Options

Save DC

123578

Posts

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Federal districts don't get congress people.

    Again, "DC doesn't have representation" isn't the same as "DC shouldn't have representation"

    Let Maryland represent them.

    Maryland will accept it now?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    DC, on the other hand, would be a state with no agricultural or industrial portions of its economy. DC is a place where the only industry is government and where the majority of jobs are in government or in the service industry around government. That would make it a very unique state, and not in a good way.

    Why not in a good way? The industry of Government supports not only DC, but also much of the surrounding areas that aren't DC.

    As for Georgetown having been absorbed in to Washington, yes, that's true, but without any sort of signposts or landmarks to point it out to you, there are a few other non-DC cities that one could drive in to, and not realize that they had left DC. Maybe Bethesda and Alexandria should be made a part of DC as well...

    o_O

    Wait what?


    Bethesda was never part of DC.

    And the areas in VA that were part of DC are not going back into it. Half the reason those places are worth so much and desired is that they aren't technically DC and thus free from it's douchbaggery. And you know when you left DC into VA because you cross a bridge, there is a river here.

    Again, if you actually read posts, they make more sense.

    Forgetting actual borders, the DC sprawl spreads way out. If this is being listed as a negative for statehood, what does it say about all of the other states either sharing in thes sprawl, or with their own unique sprawl?

    That "sprawl" is part of other states. And the main reason to live there is that it's not DC. What you are proposing is ripping the most affluent areas out of MD and VA and thrusting them into Washington DC. That will never happen.

    I'm not proposing it, I'm pointing out how absurd it is.

    Just as absurd, in my mind, as stating flatly that DC can't be a state just because it is a city.

    Evander on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Let me represent you.

    No reason they can't vote in MD's senatorial elections like they used to be able to.

    You mean besides not being citizens of that state and Maryland probably not wanting to allow them to do that?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Why not in a good way? The industry of Government supports not only DC, but also much of the surrounding areas that aren't DC.
    Because you would have 2 senators and 1 rep whose only job would be to make sure that government got bigger and bigger. I've seen people on this board (rightfully) decry Senators from rural states who are basically the Senators for Monsanto and ADM- they see it as their job to get more and more subsidies for the agriculture industry.

    The Senators from DC would be just as bad, if not worse, in their unflinching support for one particular industry, the interests of the rest of the country be damned.

    DC is too much of a monoculture and monoindustrial town to be comparable to other states that consist of a variety of different interests. Making DC a state would be like making Wall Street a state.
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Despite all of the explanations and excuses I've read in this thread, I still haven't seen an actual good reason for denying DC residents real congressional representation. What overwhelming state interest is served by disenfranchising them?
    Interestingly, the decision to disenfranchise DC voters was made by a federal Secretary in the early 1800's. There's never been a federal law that disenfranchised voters here. DC residents did vote in the early Presidential elections and voted in Marlyand and Virginia Congressional elections.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Let me represent you.

    No reason they can't vote in MD's senatorial elections like they used to be able to.

    Maryland is the reason.

    Evander on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Because you would have 2 senators and 1 rep whose only job would be to make sure that government got bigger and bigger.
    That is every representative's job.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Because you would have 2 senators and 1 rep whose only job would be to make sure that government got bigger and bigger.

    Pick any 2?

    I mean, seriously, that is all that any of them do anyway, ESPECIALLY the republicans.



    I do enjoy the whole "these people can't have representation because I don't like what they like" angle, though. If the people of DC want government to be bigger, then why SHOULDN'T that voice be heard?

    Evander on
  • Options
    FandyienFandyien But Otto, what about us? Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I'd be pretty happy if DC became a state and took northern Virginia with it.

    Fandyien on
    reposig.jpg
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Fandyien wrote: »
    I'd be pretty happy if DC became a state and took northern Virginia with it.
    Virginia would never allow it, since NOVA is such a cash cow for the rest of the Commonwealth. And with the way Virginia's state government is structured, NOVA gets less say in Virginia government than it should. Without NOVA, Virginia is economically more like Mississippi or Alabama.

    Also, no state can be forced to give up any territory without its consent.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Also, no state can be forced to give up any territory without its consent.

    How about being forced to accept new territory? can we lay that to rest?

    Evander on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Despite all of the explanations and excuses I've read in this thread, I still haven't seen an actual good reason for denying DC residents real congressional representation. What overwhelming state interest is served by disenfranchising them?

    The best I've seen in here is an argument that statehood would cause fiscal problems, with a state unable to support itself, which I'm not sure I buy, but I guess could be possible.

