D.C. Representation

[larrymcg421]

I was wondering what you guys thought on this issue. Now I know people are gonna say "Republicans just oppose it because of the three extra votes, Democrats support it because they want three more guaranteed votes", but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about actual logical reasoning. If you must, pretend that if this happened it would be the opposite effect (i.e. hurt Democrats, help Republicans).

I really want to understand something...

1) The citizens of the District of Columbia have to pay federal income taxes.
2) The citizens of the District of Columbia do not have representatives in Congress or the Senate that have a vote on the rate of those taxes.

Why is this right?

[SackAttack]

larry - it's in the Constitution.

It's BEEN in the Constitution for 223 years. This isn't something new that's springing up on people there.

The District of Columbia is supposed to be the seat of government, specifically separate from the state/federal structure. That was done, I believe, to minimize the impact Virginia could have had on the fledgling government, and while Virginia isn't the political powerhouse it was 230 years ago, IMO it's still proper that the seat of the national government is separate and removed from the interference of any state entity.

Now, if your question is why do douchebags who apparently didn't pay attention to their United States history classes in school are whining about the whole representation bit, well, I'm not sure I have an answer for that.

If common sense were healthy in this country, there's a lot of things that wouldn't be the way they are - including people living in an area that was never meant to be residential in the first place.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

larry - it's in the Constitution.

It's BEEN in the Constitution for 223 years. This isn't something new that's springing up on people there.

Bingo. Lock the thread now before the racial conspiracy theories start.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

larry - it's in the Constitution.

It's BEEN in the Constitution for 223 years. This isn't something new that's springing up on people there.

I remain unconvinced of this argument every time it has been used for any political issue. The founders set up the constitution so it could be amended over time. There are many things that were in the constitution for x amount of years. So what? If it's wrong, then it's wrong and we should amend it.

The District of Columbia is supposed to be the seat of government, specifically separate from the state/federal structure. That was done, I believe, to minimize the impact Virginia could have had on the fledgling government, and while Virginia isn't the political powerhouse it was 230 years ago, IMO it's still proper that the seat of the national government is separate and removed from the interference of any state entity.

Except now you very well could separate the government sector from any jurisdiction that a new DC government would have. The DC statehood would have no jurisdiction over anything within the federal government buildings that exist in the area. Several plans for DC representation account for this.

Now, if your question is why do douchebags who apparently didn't pay attention to their United States history classes in school are whining about the whole representation bit, well, I'm not sure I have an answer for that.

Yeah, there was absolutely no need for that. Since you resorted to insults, I'm just going to assume that you don't have the mental capacity to engage in this debate. I'd suggest you go back out to recess and let us grownups discuss the important stuff.

If common sense were healthy in this country, there's a lot of things that wouldn't be the way they are - including people living in an area that was never meant to be residential in the first place.

If there were areas in DC zoned for residence, then I don't see why we expected anything else to happen.

But I understand. They shouldn't be able to vote, for whatever reason. Ok, let's run with that. Why are we taking federal income tax from them when they have no say in the rate of that tax? Why not exempt them from the income tax?

[larrymcg421]

Let me ask you guys this. How many years does something have to be in the Constitution before it can no longer be changed?

African-Americans were considered 3/5ths in the Constitution for 79 years.
DC didn't have presidential electors for 172 years.
Senators were not directly elected by the people for 124 years.

So what? Something was wrong and they changed it. I'm talking about whether this is wrong or not. The amount of time something has been in the Constitution doesn't seem to be relevant to that discussion, unless you're going to argue that the longer something is in the Constitution the more "right" it is, which I would think is a pretty silly argument.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Bingo. Lock the thread now before the racial conspiracy theories start.

Wow. Thanks for your insightful contribution to this discussion.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I remain unconvinced of this argument every time it has been used for any political issue. The founders set up the constitution so it could be amended over time. There are many things that were in the constitution for x amount of years. So what? If it's wrong, then it's wrong and we should amend it.

Except that, you know what? It's not wrong. The District of Columbia was not established as a place to live and play. It's the seat of the federal government. It serves a specific purpose, and just because you want to use it for purposes for which it was never intended doesn't make it "wrong" for it to continue to exist as it always has.

