Options

Save DC

123457

Posts

  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    So I guess the question is why does MM have such a problem with representation?

    I've seriously never heard anyone complain that there were two Dakotas, seriously WTF does it matter? Did South Dakota run over your dog or something?
    I don't have a probelm with representation. I just don't think DC has what it takes to be a state.
    And you listed its economy as one reason. What the hell does a place's economy have to do with its fittingness to be a state?

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    lsukalel wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »

    Yeah but again, your argument doesn't really matter as it comes to whether or not it should be a state, you are just arguing whether or not it would be a good state. There are states who literally took up arms agaisnt the government which are states to this day. States that actively tried to disobey federal law until recently in history. I mean if they can be states , if they didn't lose that privilege why can't DC?

    Just for the sake of accuracy, the states in the confederacy didn't regain representation immediately, and states are constantly violating federal laws. Google United States v STATENAME and you'll find bunches of court cases over various things. Flip it around and you have states suing the government over violating federal laws/ the constitution.

    Yeah but a case against a state is a bit different than the comprehensive, coordinated campaign against integration. Just for the sake of accuracy.

    Oh and reconstruction totally lasted and the southern states were set straight oh wait they weren't. See Jim Crow.

    As abhorent as Jim crow laws were, they weren't illegal(see Plessy V Ferguson). Thats why we needed to pass the voting rights act, in order to get rid of them.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    So I guess the question is why does MM have such a problem with representation?

    I've seriously never heard anyone complain that there were two Dakotas, seriously WTF does it matter? Did South Dakota run over your dog or something?
    I don't have a probelm with representation. I just don't think DC has what it takes to be a state.

    As for the Dakotas and other small states- if we were carving up the US, as it is today, into 50 states (or whatever number), I doubt anyone would look at the Dakotas and decide they should each be their own individual state. They'd either be merged, or the area would be divided among other states. give part to Nebraska, part to Minnesota or whatever.

    So how would you give them full representation as enjoyed by the states without being a state? And I'm still curious how your requirements are anything other than arbitrary.
    I already said that I'd be in favor of DC residents basically being treated like they're part of Maryland when it comes to Congressional representation. DC gets its Rep and gets to vote for the Senators from Maryland.

    I doubt this would fly unless the GOP could got another safe seat somewhere. And I think the Maryland GOP would throw a shit-fit because of the addition of several hundred thousand new Democratic voters in Maryland Senator elections. But I think my plan is more politically realistic than making DC a state outright.

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

  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    So I guess the question is why does MM have such a problem with representation?

    I've seriously never heard anyone complain that there were two Dakotas, seriously WTF does it matter? Did South Dakota run over your dog or something?
    I don't have a probelm with representation. I just don't think DC has what it takes to be a state.

    As for the Dakotas and other small states- if we were carving up the US, as it is today, into 50 states (or whatever number), I doubt anyone would look at the Dakotas and decide they should each be their own individual state. They'd either be merged, or the area would be divided among other states. give part to Nebraska, part to Minnesota or whatever.

    So how would you give them full representation as enjoyed by the states without being a state? And I'm still curious how your requirements are anything other than arbitrary.

    Allow them to vote in Maryland. We've touched on this a few times already.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    So I guess the question is why does MM have such a problem with representation?

    I've seriously never heard anyone complain that there were two Dakotas, seriously WTF does it matter? Did South Dakota run over your dog or something?
    I don't have a probelm with representation. I just don't think DC has what it takes to be a state.

    As for the Dakotas and other small states- if we were carving up the US, as it is today, into 50 states (or whatever number), I doubt anyone would look at the Dakotas and decide they should each be their own individual state. They'd either be merged, or the area would be divided among other states. give part to Nebraska, part to Minnesota or whatever.

    So how would you give them full representation as enjoyed by the states without being a state? And I'm still curious how your requirements are anything other than arbitrary.

    Allow them to vote in Maryland. We've touched on this a few times already.
    So they either become a defacto territory of Maryland or they get to vote for people who aren't really representing them.

    Yeah statehood sounds like a smoother solution.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    JeanJean Heartbroken papa bear Gatineau, QuébecRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    People keep saying than MD/VA wouldn't want to accept DC because it's too poor/ not worth the trouble. Are you so sure about this?

    The GDP per capita in DC is $66K, higher than any state

    The feds get close to $35K of tax revenue per capita in DC

    Surely MD or VA wouldn't mind getting their share of that money, no? Plus adding an instant 600K population would make the state have more power on the national stage.

