I agree that DC’s lack of statehood is problematic, and I don’t know what the answer is. It might help DC to be annexed by Maryland or Virginia, but as a Marylander, I really don’t think we want it, and I can’t imagine Virginia wants it either.

Meanwhile, while the issue of DC statehood is discussed frequently, however fruitlessly, I don’t hear discussion about the status of our US territories. I think much of the US doesn’t even know it has territories, which also causes problems. I think that’s one of the reasons Puerto Rico had trouble getting hurricane relief. American Samoans don’t even have citizenship status.

I think we need to resolve the status of DC and the territories. While DC as out capital can’t be independent, maybe we should ask our territories if they want to be independent of become a fully acknowledged part of the US. Once we know who wants to stay with us, we need to see if they want to be individual states or if it makes sense to form some combination, possibly with DC. (Ideally these determinations would be made without looking at the partisan leanings of each area, but I recognize that asking Congress to do anything without manipulating it for political gain is a naive pipe dream.)

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

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.

The council’s sole purpose is to keep you talking about Statehood something that’s never going to occur.

Retrocession to Md.,

Dc statehood will never happen.

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

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.

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.

WWJD?

Anonymous wrote:Every decade the push for statehood comes up and each and every time almost everyone agrees that it doesn’t make sense except for a handful of people who get way into it and come to believe that living in DC makes them an oppressed minority or something. It’s like a sad and repetitive play at this point.

Answer the question posted above. Stop the deflection.

Is it right?

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.

Every decade the push for statehood comes up and each and every time almost everyone agrees that it doesn’t make sense except for a handful of people who get way into it and come to believe that living in DC makes them an oppressed minority or something. It’s like a sad and repetitive play at this point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It wouldn’t be right if people were forced to live in DC. That’s not the case. People choose to live there.

So under your logic, it’s ok to violate any manner of individual rights because people can just move. A state could legalize slavery and people who don’t like it could just move.

That is exactly their logic.

I promise you that most DC citizens would love to be free of the yoke of federal taxation without representation if they just were not taxed. Property values would skyrocket!

This thread is about the ethics of people DC residents didn't elect imposing their will on DC residents.

It's not the economy in this case, stoopid. Stay focused.

So let Maryland or Virginia annex the roughly 58 square miles not covered by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. And ask yourself if you’d concern yourself with “ethics” if DC was 90% Republican. Answer: you would not give a sh*t. I promise you.

I would be happy to be annexed by either of those states. At least we would have some semblance of representation at that point. But since that's never going to happen and is a weird deflection from the real issue, which is some a-hole from far away trying to interfere in DC's local government, I'll have to settle for pushing for statehood.

+1 they are deflecting. Also realllly confirming my long held suspicion that the majority of posters in this forum are actually a handful of crotchety old white men in NW or Mclean who vote Republican and hate bike lanes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It wouldn’t be right if people were forced to live in DC. That’s not the case. People choose to live there.

So under your logic, it’s ok to violate any manner of individual rights because people can just move. A state could legalize slavery and people who don’t like it could just move.

That is exactly their logic.

I promise you that most DC citizens would love to be free of the yoke of federal taxation without representation if they just were not taxed. Property values would skyrocket!

This thread is about the ethics of people DC residents didn't elect imposing their will on DC residents.

It's not the economy in this case, stoopid. Stay focused.

So let Maryland or Virginia annex the roughly 58 square miles not covered by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. And ask yourself if you’d concern yourself with “ethics” if DC was 90% Republican. Answer: you would not give a sh*t. I promise you.

I would be happy to be annexed by either of those states. At least we would have some semblance of representation at that point. But since that's never going to happen and is a weird deflection from the real issue, which is some a-hole from far away trying to interfere in DC's local government, I'll have to settle for pushing for statehood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It wouldn’t be right if people were forced to live in DC. That’s not the case. People choose to live there.

So under your logic, it’s ok to violate any manner of individual rights because people can just move. A state could legalize slavery and people who don’t like it could just move.

That is exactly their logic.

I promise you that most DC citizens would love to be free of the yoke of federal taxation without representation if they just were not taxed. Property values would skyrocket!

This thread is about the ethics of people DC residents didn't elect imposing their will on DC residents.

It's not the economy in this case, stoopid. Stay focused.

So let Maryland or Virginia annex the roughly 58 square miles not covered by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. And ask yourself if you’d concern yourself with “ethics” if DC was 90% Republican. Answer: you would not give a sh*t. I promise you.

Yes. Yes I would. Because it's the right thing to do. But if DC was 90 percent Republican, Republicans would be absolutely pro statehood and Democrats less so.

The morally snd ethically appropriate thing to do is to give the nearly 700,000 US citizens who live in DC the right to voting representation in congress, regardless of their dominant political party.

What do you think is the morally, ethically appropriate answer?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It wouldn’t be right if people were forced to live in DC. That’s not the case. People choose to live there.

So under your logic, it’s ok to violate any manner of individual rights because people can just move. A state could legalize slavery and people who don’t like it could just move.

That is exactly their logic.

I promise you that most DC citizens would love to be free of the yoke of federal taxation without representation if they just were not taxed. Property values would skyrocket!

This thread is about the ethics of people DC residents didn't elect imposing their will on DC residents.

It's not the economy in this case, stoopid. Stay focused.

So let Maryland or Virginia annex the roughly 58 square miles not covered by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. And ask yourself if you’d concern yourself with “ethics” if DC was 90% Republican. Answer: you would not give a sh*t. I promise you.