    You are correct, though, that no one has come forward with any reasons not to give DC some kind of special "other" status, that leaves them as is, except for the addition of congressional representation.

    I don't think anybody has actually argued against giving them representation per se, just against statehood. Has anybody specifically said they shouldn't get a representative in the House and/or at least vote in MD's Senatorial elections? Seems everybody agrees they deserve representation, but there's disagreement on the best way to make that happen.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Also, no state can be forced to give up any territory without its consent.

    How about being forced to accept new territory? can we lay that to rest?
    US Constitution Article 4, 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.

    It's not explicit, but I think it pretty heavily implies that the answer to your question is "no." The jist of this provision is that Congress can't mess with the borders of states without their consent.

    The feds did give back the Virginia portions of DC back in the 1830's(?). But I assume that was with the consent of Virginia.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    But Modern Man, saying they shouldn't have representation because you don't like what their representatives would PRESUMABLY be for is a horrible argument. When it comes to who gets representation you don't get to deny it just because you don't like what may happen.

    Also Ntsf your argument doesn't really address the point, they shouldn't be a state just because that's not the way it is now?

    I don't know if they should be a state, but they need some way they won't be disenfranchised. Period. Why is this a hard concept to grasp?

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Also, no state can be forced to give up any territory without its consent.

    How about being forced to accept new territory? can we lay that to rest?
    US Constitution Article 4, 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.

    It's not explicit, but I think it pretty heavily implies that the answer to your question is "no." The jist of this provision is that Congress can't mess with the borders of states without their consent.

    The feds did give back the Virginia portions of DC back in the 1830's(?). But I assume that was with the consent of Virginia.

    Somebody asked, however, how the original act creating the district was written. If it included a clause relating to the potential unilateral return of the territory, then it could happen. But yeah, otherwise the state would have to consent.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Despite all of the explanations and excuses I've read in this thread, I still haven't seen an actual good reason for denying DC residents real congressional representation. What overwhelming state interest is served by disenfranchising them?

    The best I've seen in here is an argument that statehood would cause fiscal problems, with a state unable to support itself, which I'm not sure I buy, but I guess could be possible.

    You are correct, though, that no one has come forward with any reasons not to give DC some kind of special "other" status, that leaves them as is, except for the addition of congressional representation.

    I don't think anybody has actually argued against giving them representation per se

    Modern Man has, and nstf has come pretty close while dancing around it.

    Evander on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    lsukalel wrote: »
    I don't know if they should be a state, but they need some way they won't be disenfranchised. Period. Why is this a hard concept to grasp?
    Do we? The District is a weird creature, Constitutionally-speaking. We don't even have the Constitutional right to self-government here. A representative District government has only existed since the 70's. Before that, Congress just appointed someone to run DC, and there was no Constitutional problem with the setup. Congress can dissolve our government tomorrow, and we'd have no recourse- they came close to doing so back in the 90's after Marion Barry basically ran DC government into the ground.

    There is no Constitutional requirement that DC residents be represented in Congress.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Also, no state can be forced to give up any territory without its consent.

    How about being forced to accept new territory? can we lay that to rest?
    US Constitution Article 4, 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.

    It's not explicit, but I think it pretty heavily implies that the answer to your question is "no." The jist of this provision is that Congress can't mess with the borders of states without their consent.

    The feds did give back the Virginia portions of DC back in the 1830's(?). But I assume that was with the consent of Virginia.

    There ain't no rule that it can't give them federal property! Yeah, the SC would probably decide that forcing territory would violate the Constitution if only because of it going against the principles and purpose of that restriction.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I don't think anybody has actually argued against giving them representation per se

    Modern Man has, and nstf has come pretty close while dancing around it.

    I think both of them are arguing against the District having two Senators, not representation period. Why, there it is in his first post here, him suggesting they vote in Maryland elections. That would be representation. Alternately, he argued they shouldn't be taxed...but from what I can tell nobody is arguing against representation in some form or another, it's statehood that's an issue.

    Hint: if they voted in Maryland elections, it's highly likely that DC would get (for the most part) it's own district/representative based on population. Or even multiple representatives (how many does Baltimore have?).

    EDIT: Well, actually MM seems okay with the idea of disenfranchisement, and is willing to argue why it's not necessary to give them representation. But he also doesn't seem wholly opposed to the idea either, based on other posts.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man, how do you feel about DC getting only one senator?