    Jean on
    "You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    More curiously, why does the nature of a regions economy have anything to do with its viability as a state?

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    So they either become a defacto territory of Maryland or they get to vote for people who aren't really representing them.

    Yeah statehood sounds like a smoother solution.
    How so? Maryland would not have any control over DC's affairs. The member of the House of Reps DC elected would represent DC's interests, since that would be his district. And any Maryland Senator would have to listen to his constituents in DC, just like in Maryland.

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

  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    lsukalel wrote: »
    lsukalel wrote: »

    Yeah but again, your argument doesn't really matter as it comes to whether or not it should be a state, you are just arguing whether or not it would be a good state. There are states who literally took up arms agaisnt the government which are states to this day. States that actively tried to disobey federal law until recently in history. I mean if they can be states , if they didn't lose that privilege why can't DC?

    Just for the sake of accuracy, the states in the confederacy didn't regain representation immediately, and states are constantly violating federal laws. Google United States v STATENAME and you'll find bunches of court cases over various things. Flip it around and you have states suing the government over violating federal laws/ the constitution.

    Yeah but a case against a state is a bit different than the comprehensive, coordinated campaign against integration. Just for the sake of accuracy.

    Oh and reconstruction totally lasted and the southern states were set straight oh wait they weren't. See Jim Crow.

    As abhorent as Jim crow laws were, they weren't illegal(see Plessy V Ferguson). Thats why we needed to pass the voting rights act, in order to get rid of them.

    Research more about the purpose of reconstruction, it's effects and the origins of Jim Crow.

    Also, address integration and the south's opposition to it.

    And Ntsf I am still waiting on a response to my financial argument.

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    So they either become a defacto territory of Maryland or they get to vote for people who aren't really representing them.

    Yeah statehood sounds like a smoother solution.
    How so? Maryland would not have any control over DC's affairs. The member of the House of Reps DC elected would represent DC's interests, since that would be his district. And any Maryland Senator would have to listen to his constituents in DC, just like in Maryland.

    So if we go that far, why not just grant them statehood?

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    The argument that DC can be a state because it only has one industry (goverment) should really look at Wisconsin and its dairy industry. For an argument on population there is Wyoming with its whooping 500k.

    They not only get a congressman, but two senators too boot.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    The argument that DC can be a state because it only has one industry (goverment) should really look at Wisconsin and its dairy industry. For an argument on population there is Wyoming with its whooping 500k.

    They not only get a congressman, but two senators too boot.
    Wisconsin has a very diverse economy. It has a large agricultural sector, true. But Milwaukee is a manufacturing, brewing and business center. In terms of a diverse economy, there's no comparison between DC and Wisconsin.

    And I agree that Wyoming is too small, population-wise, to be a state. Some of the square states in the center of the country did not fill up like we hoped they would.

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

  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    The argument that DC can be a state because it only has one industry (goverment) should really look at Wisconsin and its dairy industry. For an argument on population there is Wyoming with its whooping 500k.

    They not only get a congressman, but two senators too boot.
    Wisconsin has a very diverse economy. It has a large agricultural sector, true. But Milwaukee is a manufacturing, brewing and business center. In terms of a diverse economy, there's no comparison between DC and Wisconsin.

    And I agree that Wyoming is too small, population-wise, to be a state. Some of the square states in the center of the country did not fill up like we hoped they would.

    And Wyoming gave us ChenyD: right?

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    The argument that DC can be a state because it only has one industry (goverment) should really look at Wisconsin and its dairy industry. For an argument on population there is Wyoming with its whooping 500k.

    They not only get a congressman, but two senators too boot.
    Wisconsin has a very diverse economy. It has a large agricultural sector, true. But Milwaukee is a manufacturing, brewing and business center. In terms of a diverse economy, there's no comparison between DC and Wisconsin.

    And I agree that Wyoming is too small, population-wise, to be a state. Some of the square states in the center of the country did not fill up like we hoped they would.

    So whats the magical cut off line for when their economy is too narrow? And wtf does it have to do with being a state anyway?

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    The argument that DC can be a state because it only has one industry (goverment) should really look at Wisconsin and its dairy industry. For an argument on population there is Wyoming with its whooping 500k.

    They not only get a congressman, but two senators too boot.

    Um, WI derives much more of its GDP from manufacture than from agriculture, let alone solely dairy farming.

    And Wyoming was admitted as a state in 1868, 500 thousand people back then was a hell of a lot more than it is now. The fact that we would shift away from an agrarian society and its population would remain more or less static wasn't taken into consideration, and unfortunatly we don't have a process for unmaking a state. Should make the same mistake again, generating another over represented state?