A homeless guy might sleep in a dumpster because it's convenient and warm on a winter night. Doesn't mean it's somehow "wrong" when the garbage collectors collect the trash and he, well, doesn't win that battle. Just because he chose to sleep there doesn't mean the purpose of the garbage can should change.

Except now you very well could separate the government sector from any jurisdiction that a new DC government would have. The DC statehood would have no jurisdiction over anything within the federal government buildings that exist in the area. Several plans for DC representation account for this.

Right, and there's absolutely no possibility that the state government might wield the taxation club as a way to extract concessions from Congress when budget time rolls around. I mean, none whatsoever.

Right? Oh, wait, that goes back to that whole "state interference with the federal government" thing. I forgot, there's no room for that in your fantasy world.

Yeah, there was absolutely no need for that. Since you resorted to insults, I'm just going to assume that you don't have the mental capacity to engage in this debate. I'd suggest you go back out to recess and let us grownups discuss the important stuff.

Douchebags is inflammatory. It's also absolutely accurate.

But maybe the more important thing I take from that is "I can't respond to that, so I'm going to attack him based on semantics instead of responding to the core issue here."

I'm not calling you a douchebag. I'm not even calling everybody who supports D.C. statehood a douchebag, although I can see where somebody who's being obtusely literal-minded would choose to take that view.

The "douchebags" in question are generally the ones who choose to live within D.C. and somehow can't fathom the fact that, Constitutionally speaking, the District is not a state for good reason.

The ones who live outside the border, well, I personally believe they're wrong, but they aren't the whining douchebags, either. If the law says "don't smoke pot," and I don't smoke pot, but I advocate for the change of the law, that's one thing.

If I smoke pot, get caught, and then whine about my consequences, what does that make me? A douchebag. The District's status is Constitutionally limited. Living there means, as it has for 223 years, that you don't get State representation in Congress. If you live there, and that's a problem, it isn't as though D.C. is a massive area. Live in Virginia or Maryland and commute your way in.

If there were areas in DC zoned for residence, then I don't see why we expected anything else to happen.

Shrug. Nobody said folks can't live there. Just that, y'know, there are both up sides and down sides. The upside is, easier access to those in government. Downside is, well, the Constitution places limits on the District that, amazingly, affect people who reside WITHIN the district.

But I understand. They shouldn't be able to vote, for whatever reason. Ok, let's run with that.

Sure, let's. How 'bout the fact that you're completely and utterly wrong on that point? Folks who live in the District can vote. It's why we have 535 Representatives and Senators, but 538 Electors in the Presidential election.

They don't get Senators. They don't get Representatives, but they do get three observers in the House, if memory serves. Those observers can participate in events, but they cannot cast a vote on bills.

They have indirect input on matters of taxation, in other words - which must originate in the House. They have input in who becomes President of the United States, and it is the President who must ultimately sign or veto such legislation.

What they don't have are Congressmen, because the District is not a State. The reason for that is to prevent inordinate influence on the federal government. It has very little to do with the physical buildings, but we've already discussed that.

Why are we taking federal income tax from them when they have no say in the rate of that tax? Why not exempt them from the income tax?

http://www.admin.gov.gu/commerce/gua...e_overview.htm

Guam isn't exempt, and they don't get representation, either. Are D.C. residents somehow more special than those in U.S. territories and protectorates?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

African-Americans were considered 3/5ths in the Constitution for 79 years.

True enough. But let's give the Constitution its due - it set a 20 year sunset period for the ban of the slave trade. By 1803, all slaves in the US were homegrown.

You can't change a culture overnight, especially if you're trying to build a nation and keep it together. Considering that slavery pre-dated the United States by hundreds of years, I'm pretty damn impressed that it took less than a hundred to completely eradicate the practice.

It needed to be changed, absolutely, but the groundwork was laid for that when the Constitution was first written.

DC didn't have presidential electors for 172 years.

Presidential electors is a little bit different from statehood, to my mind. Granting electors gives the folks who live there a voice in the federal government. It's not as strong a voice as they'd like, but it gives them one without compromising the original intent of establishing the District in the first place.

Senators were not directly elected by the people for 124 years.

I happen to think that direct election of Senators isn't exactly the best thing for us. The Senate was supposed to be the more reasoned body politic, while the House was for the masses. All direct election has really done is turned the Senate into a smaller version of the House, with terms that last 3x as long.

