If you don't like it you're free to move out of DC.

You. Still. Didn't. Answer. The. Question.

Come on, Pollyanna. Most of us understand that “fairness” is not going to get anything changed and that fighting for DC Statehood is a waste of breath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Answer directly:

Is it an injustice when state representatives not elected by DC residents try to change local DC laws against the will of the US citizens who reside in DC?

Is it morally or ethically appropriate?

Btw I don't care if we agree or disagree on a solution. I only care if you think it is morally or ethically right. Please don't deflect with random "whataboutism" commentary on federal taxes or what Democrats might try to do in other situations, right or wrong. That is not what this is about.

NP. Answering directly, do you think it is right for congressman from 49 other states to force their will on one state's local laws? Do you think it's right that nine unelected justices force their will on a state's local laws? It's not a pure democracy.

But this is different. Congress has specific powers to change the local laws of only one place- DC. And DC doesn’t elect any of the reps that have that power. Congress could pass laws that only affect one state but they have to be within Congress’s power, which is limited. for example they would not have the power to supersede the laws of MD w/r/t discrimination against gay couples

Apparently, according to many posters in DCUM, Congress basically has unilateral authority in state law thanks to the Commerce Clause. If this is as true as many believe, Congress can certainly supercede state laws. Even if Congress doesn't have this authority, Congress can always withhold grants and funding until they get what they want. Why do you think we have a national DUI BAC of 0.08% or had a national speed limit of 55mph?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Answer directly:

Is it an injustice when state representatives not elected by DC residents try to change local DC laws against the will of the US citizens who reside in DC?

Is it morally or ethically appropriate?

Btw I don't care if we agree or disagree on a solution. I only care if you think it is morally or ethically right. Please don't deflect with random "whataboutism" commentary on federal taxes or what Democrats might try to do in other situations, right or wrong. That is not what this is about.

NP. Answering directly, do you think it is right for congressman from 49 other states to force their will on one state's local laws? Do you think it's right that nine unelected justices force their will on a state's local laws? It's not a pure democracy.

It's noteworthy that nobody replies when forced to stop deflecting and directly answer the question.

I am not deflecting. We are subject to being governed by unelected individuals all the time. You point out one specific case and call it unfair. Are all similar cases also unfair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Answer directly:

Is it an injustice when state representatives not elected by DC residents try to change local DC laws against the will of the US citizens who reside in DC?

Is it morally or ethically appropriate?

Btw I don't care if we agree or disagree on a solution. I only care if you think it is morally or ethically right. Please don't deflect with random "whataboutism" commentary on federal taxes or what Democrats might try to do in other situations, right or wrong. That is not what this is about.

NP. Answering directly, do you think it is right for congressman from 49 other states to force their will on one state's local laws? Do you think it's right that nine unelected justices force their will on a state's local laws? It's not a pure democracy.

But this is different. Congress has specific powers to change the local laws of only one place- DC. And DC doesn’t elect any of the reps that have that power. Congress could pass laws that only affect one state but they have to be within Congress’s power, which is limited. for example they would not have the power to supersede the laws of MD w/r/t discrimination against gay couples

Apparently, according to many posters in DCUM, Congress basically has unilateral authority in state law thanks to the Commerce Clause. If this is as true as many believe, Congress can certainly supercede state laws. Even if Congress doesn't have this authority, Congress can always withhold grants and funding until they get what they want. Why do you think we have a national DUI BAC of 0.08% or had a national speed limit of 55mph?

Right, but they are withholding funding from ALL states that don't change the limits AND the withholding of funds is related to what the legislation is. Eg St Thomas has a drinking age of 18 (or did until recently, not sure this is still true) because they don't need federal highway funds. If Congress tried to force them to have a drinking age of 21 by withholding, say, Medicare funds I think the Supreme Court would have a say there. The amendment proposed by Lee is random and unconnected to anything they want DC to do or not do. He just wants the amendment because under the Constitution Congress has the power to supersede DC laws. Which you can argue all you want if he has that right but I certainly have a right to criticize him for using it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Answer directly:

Is it an injustice when state representatives not elected by DC residents try to change local DC laws against the will of the US citizens who reside in DC?

Is it morally or ethically appropriate?

Btw I don't care if we agree or disagree on a solution. I only care if you think it is morally or ethically right. Please don't deflect with random "whataboutism" commentary on federal taxes or what Democrats might try to do in other situations, right or wrong. That is not what this is about.

NP. Answering directly, do you think it is right for congressman from 49 other states to force their will on one state's local laws? Do you think it's right that nine unelected justices force their will on a state's local laws? It's not a pure democracy.