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    lsukalellsukalel Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    The argument that DC can be a state because it only has one industry (goverment) should really look at Wisconsin and its dairy industry. For an argument on population there is Wyoming with its whooping 500k.

    They not only get a congressman, but two senators too boot.

    Um, WI derives much more of its GDP from manufacture than from agriculture, let alone solely dairy farming.

    And Wyoming was admitted as a state in 1868, 500 thousand people back then was a hell of a lot more than it is now. The fact that we would shift away from an agrarian society and its population would remain more or less static wasn't taken into consideration, and unfortunatly we don't have a process for unmaking a state. Should make the same mistake again, generating another over represented state?

    Um, yes? If those people have representation why can't DC?

    lsukalel on
  • Options
    Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Here are a few choice quotes from Wikipedia:
    Washington has a growing, diversified economy with an increasing percentage of professional and business service jobs.[94] The gross state product of the District in 2008 was $97.2 billion, which would rank it No. 35 compared to the 50 U.S. states.[95] In 2008, the federal government accounted for about 27% of the jobs in Washington, D.C.[96] This is thought to immunize Washington to national economic downturns because the federal government continues operations even during recessions.[97] However, as of January 2007, federal employees in the Washington area comprised only 14% of the total U.S. government workforce.[98]
    In the financial year 2007, D.C. residents and businesses paid $20.4 billion in federal taxes; more than the taxes collected from 19 states and the highest federal taxes per capita.[161]

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Options
    Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    The argument that DC can be a state because it only has one industry (goverment) should really look at Wisconsin and its dairy industry. For an argument on population there is Wyoming with its whooping 500k.

    They not only get a congressman, but two senators too boot.

    Um, WI derives much more of its GDP from manufacture than from agriculture, let alone solely dairy farming.

    And Wyoming was admitted as a state in 1868, 500 thousand people back then was a hell of a lot more than it is now. The fact that we would shift away from an agrarian society and its population would remain more or less static wasn't taken into consideration, and unfortunatly we don't have a process for unmaking a state. Should make the same mistake again, generating another over represented state?

    The problem isn't that the people of Wyoming is over represented, its that the people of DC are under represented.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    The argument that DC can be a state because it only has one industry (goverment) should really look at Wisconsin and its dairy industry. For an argument on population there is Wyoming with its whooping 500k.

    They not only get a congressman, but two senators too boot.

    Um, WI derives much more of its GDP from manufacture than from agriculture, let alone solely dairy farming.

    And Wyoming was admitted as a state in 1868, 500 thousand people back then was a hell of a lot more than it is now. The fact that we would shift away from an agrarian society and its population would remain more or less static wasn't taken into consideration, and unfortunatly we don't have a process for unmaking a state. Should make the same mistake again, generating another over represented state?

    In 1870 Wyoming's population was nine thousand people.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    The argument that DC can be a state because it only has one industry (goverment) should really look at Wisconsin and its dairy industry. For an argument on population there is Wyoming with its whooping 500k.

    They not only get a congressman, but two senators too boot.

    Um, WI derives much more of its GDP from manufacture than from agriculture, let alone solely dairy farming.

    And Wyoming was admitted as a state in 1868, 500 thousand people back then was a hell of a lot more than it is now. The fact that we would shift away from an agrarian society and its population would remain more or less static wasn't taken into consideration, and unfortunatly we don't have a process for unmaking a state. Should make the same mistake again, generating another over represented state?

    In 1870 Wyoming's population was nine thousand people.

    Then should have never made it a state. Them fucking up back then doesn't make it a good idea now.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    The argument that DC can be a state because it only has one industry (goverment) should really look at Wisconsin and its dairy industry. For an argument on population there is Wyoming with its whooping 500k.

    They not only get a congressman, but two senators too boot.

    Um, WI derives much more of its GDP from manufacture than from agriculture, let alone solely dairy farming.

    And Wyoming was admitted as a state in 1868, 500 thousand people back then was a hell of a lot more than it is now. The fact that we would shift away from an agrarian society and its population would remain more or less static wasn't taken into consideration, and unfortunatly we don't have a process for unmaking a state. Should make the same mistake again, generating another over represented state?

    In 1870 Wyoming's population was nine thousand people.

    Then should have never made it a state. Them fucking up back then doesn't make it a good idea now.
    So what's the threshold for a group of people deserving voting rights?

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    CriusCrius Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Why is it that political opposition to rolling DC into Maryland makes that option a non-starter, but we should ignore how difficult it would be to amend the constitution? Both solve the stated problem (taxation without representation), so it would be rational to push for the easier option. The perfect is the enemy of the good, after all.

