DC statehood: Things that make my blood boil:

[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.

I hereby give everyone permission to ignore every law that their elected Congressman didn't vote for. How well do you think that will work? I am subject to rules created by people I didn't vote for. Is that unfair? No. It's part of a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy. However, pure democracy would be mob rule. That's also "unfair" since up to 49% didn't support some particular idea but are subject to the whims of the 51%. It's possible that an issue would be decided by a single person. Is that "more fair?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[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.

I hereby give everyone permission to ignore every law that their elected Congressman didn't vote for. How well do you think that will work? I am subject to rules created by people I didn't vote for. Is that unfair? No. It's part of a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy. However, pure democracy would be mob rule. That's also "unfair" since up to 49% didn't support some particular idea but are subject to the whims of the 51%. It's possible that an issue would be decided by a single person. Is that "more fair?"

Yes. It is "more fair" because residents in every state get to vote for a representative who has a say in determining those rules; even if those rules end up being ones they disagree with, the key point here is they had a say. Except DC residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There would still be an independent federal district, just one that was smaller than the current size. And no, you don’t need a constitutional amendment to do it. There was a hearing on the appropriate legislation in the House last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hereby give everyone permission to ignore every law that their elected Congressman didn't vote for. How well do you think that will work? I am subject to rules created by people I didn't vote for. Is that unfair? No. It's part of a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy. However, pure democracy would be mob rule. That's also "unfair" since up to 49% didn't support some particular idea but are subject to the whims of the 51%. It's possible that an issue would be decided by a single person. Is that "more fair?"

Yes. It is "more fair" because residents in every state get to vote for a representative who has a say in determining those rules; even if those rules end up being ones they disagree with, the key point here is they had a say. Except DC residents.

Again, I didn't vote for the congressmen from the other 49 states. I am subject to the will of people I didn't vote for and don't represent my interests. According to you, that's unfair. However, that's a democratic republic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hereby give everyone permission to ignore every law that their elected Congressman didn't vote for. How well do you think that will work? I am subject to rules created by people I didn't vote for. Is that unfair? No. It's part of a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy. However, pure democracy would be mob rule. That's also "unfair" since up to 49% didn't support some particular idea but are subject to the whims of the 51%. It's possible that an issue would be decided by a single person. Is that "more fair?"

Yes. It is "more fair" because residents in every state get to vote for a representative who has a say in determining those rules; even if those rules end up being ones they disagree with, the key point here is they had a say. Except DC residents.

Again, I didn't vote for the congressmen from the other 49 states. I am subject to the will of people I didn't vote for and don't represent my interests. According to you, that's unfair. However, that's a democratic republic.

If you live in a state, you got to vote for a senator and house rep who have a vote in that democratic republic. Your interests ARE represented even if they are overruled by the will of the people. That is a fundamental difference.

[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.

I hereby give everyone permission to ignore every law that their elected Congressman didn't vote for. How well do you think that will work? I am subject to rules created by people I didn't vote for. Is that unfair? No. It's part of a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy. However, pure democracy would be mob rule. That's also "unfair" since up to 49% didn't support some particular idea but are subject to the whims of the 51%. It's possible that an issue would be decided by a single person. Is that "more fair?"

You are literally making stuff up. I didn’t say that people should ignore the laws, I said they are unfair. I disagree with many laws and that doesn’t mean I break them, it means I work to change them. Educating people on what the constitution means for DC residents is part of changing it (there are people even in this thread who don’t seem to know that a law passed by Congress that affects only DC is not the same as a law passed by Congress that affects only MD because the DC resident has zero vote and the MD resident voted for reps and senators).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hereby give everyone permission to ignore every law that their elected Congressman didn't vote for. How well do you think that will work? I am subject to rules created by people I didn't vote for. Is that unfair? No. It's part of a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy. However, pure democracy would be mob rule. That's also "unfair" since up to 49% didn't support some particular idea but are subject to the whims of the 51%. It's possible that an issue would be decided by a single person. Is that "more fair?"

Yes. It is "more fair" because residents in every state get to vote for a representative who has a say in determining those rules; even if those rules end up being ones they disagree with, the key point here is they had a say. Except DC residents.

Has there ever been a law passed by Congress that specifically targets the residents of one state in a negative way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Avoid saying “F you” while trying to seek support……

The whole statehood process has been mismanaged by the DC political establishment…. They have had no interest in actually gaining statehood. Instead it’s used to score points within the petri dish of DC politics, blaming every DC problem on the lack of statehood, hyping resentment of Congress and exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Step 1. Stop insulting the people whose approval you’ll need for statehood. Statehood is an inherently political act. No one is entitled to statehood.

