House Democrats Pass DC Statehood Bill (cnn.com) 249
House Democrats approved a bill to admit Washington, DC, as a state on Friday, marking the first time either chamber of Congress has advanced a DC statehood measure. From a report: The bill, introduced by DC's nonvoting House member, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, would shrink the federal capital to a small area encompassing the White House, Capitol building, Supreme Court, and other federal buildings along the National Mall. The rest of the city would become the 51st state, named the Washington, Douglass Commonwealth after abolitionist Frederick Douglass. The bill passed with a vote of 232-180. Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota was the only Democrat to join Republicans in voting against it. Independent Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan also voted no. The bill would grant DC two senators and make the existing sole House representative a voting member. It is unlikely to gain traction in the Republican-held Senate, however, and the White House said (PDF) this week that President Donald Trump would veto the bill if it came to his desk.
Proponents of making DC a state also point to the area's large population, which surpasses the populations of Wyoming and Vermont. As of June 2019, DC had more than 705,000 residents, according to estimates from the US Census Bureau. To become law, the bill's supporters argue it would only have to pass both chambers of Congress with a simple majority and then be signed by the President. They say the legislation's strategy of resizing the capital area would sidestep constitutional questions about making the rest of DC a state. But Republicans who oppose DC statehood maintain that adding the district as a state would require a constitutional amendment.
Proponents of making DC a state also point to the area's large population, which surpasses the populations of Wyoming and Vermont. As of June 2019, DC had more than 705,000 residents, according to estimates from the US Census Bureau. To become law, the bill's supporters argue it would only have to pass both chambers of Congress with a simple majority and then be signed by the President. They say the legislation's strategy of resizing the capital area would sidestep constitutional questions about making the rest of DC a state. But Republicans who oppose DC statehood maintain that adding the district as a state would require a constitutional amendment.
The idea of DC was so that it would NOT be a state (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The idea of DC was so that it would NOT be a st (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The idea of DC was so that it would NOT be a st (Score:4, Funny)
DC is carved out of Maryland, not Virginia.
There is no point in merging DC with Maryland since Maryland is already a blue state.
Re:The idea of DC was so that it would NOT be a st (Score:5, Informative)
DC was initially a square 10 miles on each side. Part of which was in Maryland and part in Virginia. In 1847 the Virginia side of DC voted to rejoin the state. That's why DC is not square any more.
Re:The idea of DC was so that it would NOT be a st (Score:4, Informative)
On July 9, 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act, which approved the creation of a national capital on the Potomac River. The exact location was to be selected by President George Washington, who signed the bill into law on July 16. Formed from land donated by the states of Maryland and Virginia, the initial shape of the federal district was a square measuring 10 miles (16 km) on each side, totaling 100 square miles (259 km2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maryland is already a blue state
You either give the land back to the people or not. It should not be a political jerrymandering move, it should not be another state. The states should simply get their land back, anything else should be vetoed and politicians voted out in the next election.
Re:You don't want to Merge DC anywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
because doing that would make the capital that State, and give that State a leg up. DC should stand on it's own.
Making DC it's own state would give the state that's created a leg up, by your own logic.
The sanest solution would be to reduce the federal zone down to the smallest possible area, and exclude any and all residential areas. Give what's left back to Maryland.
Re:You don't want to Merge DC anywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
because doing that would make the capital that State, and give that State a leg up. DC should stand on it's own.
Making DC it's own state would give the state that's created a leg up, by your own logic.
The sanest solution would be to reduce the federal zone down to the smallest possible area, and exclude any and all residential areas. Give what's left back to Maryland.
Agree 100%. Democrats want to create a state to give them more power in the Senate (they already hold a majority in the House). By merging with Maryland, that state would get more Representatives in the House, but no additional Senators. In general, Republicans oppose this bill for the same exact reasons Democrats support it.
