DC statehood

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't DC a district because its defined as such in the Constitution?? Not to offer sour grapes but in today's partisan world I don't see this changing. Since DC residents electively choose to live there, if they are unsatisfied there is always the option to electively choose not to.

This country was founded on the idea of "no taxation without representation." That idea is really central to our independence. Acting like it is not important is like acting that private property is not important to capitalism. The founding fathers didn't expect the capital district to become a metropolis or even a full-time seat of government. Their experience, largely based on the English experience, was that legislators lived at home and only attended periodic legislative sessions. They would find a situation in which a population larger than two states was taxed without representation unfathomable. The fact that people can move away from this injustice does nothing to resolve the injustice. Those colonists who didn't like paying British taxes were not being held prisoner. They also could have moved.

Also, keep in mind that the founding fathers' idea of "representation" was not comparable to ours. They generally limited it to male property owners. The right to vote for a representative government has expanded significantly over the years. There is no reason such expansion shouldn't extend to DC.

That’s all well and good but it’s beside the point. It was the ‘no taxation without representation’ founding fathers who made DC a district and not a State. It would take a Constitutional amendment to change that, right? I simply offer that is not likely to happen (for a variety of reasons, conservatives may not want to provide liberals two more senate seats and liberals may not want DC to implode in debt which likely would). Anyway I offer per the founding fathers if this is unsatisfactory, federalism offers a way out (figuratively and literally, hmmm, I made a pun), people can vote with their feet and head not too far north or south.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't DC a district because its defined as such in the Constitution?? Not to offer sour grapes but in today's partisan world I don't see this changing. Since DC residents electively choose to live there, if they are unsatisfied there is always the option to electively choose not to.

This country was founded on the idea of "no taxation without representation." That idea is really central to our independence. Acting like it is not important is like acting that private property is not important to capitalism. The founding fathers didn't expect the capital district to become a metropolis or even a full-time seat of government. Their experience, largely based on the English experience, was that legislators lived at home and only attended periodic legislative sessions. They would find a situation in which a population larger than two states was taxed without representation unfathomable. The fact that people can move away from this injustice does nothing to resolve the injustice. Those colonists who didn't like paying British taxes were not being held prisoner. They also could have moved.

Also, keep in mind that the founding fathers' idea of "representation" was not comparable to ours. They generally limited it to male property owners. The right to vote for a representative government has expanded significantly over the years. There is no reason such expansion shouldn't extend to DC.

That’s all well and good but it’s beside the point. It was the ‘no taxation without representation’ founding fathers who made DC a district and not a State. It would take a Constitutional amendment to change that, right? I simply offer that is not likely to happen (for a variety of reasons, conservatives may not want to provide liberals two more senate seats and liberals may not want DC to implode in debt which likely would). Anyway I offer per the founding fathers if this is unsatisfactory, federalism offers a way out (figuratively and literally, hmmm, I made a pun), people can vote with their feet and head not too far north or south.

You're a aware that DC has a large surplus, right? What are you blathering about?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't DC a district because its defined as such in the Constitution?? Not to offer sour grapes but in today's partisan world I don't see this changing. Since DC residents electively choose to live there, if they are unsatisfied there is always the option to electively choose not to.

This country was founded on the idea of "no taxation without representation." That idea is really central to our independence. Acting like it is not important is like acting that private property is not important to capitalism. The founding fathers didn't expect the capital district to become a metropolis or even a full-time seat of government. Their experience, largely based on the English experience, was that legislators lived at home and only attended periodic legislative sessions. They would find a situation in which a population larger than two states was taxed without representation unfathomable. The fact that people can move away from this injustice does nothing to resolve the injustice. Those colonists who didn't like paying British taxes were not being held prisoner. They also could have moved.

Also, keep in mind that the founding fathers' idea of "representation" was not comparable to ours. They generally limited it to male property owners. The right to vote for a representative government has expanded significantly over the years. There is no reason such expansion shouldn't extend to DC.

That’s all well and good but it’s beside the point. It was the ‘no taxation without representation’ founding fathers who made DC a district and not a State. It would take a Constitutional amendment to change that, right? I simply offer that is not likely to happen (for a variety of reasons, conservatives may not want to provide liberals two more senate seats and liberals may not want DC to implode in debt which likely would). Anyway I offer per the founding fathers if this is unsatisfactory, federalism offers a way out (figuratively and literally, hmmm, I made a pun), people can vote with their feet and head not too far north or south.

Well, that is also beside the point. Running from injustice does nothing to eliminate injustice. That's sort of like conservatives who think sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice and one should simply choose differently to get marriage rights. The fact that something is hard or is unlikely to be immediately achieved doesn't mean that you shouldn't still try to do it. If we try to get statehood, we might get it. If we don't try, we certainly won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If DC received statehood, in addition to representation in Congress, what else would happen?

The US flag would need and extra star and would look really dumb. So it will never happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DC received statehood, in addition to representation in Congress, what else would happen?

The US flag would need and extra star and would look really dumb. So it will never happen.

http://loststates.blogspot.com/2011/06/which-51-star-flag-do-you-like.html?m=1

[Anonymous]

Along with no vote came the guarantee that federal agencies be headquartered in DC. The CIA moved out, the FBI and Commerce are moving out, so that part of the deal is being violated. Time to sue for statehood or move them back.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't DC a district because its defined as such in the Constitution?? Not to offer sour grapes but in today's partisan world I don't see this changing. Since DC residents electively choose to live there, if they are unsatisfied there is always the option to electively choose not to.