So what? Something was wrong and they changed it. I'm talking about whether this is wrong or not. The amount of time something has been in the Constitution doesn't seem to be relevant to that discussion, unless you're going to argue that the longer something is in the Constitution the more "right" it is, which I would think is a pretty silly argument.

You and I disagree on the rightness and wrongness of some of your examples, but that's neither here nor there.

As to the length of time determining rightness, I didn't say that it did. I don't think the federal government has any business collecting taxes for any purpose beyond that which is necessary to execute its Constitutional powers, but for the last hundred years, that's been the law of the land, too.

You know what? I have much more of a problem with money being taken out of my paycheck to subsidize pork to get Congressmen re-elected than I do with the seat of the federal government lacking statehood. Adding three more voices to the mix exacerbates that problem without really doing anything to benefit residents of the District.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Except that, you know what? It's not wrong. The District of Columbia was not established as a place to live and play. It's the seat of the federal government. It serves a specific purpose, and just because you want to use it for purposes for which it was never intended doesn't make it "wrong" for it to continue to exist as it always has.

Lots of things are used today for purposes that were never intended. I submit that if it was not intended for people to live there, then a) they shouldn't have let people live there or b) if theywanted to let people live there, they could have done so without charging federal income tax.

A homeless guy might sleep in a dumpster because it's convenient and warm on a winter night. Doesn't mean it's somehow "wrong" when the garbage collectors collect the trash and he, well, doesn't win that battle. Just because he chose to sleep there doesn't mean the purpose of the garbage can should change.

Well it would certainly be wrong if we were charging him rent for the trash can.

Right, and there's absolutely no possibility that the state government might wield the taxation club as a way to extract concessions from Congress when budget time rolls around. I mean, none whatsoever.

What are you talking about? They would have no jurisdiction over the specific capitol buildings. Members of Congress pay taxes based on their home residence anyways, which DC would obviously have little effect on.

Right? Oh, wait, that goes back to that whole "state interference with the federal government" thing. I forgot, there's no room for that in your fantasy world.

Or maybe there is, and that's what I'm trying to talk about. You and Franklin immediately took a confrontational attitude to my post, for some reason that escapes me.

Douchebags is inflammatory. It's also absolutely accurate.

But maybe the more important thing I take from that is "I can't respond to that, so I'm going to attack him based on semantics instead of responding to the core issue here."

I'm not calling you a douchebag. I'm not even calling everybody who supports D.C. statehood a douchebag, although I can see where somebody who's being obtusely literal-minded would choose to take that view.

The "douchebags" in question are generally the ones who choose to live within D.C. and somehow can't fathom the fact that, Constitutionally speaking, the District is not a state for good reason.

The ones who live outside the border, well, I personally believe they're wrong, but they aren't the whining douchebags, either. If the law says "don't smoke pot," and I don't smoke pot, but I advocate for the change of the law, that's one thing.

Why does it matter whether you live there or not? Should the Lovings have been forced to go to a state where interracial marriage wasn't banned? Should Linda Brown's family moved to a state where there was no segregation. Should we have not passed the 19th Amendment and instead forced women to move to states where they were allowed to vote?

If I smoke pot, get caught, and then whine about my consequences, what does that make me? A douchebag. The District's status is Constitutionally limited. Living there means, as it has for 223 years, that you don't get State representation in Congress. If you live there, and that's a problem, it isn't as though D.C. is a massive area. Live in Virginia or Maryland and commute your way in.

Or you can live there and advocate for the change. It meant for 172 years that you didn't have a say in the Presidential Election. That was changed.

Shrug. Nobody said folks can't live there. Just that, y'know, there are both up sides and down sides. The upside is, easier access to those in government. Downside is, well, the Constitution places limits on the District that, amazingly, affect people who reside WITHIN the district.

And as I've said before, the Constitution placed lots of limits that were around for a long time but no longer exist today. I'm suggesting this is another "limit" that should be done away with.

Sure, let's. How 'bout the fact that you're completely and utterly wrong on that point? Folks who live in the District can vote. It's why we have 535 Representatives and Senators, but 538 Electors in the Presidential election.

Except I'm obviously talking about representatives with voting power, as I clearly stated in my first post (and kept bringing back up with references to taxation).

They don't get Senators. They don't get Representatives, but they do get three observers in the House, if memory serves. Those observers can participate in events, but they cannot cast a vote on bills.