Washington, DC was never meant to be a city like others. It was assumed it would hold housing for the President, Vice President, Senators, and Representatives, plus their families. These individuals should already vote based on permanent residency.
And the GOP doesn't want to have to listen (Score:2)
Absolutely True! (Score:5, Insightful)
Agree 100%. Democrats want to create a state to give them more power in the Senate
I{t's true! Republican control of the senate is ridiculous given the populations some of our senators represent. Our founders were fearful of the tyranny of the majority but the tyranny of the minority sure reared it's ugly head under Obama with Mitch McConnell, who in his own words, said he wouldn't pass anything coming out of the White House. Plus, let's not forget to mention the Senate's refusal to even entertain Obama's supreme court nomination who he was well within his power in nominating.
The Republicans in the Senate have been acting in an undemocratic manor for years now, why should it be surprising that Democrats want to curb that? Of course this measure doesn't stand a chance at passing but hey, why should the people of DC be represented in the Senate? It's not like they're Americans or something.
Re:Absolutely True! (Score:4, Insightful)
Our founders were fearful of the tyranny of the majority but the tyranny of the minority sure reared it's ugly head under Obama with Mitch McConnell, who in his own words, said he wouldn't pass anything coming out of the White House.
Calling it "tyranny" is a stretch. A tyrant gets to make policy at will. The GOP Senate doesn't get to do that. It does get to block the blue majority from making policy at will, requiring compromise to find solutions that are more broadly acceptable. When the country isn't so incredibly divided like it is now, this actually works reasonably well. The cities can't dictate to the rural areas, or vice versa. The problem right now is that division is so severe and mutual distrust so deep that neither side is willing to bend enough to do anything (though I'll readily admit that the GOP is a bit worse about it than the Democrats).
What we need to do is to tone down the rhetoric and learn again how to compromise.
Re:Absolutely True! (Score:5, Informative)
Mich's no compromise pledge was blatantly undemocratic. He literally made a no compromise pledge when Obama was in office. It was recorded.
To repeat it once again, this goal of complete government shut down to punish democrats was 100% in line with Mich McConnell's recorded comments.
As you have stated, compromise is necessary for a Democracy to function but Mitch literately stated completely contrary values to such things and certainly exhibited those ideals when he was put to the vote. Mitch's goals were never to govern responsibly, it was to beat the democrats.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, they have been acting in a very democratic manner. That's why you're so angry.
Remember the "nuclear option"? And Republicans said it was a terrible idea, and we needed to have bipartisan support for judges? Democrats smiled and enacted it. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and the Republicans have just finished filling the federal judiciary with staunch defenders of the Constitution who will shape our lives for decades to come.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you just made the claim you thought you made. You're essentially claiming that republicans chose to be even more undemocratic than their opponents.
The Republicans have lost the popular vote (Score:5, Informative)
It's one of those things that's so insane that when you bring it up people don't believe you. I've stopped linking to studies about this because people just tell me whatever sources I cite are "Fake News". Go find them yourself. There's plenty of them and you can find one you like as long as Fox News and OAN aren't your only sources of information.
Yeah, it would (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Making them residents of Maryland ameliorates any risk. As was mentioned above, Maryland would gain additional representatives in the House, thus ensuring those citizens' representation.
Re: (Score:3)
You've just made Maryland the capital of the Country. Which is why we didn't do what you're suggesting in the first place.
No, I didn't. Read what I actually typed. I said to exclude the federal zone, basically the National Mall, from the residential areas that go to Maryland.
But that's not what this is about. The GOP doesn't want to have to represent those 700,000 people. It doesn't want to have to campaign for their votes and listen to their concerns. It wants them drowned out.
And also exactly why the Democrats are all for it. They want those juicy two new Senators.
The GOP spearheaded gerrymandering (and yes, greedy right wing Democrats helped to keep power). Their leader, Donald Trump, has said in public his party can't win if people are able to vote easily (e.g. by Mail, his exact words were "You'll see levels of voting you've never seen before... we'll never win another election"). They have continued to do massive voter suppression and fought against the Voting Rights Act.