Example: during the most recent go around mayor Bowser testified before the house saying in effect “You people have denied us statehood because we’re too black.” Even if that were true, it’s not going to win friends and influence people. Better: demonstrate how the Union will be stronger with DC as a state, demonstrating that it will be responsibly managed and not a drain on national resources.

There are many other steps but that is the first one. Grasp it, and you will be following the path that others have followed to gain statehood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hereby give everyone permission to ignore every law that their elected Congressman didn't vote for. How well do you think that will work? I am subject to rules created by people I didn't vote for. Is that unfair? No. It's part of a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy. However, pure democracy would be mob rule. That's also "unfair" since up to 49% didn't support some particular idea but are subject to the whims of the 51%. It's possible that an issue would be decided by a single person. Is that "more fair?"

Yes. It is "more fair" because residents in every state get to vote for a representative who has a say in determining those rules; even if those rules end up being ones they disagree with, the key point here is they had a say. Except DC residents.

Has there ever been a law passed by Congress that specifically targets the residents of one state in a negative way?

Dornan amendment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hereby give everyone permission to ignore every law that their elected Congressman didn't vote for. How well do you think that will work? I am subject to rules created by people I didn't vote for. Is that unfair? No. It's part of a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy. However, pure democracy would be mob rule. That's also "unfair" since up to 49% didn't support some particular idea but are subject to the whims of the 51%. It's possible that an issue would be decided by a single person. Is that "more fair?"

You are literally making stuff up. I didn’t say that people should ignore the laws, I said they are unfair. I disagree with many laws and that doesn’t mean I break them, it means I work to change them. Educating people on what the constitution means for DC residents is part of changing it (there are people even in this thread who don’t seem to know that a law passed by Congress that affects only DC is not the same as a law passed by Congress that affects only MD because the DC resident has zero vote and the MD resident voted for reps and senators).

DC residents are represented by a congressperson who currently chairs a subcommittee on transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hereby give everyone permission to ignore every law that their elected Congressman didn't vote for. How well do you think that will work? I am subject to rules created by people I didn't vote for. Is that unfair? No. It's part of a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy. However, pure democracy would be mob rule. That's also "unfair" since up to 49% didn't support some particular idea but are subject to the whims of the 51%. It's possible that an issue would be decided by a single person. Is that "more fair?"

Yes. It is "more fair" because residents in every state get to vote for a representative who has a say in determining those rules; even if those rules end up being ones they disagree with, the key point here is they had a say. Except DC residents.

Has there ever been a law passed by Congress that specifically targets the residents of one state in a negative way?

DOMA. Gay marriage was legal in only one state at the time, Hawaii.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hereby give everyone permission to ignore every law that their elected Congressman didn't vote for. How well do you think that will work? I am subject to rules created by people I didn't vote for. Is that unfair? No. It's part of a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy. However, pure democracy would be mob rule. That's also "unfair" since up to 49% didn't support some particular idea but are subject to the whims of the 51%. It's possible that an issue would be decided by a single person. Is that "more fair?"

You are literally making stuff up. I didn’t say that people should ignore the laws, I said they are unfair. I disagree with many laws and that doesn’t mean I break them, it means I work to change them. Educating people on what the constitution means for DC residents is part of changing it (there are people even in this thread who don’t seem to know that a law passed by Congress that affects only DC is not the same as a law passed by Congress that affects only MD because the DC resident has zero vote and the MD resident voted for reps and senators).

DC residents are represented by a congressperson who currently chairs a subcommittee on transportation.

The DC congresspersons have no vote when congress votes. That isn't the same at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hereby give everyone permission to ignore every law that their elected Congressman didn't vote for. How well do you think that will work? I am subject to rules created by people I didn't vote for. Is that unfair? No. It's part of a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy. However, pure democracy would be mob rule. That's also "unfair" since up to 49% didn't support some particular idea but are subject to the whims of the 51%. It's possible that an issue would be decided by a single person. Is that "more fair?"

You are literally making stuff up. I didn’t say that people should ignore the laws, I said they are unfair. I disagree with many laws and that doesn’t mean I break them, it means I work to change them. Educating people on what the constitution means for DC residents is part of changing it (there are people even in this thread who don’t seem to know that a law passed by Congress that affects only DC is not the same as a law passed by Congress that affects only MD because the DC resident has zero vote and the MD resident voted for reps and senators).

DC residents are represented by a congressperson who currently chairs a subcommittee on transportation.

The DC congresspersons have no vote when congress votes. That isn't the same at all.

There is one, singular, member of Congress representing DC and that person has full voting rights in committee and is even a subcommittee chair.

The idea that “DC residents have zero vote” is false. If you don’t think that representation is sufficient then you are free to move to a jurisdiction that may afford you what you feel to be greater representation.

[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.

The founding principles of our country? Like the documents where the founders expressly decreed that DC would be a federal district and not a state?