Bills that determine the rate of taxes that they will pay.

They have indirect input on matters of taxation, in other words - which must originate in the House. They have input in who becomes President of the United States, and it is the President who must ultimately sign or veto such legislation.

Right, but the states have an input on the Presidential Election AND voting representation in the House AND Senate. And D.C. actually has more people than the state of Wyoming.

What they don't have are Congressmen, because the District is not a State. The reason for that is to prevent inordinate influence on the federal government. It has very little to do with the physical buildings, but we've already discussed that.

I still fail to see how they would be able to wield that influence. Why would they be able to do that any more as a state than under the current home rule system. Can the city council not levy taxes?

http://www.admin.gov.gu/commerce/gua...e_overview.htm

Guam isn't exempt, and they don't get representation, either. Are D.C. residents somehow more special than those in U.S. territories and protectorates?

Well if you want to include Guam, then I'm game. Sure, let's go for it. Exempt them or give them voting representation.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Lots of things are used today for purposes that were never intended. I submit that if it was not intended for people to live there, then a) they shouldn't have let people live there or b) if theywanted to let people live there, they could have done so without charging federal income tax.

There's a difference between "You can't do that" and "This is how this is going to work, and how it will impact you as a result."

Nobody said I can't drive my truck in California, but, well, if I do that, I get to pay higher gas prices because our state government has mandated special fuel formulation to reduce pollution. I can drive here, but if I do, higher fuel costs are the repercussions.

My options are to drive and deal with the expense, find an alternative form of transportation, or leave the state.

In the case of D.C. statehood, citizens can grin and bear it, leave the District, or, yeah, push for statehood. What I'm saying if they choose to do that, it's based on personal convenience and not on whether it's the best thing to do.

Well it would certainly be wrong if we were charging him rent for the trash can.

Nobody's charging D.C. citizens "rent" to live there. They're paying taxes same as they would anywhere else. Their D.C. status doesn't affect that. What they're pissed about is that they aren't getting the political clout that, say, Rhode Island does. Like I said, it's personal convenience that drives the statehood push, not whether or not it's the "right" or "best" thing to do.

What are you talking about? They would have no jurisdiction over the specific capitol buildings. Members of Congress pay taxes based on their home residence anyways, which DC would obviously have little effect on.

1) I didn't say they would.

2) A creative legislature can find ways to tax you without D.C. being your place of permanent residence. Some states, for example, have a "jock tax," whereupon athletes playing in the state must pay taxes on the wages earned there, even though they don't LIVE there. Other states just extend that to entertainers in general.

My point is that taxes in a hypothetical State of Columbia aren't limited to being aimed at purely permanent residents.

Or maybe there is, and that's what I'm trying to talk about. You and Franklin immediately took a confrontational attitude to my post, for some reason that escapes me.

No you aren't. You're insisting that the creation of a State would somehow have no effect on the affairs of the federal government. If that were true, why didn't the Founding Fathers put the seat of government in, say, Richmond?

Why go to the trouble of creating an independent district if it's possible for the seat of government to exist peacefully and efficiently within the larger framework of a state? And how has human character and behavior fundamentally changed over the last 230 years that removing that safeguard is a good idea?

Why does it matter whether you live there or not? Should the Lovings have been forced to go to a state where interracial marriage wasn't banned? Should Linda Brown's family moved to a state where there was no segregation. Should we have not passed the 19th Amendment and instead forced women to move to states where they were allowed to vote?

You're talking about discrimination on the basis of race and gender - two things which people generally cannot change. Look, using that line of argument, let's legalize everything, rather than force people to, say, move to Nevada for gambling, or to Oregon for assisted suicide. Why deny people in one region anything that's available somewhere else? If you look hard enough, you can find something you find unfair (and non-universal) in nearly every facet of American life.

Or you can live there and advocate for the change. It meant for 172 years that you didn't have a say in the Presidential Election. That was changed.

See, that I don't have so much a problem with. It gives people a voice in government they should have had anyway without creating the sort of conflicts that would inevitably rise if D.C. were both a State and the seat of Government.

And as I've said before, the Constitution placed lots of limits that were around for a long time but no longer exist today. I'm suggesting this is another "limit" that should be done away with.

And I'm suggesting that I disagree. This is not a limit on personal freedom. Nobody's been rounded up and forced to live there without representation.