It's time to call a Spade a Spade. The GOP doesn't believe in Democracy. They believe in Oligarchy with a slightly larger pool of oligarchs. They're promising you that you'll be one of those oligarchs. Don't be fooled. You disgust them, and they'll take everything from you.
This is all, right or wrong, non sequitur, and not germane to the current discussion. By even bringing it up you prove yourself to be the partisan hack we all know you are.
Re: (Score:3)
This is all, right or wrong, non sequitur, and not germane to the current discussion. By even bringing it up you prove yourself to be the partisan hack we all know you are.
LOL, the guy brings up "CIA was selling Crack to blacks in 1980 to fund death squads" in a discussion about a broadband plan. He's literally nuts.
Re:The idea of DC was so that it would NOT be a st (Score:5, Interesting)
Retrocession back to Maryland is fairest solution. It was done for the Virginia side in 1847 so the legal procedure is already worked out. Two votes - one in DC and one in Maryland and it is a done deal. The Constitution says the Federal District can be no more than 10 miles on a side so it allowed to shrink. If it shrinks the property should revert back to its rightful owner, Maryland.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As an outsider with no horse in the race, I'd say it looks like California still thinks it should be treated the same as everybody else. There's a big difference.
There needs to be a way to deal with "tyranny of the majority" but that also has to be balanced against giving some parts of the country disproportionate power vs other parts. Why should your vote be worth any more than his?
Re: (Score:2)
It is way too big to assume nobody would live there. It should have included only the national mall to achieve that goal.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea was also that nobody or almost nobody would live there.
Well after we ratify them as a state and move our capitol to some other neutral site, they will most likely go back to having no one will live there, because virtually all DC employment is tied to the federal presence and capitol tourism.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Puerto Rico being denied statehood by the 50 states? My understanding was that there is no will (or at least, a majority will) inside Puerto Rico to even ask to become a state.
Re:The idea of DC was so that it would NOT be a st (Score:5, Insightful)
Puerto Rico has a pretty good deal with the US since they receive many benefits from the US (like citizenship and aid) and for the most part they don't pay US taxes. If PR became a state they's have to start paying US taxes. When statehood goes up for a vote in PR it loses because the residents correctly assess that being a territory is a better deal for them than statehood.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to tell what they want if no one votes.
Re: (Score:2)
97% of 23% (22.31%) is still almost as high a percentage of Puerto Ricans as the percentage of voting-age Americans who voted for Donald Trump in the last election (25.68%). If it's good enough for a federal election, it should be good enough for statehood, IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
97% of 23% (22.31%) is still almost as high a percentage of Puerto Ricans as the percentage of voting-age Americans who voted for Donald Trump in the last election (25.68%).
Yes, and look how well that's turned out.
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't disagree that the current administration is a train wreck to end all train wrecks, I'm just saying that if the 77% cared, they should have voted. If they didn't care enough to vote and they don't like the results, maybe they should think about voting next time. Same goes for the almost half of all voting-age Americans who didn't vote in 2016.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Are they allowed to vote? Or rather, is voting a simple enough process that they can easily vote after work or take some time off to vote?
I ask because from the outside, there's lots of stories about areas not having enough polling places for the population, voters being intimidated, voting lists being manipulated, and voter ID laws that are designed to deny parts of the population the vote. Then there's the weird idea that certain crimes mean you can never vote again, which includes voting to change the la
Re:The idea of DC was so that it would NOT be a st (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure they have that great of a deal. Over 20 years (1990-2009) Puerto Rico paid more in federal taxes than 6 full-fledged states (https://www.puertoricoreport.com/puerto-rico-paid-federal-taxes-six-states/#.Wkx-SlWnGM8). Through the Jones Act, they pay a very high price for importing anything to the island, which comes out to be a 15-20% markup on pretty much all goods, and even more in some areas (e.g., food in PR is twice as expensive than in Florida). Under the 2017 tax bill, Congress levied a 12.5% tax on all goods exported from PR through a US corporation, which makes their exports extremely uncompetitive in the US market.
