DC statehood: Things that make my blood boil:

[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.

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?

This has been debated since its inception. Our founding fathers also felt that government should be modified to suit the needs of the people with changing times. See Declaration of Independence text. See Constitutional amendments. See history of legislature modifications to try to "fix" the issue ever since. Our founders also lived in a time of other wrongs, you know that right? Or should we go back to slavery, women not having the right to vote, etc. etc. etc.?

With 700k US citizens residing in DC, I, and many others, feel that a modification is needed. Perhaps you disagree, but the winds of time do eventually push towards justice. We'll get to a better solution eventually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

This has been debated since its inception. Our founding fathers also felt that government should be modified to suit the needs of the people with changing times. See Declaration of Independence text. See Constitutional amendments. See history of legislature modifications to try to "fix" the issue ever since. Our founders also lived in a time of other wrongs, you know that right? Or should we go back to slavery, women not having the right to vote, etc. etc. etc.?

With 700k US citizens residing in DC, I, and many others, feel that a modification is needed. Perhaps you disagree, but the winds of time do eventually push towards justice. We'll get to a better solution eventually.

Equating DC's status as a federal district to the past wrongs of slavery and a lack of universal suffrage is offensive.

[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.

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?

Are you really familiar with the history of the removal of federal representation for DC residents?

It wasn't some unanimous decision whatsoever, even at its inception, it was recognized as problematic. It becomes more problematic as the population of DC grows, such that more people live in DC than some states.

https://www.dchistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/10-Debates-Over-Retrocession-by-Mark-David-Richards-16-1.pdf

"Rep. Smilie also raised concerns about the
time and expense of acting as the District's legis-
lature and questioned congressional competency
to legislate for the District. He noted that "the
trouble and expense would increase with the
increasing number of inhabitants."12 He again
warned about the loss of political rights: "Here,
58 E Washington History, Spring/Summer 2004
the citizens would be governed by laws, in the
making of which they have no voice - by laws
not made with their own consent, but by the
United States for them - by men who have not
the interest in the laws made that legislators
ought always to possess - by men also not
acquainted with the minute and local interests
of the place, coming, as they did, from distances
of 500 to 1,000 miles."13"

" Representative Benjamin Huger of
South Carolina (Federalist) pointed out that just
"because [District residents] are now disenfran-
chised of their rights, it does not follow that they
are always to remain so." Huger looked forward
to the time when the inhabitants through their
numbers and riches would be entitled to repre-
sentation. With respect to their local concerns,
he argued that when they grew more numerous
and wealthy, "there would be no difficulty in giv-
ing them a Territorial Legislature."14

It wasn't even certain at the time that congress would remain in DC

" Besides, he asked, what obligation
had Congress to remain here if the area was
receded? "Unfix the Capitol, and recede the Dis-
trict, and, believe me, Congress will soon take
wings and fly to some other place."16 He, too,
believed that the establishment of a territorial leg-
islature would solve the problem"

"Rep. Smilie countered by asking if there had
ever been a government possessed of unlimited
power that had not abused it. "You may give them
a charter," he said, "But of what avail will this be,
when Congress may take it away at any moment?
They would continue forever to be ultimately gov-
erned by a body over whom they had no control."17
Smilie was not alone in raising concerns and
proposing retrocession as a possible solution. Rep-
resentatives from Virginia offered various retro-
cession options. Representative John Dawson
(Republican) moved to divide the two questions
of retroceding the Virginia portion from the
Maryland portion, while Representative John
Randolph suggested retroceding all the territory
except Washington City. Representative John
Smith (Republican) said that the people of
Alexandria had been "very anxious to be admitted
into the ten-miles square; and they were admit-
ted"; therefore, he concluded, they had been
admitted with their consent. Before he would
vote for a retrocession proposal, he wanted to be
sure the people of the District wanted to be retro-
ceded. With so much debate and so little
consensus, the resolutions of the retrocession bill
failed 66 to 26."

Slavery also may have factored into the decision:

"ll the possible arguments for or against retrocession. There
was some limited discussion that the anti-slavery
members in the District Committee in Congress
opposed retrocession because free blacks were not
allowed to live in Virginia and a smaller District
might benefit slaveholders because runaways to
the District, who previously were rarely returned,
would become more vulnerable. One member of
Congress mentioned this point in the debate"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

This has been debated since its inception. Our founding fathers also felt that government should be modified to suit the needs of the people with changing times. See Declaration of Independence text. See Constitutional amendments. See history of legislature modifications to try to "fix" the issue ever since. Our founders also lived in a time of other wrongs, you know that right? Or should we go back to slavery, women not having the right to vote, etc. etc. etc.?

With 700k US citizens residing in DC, I, and many others, feel that a modification is needed. Perhaps you disagree, but the winds of time do eventually push towards justice. We'll get to a better solution eventually.

Equating DC's status as a federal district to the past wrongs of slavery and a lack of universal suffrage is offensive.