But this is different. Congress has specific powers to change the local laws of only one place- DC. And DC doesn’t elect any of the reps that have that power. Congress could pass laws that only affect one state but they have to be within Congress’s power, which is limited. for example they would not have the power to supersede the laws of MD w/r/t discrimination against gay couples

Apparently, according to many posters in DCUM, Congress basically has unilateral authority in state law thanks to the Commerce Clause. If this is as true as many believe, Congress can certainly supercede state laws. Even if Congress doesn't have this authority, Congress can always withhold grants and funding until they get what they want. Why do you think we have a national DUI BAC of 0.08% or had a national speed limit of 55mph?

Right, but they are withholding funding from ALL states that don't change the limits AND the withholding of funds is related to what the legislation is. Eg St Thomas has a drinking age of 18 (or did until recently, not sure this is still true) because they don't need federal highway funds. If Congress tried to force them to have a drinking age of 21 by withholding, say, Medicare funds I think the Supreme Court would have a say there. The amendment proposed by Lee is random and unconnected to anything they want DC to do or not do. He just wants the amendment because under the Constitution Congress has the power to supersede DC laws. Which you can argue all you want if he has that right but I certainly have a right to criticize him for using it.

It would be a shame if St. Thomas' FEMA grants dried up. Your right to criticize is fine. You can't argue it's unfair because you didn't get to vote directly on the law or those who implemented it. If we had that requirement, there would be a law against the eating of broccoli.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Answer directly:

Is it an injustice when state representatives not elected by DC residents try to change local DC laws against the will of the US citizens who reside in DC?

Is it morally or ethically appropriate?

Btw I don't care if we agree or disagree on a solution. I only care if you think it is morally or ethically right. Please don't deflect with random "whataboutism" commentary on federal taxes or what Democrats might try to do in other situations, right or wrong. That is not what this is about.

It is not an injustice. You agreed to accept this arrangement as a condition of your residency in the District of Columbia.

It is morally and ethically appropriate for those representatives to carry out their responsibility to governor residents of the District of Columbia

We moved from the District of Columbia because we did not wish to live under conditions that we could not change. These conditions created an ineffective governance of people who embrace a carpetbagging mentality of allowing outsiders to govern their daily existence.

There are three ways to change your situation. Leaving is not one you wish to do. Obtaining statehood is not one that you can do. Complaining on DCUM is available and you have done that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Answer directly:

Is it an injustice when state representatives not elected by DC residents try to change local DC laws against the will of the US citizens who reside in DC?

Is it morally or ethically appropriate?

Btw I don't care if we agree or disagree on a solution. I only care if you think it is morally or ethically right. Please don't deflect with random "whataboutism" commentary on federal taxes or what Democrats might try to do in other situations, right or wrong. That is not what this is about.

NP. Answering directly, do you think it is right for congressman from 49 other states to force their will on one state's local laws? Do you think it's right that nine unelected justices force their will on a state's local laws? It's not a pure democracy.

But this is different. Congress has specific powers to change the local laws of only one place- DC. And DC doesn’t elect any of the reps that have that power. Congress could pass laws that only affect one state but they have to be within Congress’s power, which is limited. for example they would not have the power to supersede the laws of MD w/r/t discrimination against gay couples

Apparently, according to many posters in DCUM, Congress basically has unilateral authority in state law thanks to the Commerce Clause. If this is as true as many believe, Congress can certainly supercede state laws. Even if Congress doesn't have this authority, Congress can always withhold grants and funding until they get what they want. Why do you think we have a national DUI BAC of 0.08% or had a national speed limit of 55mph?

Right, but they are withholding funding from ALL states that don't change the limits AND the withholding of funds is related to what the legislation is. Eg St Thomas has a drinking age of 18 (or did until recently, not sure this is still true) because they don't need federal highway funds. If Congress tried to force them to have a drinking age of 21 by withholding, say, Medicare funds I think the Supreme Court would have a say there. The amendment proposed by Lee is random and unconnected to anything they want DC to do or not do. He just wants the amendment because under the Constitution Congress has the power to supersede DC laws. Which you can argue all you want if he has that right but I certainly have a right to criticize him for using it.

It would be a shame if St. Thomas' FEMA grants dried up. Your right to criticize is fine. You can't argue it's unfair because you didn't get to vote directly on the law or those who implemented it. If we had that requirement, there would be a law against the eating of broccoli.

I argue that it is unfair that congressmen who I do not have the right to vote for have the right to govern over me. I am not arguing it is unconstitutional, I am arguing it is unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Answer directly:

Is it an injustice when state representatives not elected by DC residents try to change local DC laws against the will of the US citizens who reside in DC?

Is it morally or ethically appropriate?

Btw I don't care if we agree or disagree on a solution. I only care if you think it is morally or ethically right. Please don't deflect with random "whataboutism" commentary on federal taxes or what Democrats might try to do in other situations, right or wrong. That is not what this is about.