So while they may not pay federal income taxes, they do end up sending a lot of money to the federal gov't in other ways. Whatever happened to no taxation without representation?
Re:The idea of DC was so that it would NOT be a st (Score:4, Interesting)
The bulk of those taxes are payroll taxes and they receive SS/Medicare in return. I do agree that the Jones Act should be repealed for places like PR (not everywhere, I'm not ready to see Chinese tour boats plying the Mississippi).
The trade off is basically to get Congresscritters in exchange for paying the US income tax. I'm with the Puerto Ricans on that one, I would have no problem with giving up my Congresscritters to escape the US income tax.
Re: (Score:3)
Consider that they pay more taxes than six states but these are payroll taxes so they are a function of population. PR's population is greater than 20 of the states, PR population is triple that of those six states where it is paying more in taxes. On a per capita basis PR residents pay very little to the US government. $73B over 19 years divided by 3.2M is about $1,200 per year per person. The main thing they get for that is Social Security and Medicare.
Re: The idea of DC was so that it would NOT be a s (Score:5, Informative)
Puerto Rico received about $11B. Thatâ(TM)s not exactly pocket change, but itâ(TM)s nowhere close to $91B. There is additional money earmarked which has not yet been disbursed, but even that is nowhere close. Anyone saying PR got $91B is lying.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot of toilet paper rolls for the president to throw at people.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>"And maybe split Northern California away from the screaming hippies?"
^^^ This
Making DC a State is insane. Just give most of it back to Maryland, like was done with Virginia. Done.
But splitting California into at least two States actually makes a lot of sense. Population, size, and culture-wise it would work.
Re: (Score:3)
Completely Absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
There are other ways to solve any representation/taxation problem besides granting/creating a new State out of an area the size of a postage stamp and with the population of half my city.
1) Retrocede the remaining residential sections back to Maryland, mirroring what was already done with the city of Alexandria in Virginia
2) Remove the Federal Income Tax in DC and fund local operations with local assessments/taxes.
We form and authorize States in this country, not city-states. There are plenty of other metro regions in the lower 48 that "deserve" Statehood more than DC does and would have a more stable economy -- but they're not getting it either. C'est la vie.
Re:Completely Absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There are plenty of US territories like Puerto Rico that by all rights should be made states first.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the people of PR have repeatedly voted against being made a state.
Well, technically in the last referendum they did vote in favor of becoming a state, though that was likely largely due to the people who would've voted no boycotting the referendum. Another referendum will take place this November, so at least some of the people there are still interested.
Re: (Score:2)
2) Remove the Federal Income Tax in DC and fund local operations with local assessments/taxes.
Are you suggesting federal services such as the military be funded/managed locally in DC? So DC would have its own army? The US army wouldn't protect DC if it were attacked?
Sorry but this is a stupid suggestion.
As long as DC is part of the USA, residents should pay federal taxes, like everyone else, and benefit from federal services as well.
There are plenty of other metro regions in the lower 48 that "deserve" Statehood more than DC
Except they are all already part of a state.
Re: (Score:2)
2) Remove the Federal Income Tax in DC and fund local operations with local assessments/taxes.
Are you suggesting federal services such as the military be funded/managed locally in DC? So DC would have its own army? The US army wouldn't protect DC if it were attacked?
Of course not. The Federal government provides military protection. Local funding is for funding DC Metro and other city services.
As long as DC is part of the USA, residents should pay federal taxes, like everyone else, and benefit from federal services as well.
US Citizens in US Territories do not pay Federal income tax (on income generated within the Territory).
There are plenty of other metro regions in the lower 48 that "deserve" Statehood more than DC
Except they are all already part of a state.