    Evander on
  • Options
    wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Which is really the problem. If they're going to be denied congressional representation, they should at least be exempt from paying federal taxes like other territories. It really rubs me the wrong way that the residents of DC have almost no power to elect the very people who make real decisions over the governance of their city.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »
    I don't know if they should be a state, but they need some way they won't be disenfranchised. Period. Why is this a hard concept to grasp?
    Do we? The District is a weird creature, Constitutionally-speaking. We don't even have the Constitutional right to self-government here. A representative District government has only existed since the 70's. Before that, Congress just appointed someone to run DC, and there was no Constitutional problem with the setup. Congress can dissolve our government tomorrow, and we'd have no recourse- they came close to doing so back in the 90's after Marion Barry basically ran DC government into the ground.

    There is no Constitutional requirement that DC residents be represented in Congress.

    And the constitution can never be changed. Ever. It's never ever happened. It's never been the case that overriding concerns in the nation and policy have caused the constitution to be changed. Ever.

    It really sounds like your argument boils down to , if I liked the people who lived there better I would be for them having representation. I could give a damn what they are for once they get representation. The point is they should have it.

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I don't think anybody has actually argued against giving them representation per se

    Modern Man has, and nstf has come pretty close while dancing around it.

    I think both of them are arguing against the District having two Senators, not representation period. Why, there it is in his first post here, him suggesting they vote in Maryland elections. That would be representation. Alternately, he argued they shouldn't be taxed...but from what I can tell nobody is arguing against representation in some form or another, it's statehood that's an issue.

    Hint: if they voted in Maryland elections, it's highly likely that DC would get (for the most part) it's own district/representative based on population. Or even multiple representatives (how many does Baltimore have?).
    I think letting the District gets its own reps through the Maryland delegation would be the most politically palatable solution. You'd probably have to figure out a way to balance out the creation of 1-2 safe Democratic seats with the same number of safe GOP seats. One of the proposals was to give Utah another seat if DC got one. If DC is its own Congressional district, that doesn't change anything in House of Rep. elections in the rest of Maryland. Furthermore, Maryland gets a bit more influence in Presidential elections with the addition of one more Electroal College vote.

    The only problem is Senatorial elections- though the Maryland Democratic party would be happy to have several hundred thousand new Democrats added to the electorate, the Maryland GOP might not be so happy about it, which could be a dealbreaker.
    Evander wrote: »
    Modern Man, how do you feel about DC getting only one senator?
    That would certainly require a Constitutional amendment. And I think that's probably dead in the water. You'd never get the supermajorities needed to make this happen.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Modern Man, how do you feel about DC getting only one senator?

    Speaking for myself, that would probably be unconstitutional. I also don't like the idea of a pseudo-state with only part of the benefits of being a real state.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I may think Michelle Bachman is a horrible person with horrible policies, BUT I don't think the people of her district should be without real representation in congress.

    And thats pretty much what a lot of the opposition to DC representation is dancing around. The people of the district is urban and black. Any congress reps(assuming some kind of city-state status and not full statehood) would be liberal(and black) as a result.

    The finacial part of it is really just a smokescreen. There is no proof that the federal goverment would stop transfers of funds as a result of statehood. I mean look a Alabama. 2 dollars paid out for every dollar paid in to the federal goverment. Fiscaly independent my ass.

    Also, isn't part of DCs problem that they can't tax people that work inside the district, but live outside it? I seem to recall NYC had a similar problem vis a vi the NJ comuting crowd.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    Also Ntsf your argument doesn't really address the point, they shouldn't be a state just because that's not the way it is now?

    It can't become a state because of the way it is now. You'd have to amend the constitution to completely remove the power congress has over it, and completely redo it's court system. And if you did manage to amend the constitution and if congress gave up it's power over it's own private play ground, and if you managed to overhaul the court system you'd simply create a situation where congress doesn't have to fund it. Given that the city is always massively even in the red after they come begging to congress this would be a disaster. Congress wouldn't have to fund them anymore and the money could all be spent on true federal land which would utterly fuck the place into the ground.

    The hurdles are simply way to high. And clearing them will simply result in the destruction of the residential parts of the city. If you're goal is to fuck poor people it's a great way to go about it.
    I don't know if they should be a state, but they need some way they won't be disenfranchised. Period. Why is this a hard concept to grasp?

    Nobody is saying they should be disenfranchised. People have said that federal districts do not get voting rights, and that DC can't be made into a state legally as it is, and if you jumped those hurdles you'd total the city as a result. So we are stuck, unless we go back to letting the citizens vote in MD for senatorial elections or MD decides to take back the residential areas.

    You can hop around idealism all you want here, but none of that fixes the actual problems behind it.