This country was founded on the idea of "no taxation without representation." That idea is really central to our independence. Acting like it is not important is like acting that private property is not important to capitalism. The founding fathers didn't expect the capital district to become a metropolis or even a full-time seat of government. Their experience, largely based on the English experience, was that legislators lived at home and only attended periodic legislative sessions. They would find a situation in which a population larger than two states was taxed without representation unfathomable. The fact that people can move away from this injustice does nothing to resolve the injustice. Those colonists who didn't like paying British taxes were not being held prisoner. They also could have moved.

Also, keep in mind that the founding fathers' idea of "representation" was not comparable to ours. They generally limited it to male property owners. The right to vote for a representative government has expanded significantly over the years. There is no reason such expansion shouldn't extend to DC.

That’s all well and good but it’s beside the point. It was the ‘no taxation without representation’ founding fathers who made DC a district and not a State. It would take a Constitutional amendment to change that, right? I simply offer that is not likely to happen (for a variety of reasons, conservatives may not want to provide liberals two more senate seats and liberals may not want DC to implode in debt which likely would). Anyway I offer per the founding fathers if this is unsatisfactory, federalism offers a way out (figuratively and literally, hmmm, I made a pun), people can vote with their feet and head not too far north or south.

Well, that is also beside the point. Running from injustice does nothing to eliminate injustice. That's sort of like conservatives who think sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice and one should simply choose differently to get marriage rights. The fact that something is hard or is unlikely to be immediately achieved doesn't mean that you shouldn't still try to do it. If we try to get statehood, we might get it. If we don't try, we certainly won't.

I never said not to try.

But its no injustice, no need for such histrionics unless you think you will persuade the electorate with such dramatics, I suppose its worked before…

Look, everyone knew the rules for DC when it was created, people who lived there did so electively. I mean you could say slaves didn't have a choice, but they did upon emancipation. Injustice? Oh the hyperbole...

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Look, everyone knew the rules for DC when it was created, people who lived there did so electively. I mean you could say slaves didn't have a choice, but they did upon emancipation. Injustice? Oh the hyperbole...

Of course it is an injustice. How could you say otherwise? There are many examples of people seeking political change in one state that has already occurred in a neighboring state. Legal same sex marriage is a current example. Would you advise SSM supporters to simply move to another state and ignore the injustice in their state because they live there electively? Many states have fairly easy access to abortion while others restrict it. Should we tell both the pro-choice and pro-life camps to stop trying to change laws and simply move to a state that matches their position on the issue? Should pro-choice Texans simply move to New York and vice versa?

I could move out of DC and gain the right to vote for those who tax me. But, the injustice of taxation without representation -- an injustice against which our forefathers rebelled but you so cavalierly disregard -- would remain in DC. Because my concern about rights does not end at the tip of my nose, I would still be a champion of DC statehood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DC received statehood, in addition to representation in Congress, what else would happen?

The US flag would need and extra star and would look really dumb. So it will never happen.

And the "New Colombia" name is the lamest.

[Anonymous]

The eventual solution is for most of DC to retrocede to Maryland. DC would keep its municipal government, but MD would provide state services. DC would get one voting representative, and vote with other Maryland citizens for US Senate. MD is basically a blue state anyway, so it wouldn't upset the balance of power on Capitol Hill. DC would also get delegates in the MD general assembly. There's precedent, when the former VA piece of DC rejoined Maryland. I know that the die-hard DC politicos wouldn't like it, with their dreams of further power and patronage, but it's the best and most workable solution for voting rights. And it could be done by simple legislation, not through approval by the states or constitutional amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The eventual solution is for most of DC to retrocede to Maryland. DC would keep its municipal government, but MD would provide state services. DC would get one voting representative, and vote with other Maryland citizens for US Senate. MD is basically a blue state anyway, so it wouldn't upset the balance of power on Capitol Hill. DC would also get delegates in the MD general assembly. There's precedent, when the former VA piece of DC rejoined Maryland. I know that the die-hard DC politicos wouldn't like it, with their dreams of further power and patronage, but it's the best and most workable solution for voting rights. And it could be done by simple legislation, not through approval by the states or constitutional amendment.

This is the most logical solution except MD has never really wanted DC.

ISTR there is some historical evidence that the founders thought the residents of DC were also citizens of their states for voting purposes but it's a little murky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That’s all well and good but it’s beside the point. It was the ‘no taxation without representation’ founding fathers who made DC a district and not a State. It would take a Constitutional amendment to change that, right? I simply offer that is not likely to happen (for a variety of reasons, conservatives may not want to provide liberals two more senate seats and liberals may not want DC to implode in debt which likely would). Anyway I offer per the founding fathers if this is unsatisfactory, federalism offers a way out (figuratively and literally, hmmm, I made a pun), people can vote with their feet and head not too far north or south.

You're a aware that DC has a large surplus, right? What are you blathering about?

Yes, it’s great DC has a surplus but if DC becomes a State… many many federal programs into the District will be invalidated. If DC has to fund those programs on its own, I think the surplus disappears.
I could be wrong and to be honest I was just trying to bring nonpartisan balance by offering examples from both sides, sorry if they are not right on track (or in your words… ‘blather’).
If you don’t mind what do you think of this thought; I’d expect in their heart of hearts, city council does not truly want Statehood as that would instantly create need for State Senate and Reps. The Council would become obsolete or unimportant. Same conflict would occur over mayor and governorship. You know people would advocate for these positions because people want power. Or do you think the DC powers that be think they will be able to claim those more powerful positions as their own??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If DC received statehood, in addition to representation in Congress, what else would happen?


Governor Barry - with the power to pardon criminals.
The creation of two layers (state and local) bureaucracy for many functions.

Yes he could pardon the ex governor of Virginia.

[Anonymous]

They mayor has the power to pardon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the "New Colombia" name is the lamest.

Col-u-mbia. Nobody is suggesting that we move to south America.