    Crius on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Crius wrote: »
    Why is it that political opposition to rolling DC into Maryland makes that option a non-starter, but we should ignore how difficult it would be to amend the constitution? Both solve the stated problem (taxation without representation), so it would be rational to push for the easier option. The perfect is the enemy of the good, after all.

    Because no one has given any reason for why anyone should be forcing territory on a state that doesn't want it?

    shryke on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    Crius wrote: »
    Why is it that political opposition to rolling DC into Maryland makes that option a non-starter, but we should ignore how difficult it would be to amend the constitution? Both solve the stated problem (taxation without representation), so it would be rational to push for the easier option. The perfect is the enemy of the good, after all.

    Because the advocates for DC statehood don't actually have a rats ass about the people in DC, or what would happen to it.

    If you see what is always said in these other threads is the salivating over 2 more democratic senators and sticking it to the GOP.

    Since the possible solutions don't actually generate two Democratic senators, they won't entertain them.

    There isn't anything more to it.

    nstf on
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Crius wrote: »
    Why is it that political opposition to rolling DC into Maryland makes that option a non-starter, but we should ignore how difficult it would be to amend the constitution? Both solve the stated problem (taxation without representation), so it would be rational to push for the easier option. The perfect is the enemy of the good, after all.

    Because the advocates for DC statehood don't actually have a rats ass about the people in DC, or what would happen to it.

    If you see what is always said in these other threads is the salivating over 2 more democratic senators and sticking it to the GOP.

    Since the possible solutions don't actually generate two Democratic senators, they won't entertain them.

    There isn't anything more to it.

    OH FUCK HE'S ON TO US!

    BARREL ROLL BARREL ROLL!

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Did we have any states before alaska that were not continuous? nope.
    At first I was just going to be an asshole and post a giant picture of Michigan, but I'm really wondering if you're intending to use the word "contiguous."

    This would still be wrong. There were states (e.g. California) that were established before there were other neighboring states were established. Even though people yammer on and on about the 48 "contiguous" states, the "contiguousness" of the 48 states wasn't actually established until all 48 were chartered.

    Either way, you might want to not post this a third time because you're wrong no matter how I choose to interpret this.

    GungHo on
  • Options
    iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Because the advocates for DC statehood don't actually have a rats ass about the people in DC, or what would happen to it.

    If you see what is always said in these other threads is the salivating over 2 more democratic senators and sticking it to the GOP.

    Since the possible solutions don't actually generate two Democratic senators, they won't entertain them.

    There isn't anything more to it.
    The exact opposite's actually been said by people in this thread (and/or the one where the DC discussion started). Maybe you should quit lying through your teeth.

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • Options
    Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Crius wrote: »
    Why is it that political opposition to rolling DC into Maryland makes that option a non-starter, but we should ignore how difficult it would be to amend the constitution? Both solve the stated problem (taxation without representation), so it would be rational to push for the easier option. The perfect is the enemy of the good, after all.

    Because the advocates for DC statehood don't actually have a rats ass about the people in DC, or what would happen to it.

    If you see what is always said in these other threads is the salivating over 2 more democratic senators and sticking it to the GOP.

    Since the possible solutions don't actually generate two Democratic senators, they won't entertain them.

    There isn't anything more to it.

    Actually most people in this thread want DC to have Congressional representation.

    Nobody but you assume that DC statehood includes senators.

    And if you are going to trott out the "all states have senators", this would be an exception to that rule.

    Its not like there isn't precedent for areas only represented by congress representatives. THATS WHAT DC IS NOW. The only change we propose is giving the DC rep the right to vote.

    Stop screaming that the sky is falling.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Options
    SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Crius wrote: »
    Why is it that political opposition to rolling DC into Maryland makes that option a non-starter, but we should ignore how difficult it would be to amend the constitution? Both solve the stated problem (taxation without representation), so it would be rational to push for the easier option. The perfect is the enemy of the good, after all.

    Because the advocates for DC statehood don't actually have a rats ass about the people in DC, or what would happen to it.

    If you see what is always said in these other threads is the salivating over 2 more democratic senators and sticking it to the GOP.

    Since the possible solutions don't actually generate two Democratic senators, they won't entertain them.

    There isn't anything more to it.