Irrelevant. You're conflating being "Part of a State" with "Statehood". I have no problems with the residential areas of DC being "part of a State" -- Maryland is sitting right there. I have problems with an area the size of a suburb of San Diego being given Statehood.
The deserve representation in Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again if you do that and you live in a rural community or a low population state you're gonna have to give up some of that power. Not that it's done those places much good. Their schools are falling apart and their hospitals are closing left and right in the middle of a pandemic.
Re: (Score:2)
Your complaint works in the opposite direction in the House where the small states have close to zero power. If we totally removed the House/Senate/Electoral College then the combination of the ten largest cities in America would control everything. And those ten cities already have enough power without giving them a dictatorship over the rest of America.
Re:The deserve representation in Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
And those ten cities already have enough power without giving them a dictatorship over the rest of America.
Amen. True democracy is granting voting power in proportion to the amount of land you own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy has changed its meaning since the 18th century. It almost always means representative democracy, whether a republic or monarchy doesn't really matter either as all constitutional monarchies have neutered their monarchs power.
Re:The deserve representation in Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care to do the math on this right now, but if the majority of Americans live in the ten largest cities then why shouldn't they have their voices heard?
They're not all going to vote the same way.
What gets me are the people who post pictures of maps showing mostly red counties and when I ask these people if they think Loving County, Texas (Population 169) should have the same voting power as Harris County, Texas (Population 4.7 million) if I get an answer at all it's simply "YES!".
Re: (Score:3)
Allow the voters to vote as residents of Maryland or Virginia, based on location within DC?
We could also solve the whole problem of seat of government and local residents by putting the government on a barge that's anchored in Chesapeake Bay...
Re: (Score:2)
Allow the voters to vote as residents of Maryland or Virginia, based on location within DC?
That was basically the solution the Founders used, and it seemed to work pretty well, until the lead-up to the Civil War and the US decided it specifically didn't want to build anything on the VA side of the Potomac.
We could also solve the whole problem of seat of government and local residents by putting the government on a barge that's anchored in Chesapeake Bay...
Well, it's actually very important (by design) that the Seat of the Federal Government not be a part of any State... So even a DC Retrocession for the residential bits would leave the NPS land and the areas surrounding the Capitol, White House, and Supreme Court buildings.
Arguments (Score:2)
Pretty sure there is only one argument against it: It will add two more Democrat senators.
Re: (Score:2)
Then reform your senate. There is no reason why Wyoming should get as many senators as California.
Re: (Score:2)
Then reform your senate.
This would require a constitutional amendment, which requires 75% of state legislatures to approve it, thus voting to reduce their own influence.
Chance of this happening: 0%.
Re: (Score:3)
Then reform your senate.
This would require a constitutional amendment, which requires 75% of state legislatures to approve it, thus voting to reduce their own influence.
Chance of this happening: 0%.
Slight problem, every state would have to agree to this because of article V. Or at least that's how I read this
provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Re:Arguments (Score:4, Informative)
There is absolutely a reason why WY and CA both have 2 senators it's to make sure all states have equal representation in the senate. The house is where the more populous states get to exert their will against the smaller states.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you must live in a city.
The ideals, values, and practicalities in a rural/red state are way way different than oakland or baltimore. If you can't see why they need some representation, not sure what tell you.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Land is really cheap in most of those red states. If you want lots of land, go buy it. It's like buying desert land in Arizona but probably prettier.
Re:Arguments (Score:5, Informative)
It's very concerning how many people don't know this most elementary fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
States are historical and somewhat amorphous constructs. The sizes are all over the place, and so are the populations. If all the b
Re: (Score:2)
Most people care a lot more about what happens in their own backyard than what happens 1,000 miles away. It's human nature. Thus, people will naturally enact laws that benefit their backyard with a lot less regard to whether it hurts those 1,000 miles away. This is why there must be some representation based on how land is distributed around the country. Granted, i
Re: (Score:2)
"Why should there be one half of Congress where representation is proportional to population and another half where it's proportional to...land area?"