Our government actually debated to what extent depriving DC residents of congressional representation equated a deprivation of rights as in slavery or as in the previous monarchy rule they had escaped, but ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

This has been debated since its inception. Our founding fathers also felt that government should be modified to suit the needs of the people with changing times. See Declaration of Independence text. See Constitutional amendments. See history of legislature modifications to try to "fix" the issue ever since. Our founders also lived in a time of other wrongs, you know that right? Or should we go back to slavery, women not having the right to vote, etc. etc. etc.?

With 700k US citizens residing in DC, I, and many others, feel that a modification is needed. Perhaps you disagree, but the winds of time do eventually push towards justice. We'll get to a better solution eventually.

Equating DC's status as a federal district to the past wrongs of slavery and a lack of universal suffrage is offensive.

A lesser wrong is still a wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She’s a non-voting representative even though she’s been there long enough to chair a subcommittee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She’s a non-voting representative even though she’s been there long enough to chair a subcommittee.

She gets a vote in the Committee of the whole, but not on the house floor for final passage of legislation. She chairs a subcommittee.

That doesn't at all equate that US citizens who reside in DC have the same type of representation in congress as US citizens who live in a state.

This is a problem that has been hotly debated since the formation of DC as the nation's capital, at the time congress wasn't even certain to stay in DC forever, at a time when the creation of the country and constitution were considered an imperfect work in progress that future generations would amend to suit the needs of its citizens rather than a Bible that should never be changed (see Jefferson who actually wanted to rewrite the Constitution every 20ish years).

It was not at all a unanimous decision whatsoever to strip DC residents of congressional representation; in fact, the same concerns voiced in this forum were voiced back then in 1801. See quotes above.

[Anonymous]

No DC statehood. It will never happen. Just give MD and VA their land back if they want to vote, or DC residents can move and get out if they don't like it.

Stop overcomplicating it with statehood and just return the land to MD and VA.

[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.

Just move if you don't like it and stop complaining about it. You literally need to move about 10 minutes away if voting matters so much to you. You chose where to live and knew what the deal was. Quit whining about it.

[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.

What stupid question?

The real question is why do you live in DC in the first place if you knew the voting issue and the fact that it is not a state before moving there. You chose it, now lay in the bed you made.and quit winning about it.

DC becomes a state, so who becomes mayor and governor, and who trumps who in running your city-state? What a colossally stupid idea that will add more govt on top of an already dysfunctional city govt. It'll be funny the day the governor overrides the DC mayor on crime issues that are out of hand. What a cluster it'd make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No DC statehood. It will never happen. Just give MD and VA their land back if they want to vote, or DC residents can move and get out if they don't like it.

Stop overcomplicating it with statehood and just return the land to MD and VA.

Virginia took theirs back already, Maryland doesn’t want it and DC voted for statehood overwhelmingly in a referendum. Not a solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No DC statehood. It will never happen. Just give MD and VA their land back if they want to vote, or DC residents can move and get out if they don't like it.

Stop overcomplicating it with statehood and just return the land to MD and VA.

Virginia took theirs back already, Maryland doesn’t want it and DC voted for statehood overwhelmingly in a referendum. Not a solution.

MD can rethink getting their land back. NBD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What stupid question?

The real question is why do you live in DC in the first place if you knew the voting issue and the fact that it is not a state before moving there. You chose it, now lay in the bed you made.and quit winning about it.

DC becomes a state, so who becomes mayor and governor, and who trumps who in running your city-state? What a colossally stupid idea that will add more govt on top of an already dysfunctional city govt. It'll be funny the day the governor overrides the DC mayor on crime issues that are out of hand. What a cluster it'd make.

Say you're a republican without saying you're a republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What stupid question?

The real question is why do you live in DC in the first place if you knew the voting issue and the fact that it is not a state before moving there. You chose it, now lay in the bed you made.and quit winning about it.

DC becomes a state, so who becomes mayor and governor, and who trumps who in running your city-state? What a colossally stupid idea that will add more govt on top of an already dysfunctional city govt. It'll be funny the day the governor overrides the DC mayor on crime issues that are out of hand. What a cluster it'd make.

Aw hun, sometimes the answer is actually revolution. It will happen eventually, every new generation is more progressive. In the spirit of the creation of our nation, the government will be modified to suit the needs of the people. The removal of rights for DC residents was considered an injustice and protested from its inception. The history is clear that this wasn't going to be set and stone, nor should it be if the needs of the people end up oppressed by a few trying to weild their power (I guess you're ok with that).

Since this doesn't concern you personally as you are not a DC resident, why don't you move on to another thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

This has been debated since its inception. Our founding fathers also felt that government should be modified to suit the needs of the people with changing times. See Declaration of Independence text. See Constitutional amendments. See history of legislature modifications to try to "fix" the issue ever since. Our founders also lived in a time of other wrongs, you know that right? Or should we go back to slavery, women not having the right to vote, etc. etc. etc.?

With 700k US citizens residing in DC, I, and many others, feel that a modification is needed. Perhaps you disagree, but the winds of time do eventually push towards justice. We'll get to a better solution eventually.

Are you saying that there are 700k US citizens residing in DC or 700K citizens of DC residing in the city. You could be wrong about the number of US citizens given the embassies and the illegals.