    The push for statehood boils down to "constitution and legality be damned, also fuck the poor people in DC!". Or Evanders "let's destroy Virginia" line of logic. Both are god awful. The only practical and possible solutions you're going to see for this are either removing/lowering the federal income tax, letting them vote in MD's senatorial/congressional elections (has history behind it) or morphing it back into MD (has history behind it and it worked well for VA's portion).

    nstf on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    yes, are you aware where I live?

    Evander on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    lsukalel wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »
    I don't know if they should be a state, but they need some way they won't be disenfranchised. Period. Why is this a hard concept to grasp?
    Do we? The District is a weird creature, Constitutionally-speaking. We don't even have the Constitutional right to self-government here. A representative District government has only existed since the 70's. Before that, Congress just appointed someone to run DC, and there was no Constitutional problem with the setup. Congress can dissolve our government tomorrow, and we'd have no recourse- they came close to doing so back in the 90's after Marion Barry basically ran DC government into the ground.

    There is no Constitutional requirement that DC residents be represented in Congress.

    And the constitution can never be changed. Ever. It's never ever happened. It's never been the case that overriding concerns in the nation and policy have caused the constitution to be changed. Ever.

    It really sounds like your argument boils down to , if I liked the people who lived there better I would be for them having representation. I could give a damn what they are for once they get representation. The point is they should have it.

    You are aware that MM lives in DC correct? And FYI, I've lived in either DC, VA, or MD my entire life. We are both locals.
    yes, are you aware where I live?

    Judging by your grasp of the issues surrounding this... Wasilla?

    nstf on
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Also Ntsf your argument doesn't really address the point, they shouldn't be a state just because that's not the way it is now?

    It can't become a state because of the way it is now. You'd have to amend the constitution to completely remove the power congress has over it, and completely redo it's court system. And if you did manage to amend the constitution and if congress gave up it's power over it's own private play ground, and if you managed to overhaul the court system you'd simply create a situation where congress doesn't have to fund it. Given that the city is always massively even in the red after they come begging to congress this would be a disaster. Congress wouldn't have to fund them anymore and the money could all be spent on true federal land which would utterly fuck the place into the ground.

    The hurdles are simply way to high. And clearing them will simply result in the destruction of the residential parts of the city. If you're goal is to fuck poor people it's a great way to go about it.
    I don't know if they should be a state, but they need some way they won't be disenfranchised. Period. Why is this a hard concept to grasp?

    Nobody is saying they should be disenfranchised. People have said that federal districts do not get voting rights, and that DC can't be made into a state legally as it is, and if you jumped those hurdles you'd total the city as a result. So we are stuck, unless we go back to letting the citizens vote in MD for senatorial elections or MD decides to take back the residential areas.

    You can hop around idealism all you want here, but none of that fixes the actual problems behind it.

    The push for statehood boils down to "constitution and legality be damned, also fuck the poor people in DC!". Or Evanders "let's destroy Virginia" line of logic. Both are god awful. The only practical and possible solutions you're going to see for this are either removing/lowering the federal income tax, letting them vote in MD's senatorial/congressional elections (has history behind it) or morphing it back into MD (has history behind it and it worked well for VA's portion).


    Am I wrong in thinking that the Federal Government has provided substantial support to shore up State Governments recently? That the Federal Government routinely provides aid in cases of disaster and simple budget shortfalls? Soooo....the idea that they shouldn't be made a state because it would be a drain on resources doesn't really hold water for me.

    By throwing your hands up and saying, oh well we're stuck.. so sorry! You are for them being disenfranchised. If there is a problem that we all see, it deserves better than oh well.. thats too hard.

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »
    I don't know if they should be a state, but they need some way they won't be disenfranchised. Period. Why is this a hard concept to grasp?
    Do we? The District is a weird creature, Constitutionally-speaking. We don't even have the Constitutional right to self-government here. A representative District government has only existed since the 70's. Before that, Congress just appointed someone to run DC, and there was no Constitutional problem with the setup. Congress can dissolve our government tomorrow, and we'd have no recourse- they came close to doing so back in the 90's after Marion Barry basically ran DC government into the ground.

    There is no Constitutional requirement that DC residents be represented in Congress.

    And the constitution can never be changed. Ever. It's never ever happened. It's never been the case that overriding concerns in the nation and policy have caused the constitution to be changed. Ever.

    It really sounds like your argument boils down to , if I liked the people who lived there better I would be for them having representation. I could give a damn what they are for once they get representation. The point is they should have it.