NP. Answering directly, do you think it is right for congressman from 49 other states to force their will on one state's local laws? Do you think it's right that nine unelected justices force their will on a state's local laws? It's not a pure democracy.

But this is different. Congress has specific powers to change the local laws of only one place- DC. And DC doesn’t elect any of the reps that have that power. Congress could pass laws that only affect one state but they have to be within Congress’s power, which is limited. for example they would not have the power to supersede the laws of MD w/r/t discrimination against gay couples

Apparently, according to many posters in DCUM, Congress basically has unilateral authority in state law thanks to the Commerce Clause. If this is as true as many believe, Congress can certainly supercede state laws. Even if Congress doesn't have this authority, Congress can always withhold grants and funding until they get what they want. Why do you think we have a national DUI BAC of 0.08% or had a national speed limit of 55mph?

Right, but they are withholding funding from ALL states that don't change the limits AND the withholding of funds is related to what the legislation is. Eg St Thomas has a drinking age of 18 (or did until recently, not sure this is still true) because they don't need federal highway funds. If Congress tried to force them to have a drinking age of 21 by withholding, say, Medicare funds I think the Supreme Court would have a say there. The amendment proposed by Lee is random and unconnected to anything they want DC to do or not do. He just wants the amendment because under the Constitution Congress has the power to supersede DC laws. Which you can argue all you want if he has that right but I certainly have a right to criticize him for using it.

It would be a shame if St. Thomas' FEMA grants dried up. Your right to criticize is fine. You can't argue it's unfair because you didn't get to vote directly on the law or those who implemented it. If we had that requirement, there would be a law against the eating of broccoli.

I argue that it is unfair that congressmen who I do not have the right to vote for have the right to govern over me. I am not arguing it is unconstitutional, I am arguing it is unfair.

If everyone agrees that it is unfair, will you stop pouting about your poor choice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Answer directly:

Is it an injustice when state representatives not elected by DC residents try to change local DC laws against the will of the US citizens who reside in DC?

Is it morally or ethically appropriate?

Btw I don't care if we agree or disagree on a solution. I only care if you think it is morally or ethically right. Please don't deflect with random "whataboutism" commentary on federal taxes or what Democrats might try to do in other situations, right or wrong. That is not what this is about.

NP. Answering directly, do you think it is right for congressman from 49 other states to force their will on one state's local laws? Do you think it's right that nine unelected justices force their will on a state's local laws? It's not a pure democracy.

But this is different. Congress has specific powers to change the local laws of only one place- DC. And DC doesn’t elect any of the reps that have that power. Congress could pass laws that only affect one state but they have to be within Congress’s power, which is limited. for example they would not have the power to supersede the laws of MD w/r/t discrimination against gay couples

Apparently, according to many posters in DCUM, Congress basically has unilateral authority in state law thanks to the Commerce Clause. If this is as true as many believe, Congress can certainly supercede state laws. Even if Congress doesn't have this authority, Congress can always withhold grants and funding until they get what they want. Why do you think we have a national DUI BAC of 0.08% or had a national speed limit of 55mph?

Right, but they are withholding funding from ALL states that don't change the limits AND the withholding of funds is related to what the legislation is. Eg St Thomas has a drinking age of 18 (or did until recently, not sure this is still true) because they don't need federal highway funds. If Congress tried to force them to have a drinking age of 21 by withholding, say, Medicare funds I think the Supreme Court would have a say there. The amendment proposed by Lee is random and unconnected to anything they want DC to do or not do. He just wants the amendment because under the Constitution Congress has the power to supersede DC laws. Which you can argue all you want if he has that right but I certainly have a right to criticize him for using it.

It would be a shame if St. Thomas' FEMA grants dried up. Your right to criticize is fine. You can't argue it's unfair because you didn't get to vote directly on the law or those who implemented it. If we had that requirement, there would be a law against the eating of broccoli.

I argue that it is unfair that congressmen who I do not have the right to vote for have the right to govern over me. I am not arguing it is unconstitutional, I am arguing it is unfair.

If everyone agrees that it is unfair, will you stop pouting about your poor choice?

No, but you can choose to move on to other threads if it bothers you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that requires you to keep living here.

Doesn't make it morally or ethically right based on the founding principles of our country.

I know, I know, you don't care.

having an independent federal district Is one of the founding principles of our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that requires you to keep living here.

770,000 disenfranchised Americans who live on the f4cking mainland and the best you can come up with is leave. F you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know, I know, you don't care.

having an independent federal district Is one of the founding principles of our country.

Not any more than nine Supreme Court justices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that requires you to keep living here.

770,000 disenfranchised Americans who live on the f4cking mainland and the best you can come up with is leave. F you.

So pass a Constitutional amendment. The process for it is very straightforward, explained right in the Articles.

Pro Tip: Avoid saying “F you” while trying to seek support for your amendment.

Good luck.