    Um, personally I'm actually for any solution that prevents members of Congress from having any say over how we live our lives here w/r/t such issues as gun rights, gay marriage, etc. And even though I used to work for the Democratic Party, I'm much less interested in getting some members of the House or Senate to add to the respective caucuses than I am in having a voting member who can actually have some voting influence that he or she can wield to ensure that more of those tax dollars that are being taken from us every year get reinvested right back here in the District. Let's be honest, regardless of whether they're Republicans or Democrats, all of the politicians the rest of you have elected to be sent here have taken an opportunity or two to fuck us over in the past.

    Which really ought to be our slogan: "Paying the same Federal income taxes as the rest of you while d-bags from Texas or Connecticut who want to score cheap political points with their constituents back home can wield more direct influence in our local politics than registered voters who have lived here their whole lives." Only we couldn't fit that one on the license plates.

    But yeah, actually we just want to stick it to the Gee Oh Pee.

    SammyF on
  • Options
    CriusCrius Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    Crius wrote: »
    Why is it that political opposition to rolling DC into Maryland makes that option a non-starter, but we should ignore how difficult it would be to amend the constitution? Both solve the stated problem (taxation without representation), so it would be rational to push for the easier option. The perfect is the enemy of the good, after all.

    Because no one has given any reason for why anyone should be forcing territory on a state that doesn't want it?

    I don't think the implication is force territory onto MD, but rather convince MD to accept it, which seems like an easier solution than a constitutional amendment.

    Do we even know how strong opposition in MD is? The feds could always sweeten the pot too - say MD gets the money the federal government would have spent on DC anyways for the next decade or so.

    Crius on
  • Options
    TlexTlex Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Seriously? I cannot believe i'm hearing an argument against the full enfranchisement of a entire city's worth of people. It's absolutely and undeniably ridiculous.

    It's like the early 20th century all over again

    Tlex on
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Tlex wrote: »
    Seriously? I cannot believe i'm hearing an argument against the full enfranchisement of a entire city's worth of people. It's absolutely and undeniably ridiculous.

    It's like the early 20th century all over again

    Yes you'd think that, but in fact you're wrong because narrow-economy-small-population-Wyoming shouldn't-be-a-state-either.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Tlex wrote: »
    Seriously? I cannot believe i'm hearing an argument against the full enfranchisement of a entire city's worth of people. It's absolutely and undeniably ridiculous.

    It's like the early 20th century all over again

    Yes you'd think that, but in fact you're wrong because narrow-economy-small-population-Wyoming shouldn't-be-a-state-either-you-just-want-two-more-Democratic-senators-race-card.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN 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).

    Stop saying the constitution would need to be amended to remove Congressional power over DC. The US Constitution doesn't say anywhere that DC must be controlled by Congress. DC was created by statute, not by the Constitution.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Stop saying the constitution would need to be amended to remove Congressional power over DC. The US Constitution doesn't say anywhere that DC must be controlled by Congress. DC was created by statute, not by the Constitution.

    Actually, you are completely incorrect. The creation of the District of Columbia, and Congress' absolute control over it, are in the Constitution.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Stop saying the constitution would need to be amended to remove Congressional power over DC. The US Constitution doesn't say anywhere that DC must be controlled by Congress. DC was created by statute, not by the Constitution.

    Actually, you are completely incorrect. The creation of the District of Columbia, and Congress' absolute control over it, are in the Constitution.

    No, it's not.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I keep telling you guys, oil derrick off the coast of California.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Stop saying the constitution would need to be amended to remove Congressional power over DC. The US Constitution doesn't say anywhere that DC must be controlled by Congress. DC was created by statute, not by the Constitution.

    Actually, you are completely incorrect. The creation of the District of Columbia, and Congress' absolute control over it, are in the Constitution.

    No, it's not.
    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;
    What the hell does that mean to you?

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Technically couldn't you just turn DC into a state and shrink the "District" to just encompass the Mall (or whatever the fuck y'all call it) and thus get around that easily?

    shryke on
  • Options
    SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Stop saying the constitution would need to be amended to remove Congressional power over DC. The US Constitution doesn't say anywhere that DC must be controlled by Congress. DC was created by statute, not by the Constitution.

    Actually, you are completely incorrect. The creation of the District of Columbia, and Congress' absolute control over it, are in the Constitution.

    Article I, Section 8:
    The Congress shall have the Power [...] 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

    This is an idea that was expounded upon by James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 43. However, while the Constitution lays the groundwork, it doesn't actually create the district in question; that is done by U.S. Code, specifically the Organic Act of 1801. The District of Columbia is only mentioned in the 23rd Amendment, which gives us the presidential electors for the electoral college.

    SammyF on
Sign In or Register to comment.