The arguments and answers to your question are in the Federalist papers, I believe. Other posters have detailed the specific answers, but it's always useful to go to the primary sources.
I think the system of checks and balances is pretty clever, actually. There may be other systems that do the job, but I'm not aware of them. There would be no USA without the c
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the rights of a minority to keep slaves?
Re:Arguments (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not in favor of the tyranny of the majority, but I'm even less in favor of the tyranny of the minority.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's about time you abolish all the states. It's a silly concept that dates to a time when you couldn't get from one side of the country to the other in a couple of hours with pocket change.
Re: (Score:2)
How many countries do you want the U.S. to become? Because that's what you'll get (perhaps along with some civil war) if you take a country of this size and diversity and let it be ruled by the population centers. And no, the "poor" states don't care about losing the money. They would rather have their freedoms and their culture left alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Then reform your senate. There is no reason why Wyoming should get as many senators as California.
Our federal government is set up as a compromise. The House is divvied up based on population so that small states don't get an unfair advantage. Every state gets two senators so that small states don't get pushed out of the conversation completely. Under a direct democracy, the eight most populous states could dictate for the other forty (I believe another poster said the 10 most populous cities!). Urban areas tend to lean left, while rural communities are conservative.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to know what statuary will be used to commemorate the 51ist state so we can plan ahead for protests. You can't plan too early. Spray paint sells out /so/ fast these days, one can barely keep up.
Re: (Score:3)
We need to know what statuary will be used to commemorate the 51ist state so we can plan ahead for protests
We want to be fair. It will be a statue of Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi kissing.
Two (Score:2)
The other only argument was that the seat of federal power should not be within a state, as the federal government would likely favor that state over the others.
You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:2)
With all the US territories being denied proper representation...
Re: (Score:2)
Give it back to Maryland (Score:4, Interesting)
What is now DC used to be part of Maryland. Why not just give it back? Add the DC population to the Maryland census, recompute the House membership, and you're all set.
Re: (Score:2)
I would like DC to be an independent state, so that 2 more Democratic senators can be added.
So you acknowledge that the only way the Democrats can regain any kind of dominance is to manipulate the system, because democracy has decrees their time is done?
Re: (Score:3)
I would like DC to be an independent state, so that 2 more Democratic senators can be added.
So you acknowledge that the only way the Democrats can regain any kind of dominance is to manipulate the system, because democracy has decrees their time is done?
The Democrats will gain complete dominance in a decade or two if they do nothing. Demographics are on their side and against Republicans, as the US becomes a minority majority nation. Obviously, they'd prefer not to wait but "their time is done" is very unlikely. Unless Trump succeeds in becoming a dictator, of course, but that that's even less likely.
Why now? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it is an issue particularly linked to the election. Hasn't the statehood of DC be an issue regularly discussed since the 80's?
Re: (Score:2)
And the Republicans would pick it up like a cheap male prostitute in a dive bar.
Capital/Capitol (Score:2)
I really, really wish they could get the word "Capitol" right instead of flip-flopping back and forth between that and capital. It's really frustrating that legitimate news organizations, that theoretically have educated reporters and editors seem to mess this up consistently, over and over and over again. I know it's terrible to be a spelling/grammar pedant on a discussion thread. But I'm not criticizing another comment. I make too many of my own errors for that. Actual published works should be proof read
Re: (Score:2)
They did use the words correctly, at least in TFA, but if you want to avoid confusion you might as well stop using "capitol" altogether; no other English speaking nation uses the word anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really frustrating that legitimate news organizations, that theoretically have educated reporters and editors
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I needed a good laugh.
Pleas god, no! (Score:2)
Having lived in the DC area in the past I don't want anyone there to have any federal power.
Those idiots re-elected Marion Barry after he had been caught and convicted of smoking crack.