    You are aware that MM lives in DC correct? And FYI, I've lived in either DC, VA, or MD my entire life. We are both locals.

    Being Locals is not a shibboleth for liking the people in your city. I live in Austin and hipsters get on my nerves.

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I'm a local too, and I think you're wrong. ANECDOTE OLOL

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »
    I don't know if they should be a state, but they need some way they won't be disenfranchised. Period. Why is this a hard concept to grasp?
    Do we? The District is a weird creature, Constitutionally-speaking. We don't even have the Constitutional right to self-government here. A representative District government has only existed since the 70's. Before that, Congress just appointed someone to run DC, and there was no Constitutional problem with the setup. Congress can dissolve our government tomorrow, and we'd have no recourse- they came close to doing so back in the 90's after Marion Barry basically ran DC government into the ground.

    There is no Constitutional requirement that DC residents be represented in Congress.

    So in other words, DC has been getting screwed for a long time, so it should continue to be screwed.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    KilroyKilroy timaeusTestified Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    You'd probably have to figure out a way to balance out the creation of 1-2 safe Democratic seats with the same number of safe GOP seats.

    Why?

    Kilroy on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I'm liberal as all hell, so obviously I have no problem with the political impact of D.C. statehood; it means the party I generally support gains. Yay! But I do see issues with creating a state as monolithic as D.C. would be, as well as all the administrative bullshit already mentioned. I think statehood is the least desirable option, possibly even behind the status quo.

    Representation though Maryland, or straight ceding all but the core governmental areas to Maryland, makes more sense. The only argument against this, really, is "Maryland wouldn't like that," which I care about nearly as little as the political implications of statehood. Maryland gets a "new" city. Yay! Deal. It actually was once Maryland, I see no reason it shouldn't be Maryland again. Welcome back your prodigal sons.
    So in other words, DC has been getting screwed for a long time, so it should continue to be screwed.

    Well, more that there's no Constitutional requirement that they not get screwed. Our government isn't fair. See: the Senate, the Electoral College.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    We are both locals.

    I am a third generation Washingtonian, residing in Silver Spring for the time being, with plans to move down in to the District eventually (currently too much of my life is unfortunately up in Baltimore and Howard county for it to make sense, but it's in the cards.)

    Your "understanding" is just a bunch of regurgitation of the fact that the constitution currently says that DC isn't a state. It DOES NOT actually deal with the possibility for change.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I think I know which two words you guys are all so deathly afraid of:

    "Senator Barry"

    A campaign run on the fact that he is a certified non-felon.

    Evander on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    I think I know which two words you guys are all so deathly afraid of:

    "Senator Barry"

    A campaign run on the fact that he is a certified non-felon.

    I'm not really afraid of anything. You (and others) keep trying to drag race into this rather than offering up explanations for how you'd amend the issues there are. How DC would govern without the federal government, how you could change the current court system, and how you would deal with the financial issues.

    That's my concern. And until that's fixed, statehood for DC is a non stater.

    Solutions have been offered up with historical precedent for giving DC representation via Maryland that dodge those issues, but you seem hell bent on ignoring them.

    nstf on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Kilroy wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    You'd probably have to figure out a way to balance out the creation of 1-2 safe Democratic seats with the same number of safe GOP seats.

    Why?
    Because any plan to give DC representation needs to be within the realm of the politically possible.

    Making DC a state would require a Constiutional amendment, most likely, which would never happen because the required supermajority in Congress isn't there.

    Maybe you can give the District a Rep. in Congress just by Congress passing a law. But if adding one Democratic Rep. was not balanced with the addition of one GOP Rep., the GOP would fight to the death to prevent that from happening. I doubt it's a fight that the President and the Democrats in Congress would be willing to have.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    I think I know which two words you guys are all so deathly afraid of:

    "Senator Barry"

    A campaign run on the fact that he is a certified non-felon.

    I'll take Senator Barry over half the GOP delegation. And many of the Democrats. You can probably quit pretending that the only possible objections to D.C. statehood are "lolpublicans" and 'cism.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    So in other words, DC has been getting screwed for a long time, so it should continue to be screwed.

    Well, more that there's no Constitutional requirement that they not get screwed. Our government isn't fair. See: the Senate, the Electoral College.

    Equal protection under the law demands that people not get legally screwed more than others. Everybody else gets to vote for a representative and two senators, so DC residents should as well.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    You (and others) keep trying to drag race into this

    Right, because race is the ONLY thing that is wrong with Mayor-for-life Barry

    Evander on
Sign In or Register to comment.