Just to point out. (Score:2)
Looking at a fewer of the comments in this thread. Just something to remember. Article I Section 8 Clause 17 of the Constitution
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
and Article IV Section 3
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Just wanted to point these things out for those indicating, "Why won't they allow California/New York/etc.." Mostly because those also require the State to play ball and traditionally Congress waits on the State to indicate need first. Now of course, that doesn't stop Congress, but something to consider. That said, I wouldn't personally mind some of the
Having lived there... (Score:2)
Having actually lived in DC for a brief time, I used to daydream about resolving the "taxation without representation" dilemma by tossing aside my vote in exchange for not paying any Federal taxes. Alas, I knew it was but a dream because the vast majority there is sold on resolving this dilemma by adding representation rather than removing taxation.
If the "representation" were something other than Congress in its present form, I might consider it. As it stands, only lobbyists are getting much value for th
Seems reasonable to me (Score:2)
Anti-Constitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
The founders were very aware of the Palace of Versailles and the attitudes of aloof disconnected-from-the-public national leaders in guilded halls surrounded by yes-men. They were determined that the new capital city of the USA would not become that messed up, and to try to prevent such a self-serving elite in a self-serving capital they created the District of Columbia. It was a very deliberate design decision. If people in the USA want to have normal political representation, then they are free to live in any other location in the nation, but the capital city is not to be that place. Our political representatives are not supposed to be living there --- they are legally required to reside in their home states. They are also not supposed to have huge staffs in DC. The executive branch is not supposed to be involved in all aspect of our lives and therefore is not supposed to have numerous agencies with armies of "civil servants" living in DC (this is mostly a lingering aftermath of the FDR presidency).
Our founders specifically warned us about this. Of course, they also specifically warned us against a central bank that could print money from thin air, and against excessive foreign entanglements...
It's not surprising that the Democrats keep trying this. Many of them believe in a "living constitution" that they can simply amend without any legal actions by simply re-imagining the meaning of words. Of course they now keep doing this to try to take further advantage of the black vote in the District (which is only concentrated in DC in the first place because Democrats initially owned most black people as slaves, then Democrats created and protected Jim Crow laws, and Democrat president Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government along racial lines - which caused many black Americans to work in DC as cheap menial labor for the rich and powerful in the capital).
People forget that the Constitution does not, in fact, say that black people are 3/5ths of a person. The big compromise in the Constitution is that "non-free persons" (which is not just black slaves) were only counted as 3/5ths of a person only for the purpose of allocating seats in congress in order to limit the ability of slave owners (all Democrats) to gain political power in congress on the backs of their slaves while not actually representing those people. That same part of the Constitution exempts indians completely, since they claimed to be separate nations entirely anyway - yet nobody pretends that the Constitution says indians are not human at all. This "make DC a state" garbage is just a continuation of the 200+ year Democrat use of black people for political power.
Note: I used "indians" here because the term "native Americans" was not used at the time, and did not capitalize it to avoid confusing with the modern nation of India, not out of any disrespect or bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to get clarification, what is the percentage of people it would take to meet your alleged criteria such that those people would get the 'voice' you claim?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Combined, the populations of the San Francisco Bay Area and the Greater Los Angeles Area account for about 67% of the population of California. Even if every single person in both those regions held political views the opposite of yours (which is not the case), in California they have this system called (flips through pages) "the vote," where a majority of votes is what decides legislative matters. Sounds like what you need is for California to adopt an electoral college system -- worked great for you at th
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, let's make a city vote equal to 3/5th of a normal vote!
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Not only that, you will also get everyone here in PR (people+companies) paying federal taxes. Anyway I'm sick of companies (I'm looking at you Dell/Google) not selling/giving services here because we are not part of the US. We are part of the US to enlist and fight in wars, but not to get a fucking Alienware PC shipped down here. Not even shipping to the US and paying with an AMEX because the billing address is in PR. Fucking Dell.