Look, let me put it this way.

My assertion is that the system was designed that way for a reason, and that it works as-is.

Here's another system: representative democracy not tied to property ownership.

You think it's fundamentally unfair that people who've chosen to live in the District have to pay federal tax without representation. I think it's fundamentally unfair that people who don't own property can, via democratic means, choose to seize and allocate the resources of those who do for their own purposes.

California today voted on a ballot measure that would tax incomes over $400,000 for the purpose of creating universal preschool within the State. Assume for the sake of argument that people making over $400k probably own their own home.

Why should people who don't own property have the right to dictate whether or not wealth I've created should be taken and used for their benefit? But that's the system as it exists, and as it ought to exist if we're to avoid a return to a Middle Ages-style landed gentry system.

By the same token, people living in D.C. don't care for the lack of statehood, I understand, but that's the system we have, and as I've said repeatedly, I think the separation of the State and the Federal branches of government via an independent, unrepresented District is for the best.

I'm sorry folks there pay taxes. If exemption enters the picture, does D.C. then become a tax dodge for the wealthy? That's something to consider.

Except I'm obviously talking about representatives with voting power, as I clearly stated in my first post (and kept bringing back up with references to taxation).

And to get that representation, you either need statehood or an exemption that allows D.C. to remain a District while gaining that statehood. Both of those require a Constitutional amendment, and both of those require the approval of 2/3 of the state legislatures.

I don't think taxation exemption is a realistic goal, because the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. Absent an amendment to the Constitution, anything that happens with respect to the District on matters of federal taxation would almost necessarily extend to the rest of the nation.

Probably.

I don't know how the bill would be written to permit it there without running afoul of the Constitution, nor do I know if judges would hold it up as a matter of practicality or throw it out. But I see serious problems for both proposals absent an amendment to the Constitution, and as I've said, I think the system is fine as-is.

Bills that determine the rate of taxes that they will pay.

Okay. How about giving the District the Constitutionally-mandated one Representative in the House, since that's the taxation chamber? Does that solve the issue, or does the issue shift now to the fact that they don't have Senators, who confirm or deny judges who will issue rulings interpreting the laws that they have to follow? Taxes is a red herring here, IMO.

I'm not saying that YOU'RE waving it as such, only that it's just the most convenient argument towards the real goal of gaining more political power for the District.

I just looked at the clock, and I've been up for 17 hours. I need to get to sleep. I'll touch on your other points in the morning, provided somebody else hasn't done it better than I can, but for now, let me skip straight to the end:

Well if you want to include Guam, then I'm game. Sure, let's go for it. Exempt them or give them voting representation.

Let me ask you this, then. As long as I'm waving a magic wand to do these things, what if I could wave a magic wand and remove federal taxation permanently?

What's D.C.'s issue now?

[QuikSand]

I was going to participate in this discussion, but as an apparent douchebag I guess I have no place. I think I'm saving myself additional anguish by not doing so in a meaningful way. I don't think I have the energy to try to read all that.

[wade moore]

Ok, like Quik I skipped some of Sack's ultra-informed rants. But, in what I did read, I picked out one particular piece to quote.

The "douchebags" in question are generally the ones who choose to live within D.C. and somehow can't fathom the fact that, Constitutionally speaking, the District is not a state for good reason.

So, as the twin brother of a douchebag, I'm going to respond to as much of what Sack has said as I can.

I have thought on this subject thouroughly as I give my brother a very hard time about this subject just to ruffle his feathers. I often tell him how he doesn't know what he is talking about when he says they should have representation, there's usually a witty quip about "Mayor for Life", "Bitch Set Me Up", or them not being able to handle their own finances.

The difference is, I'm not serious, and it appears you are.

The idea that some big, intimidating, state government could wield so much power over the federal legislature is just absurd. Do you realize that you can give DC equal representation in the federal government WITHOUT making it a state? You really don't understand this issue at all, yet you sit here and fling around insults from thousands of miles away at the people who live in this area like you know it all.

You don't, it seems you know nothing about this issue.

Here are what a majority of the DC Advocates want: Two Senators and whatever number of Congressman they would rightfully get (I do not care to look it up). This would give them a vote on federal issues which effect them as federal tax-paying U.S. citizens.

You are showing how uninformed you are with the claims about this "new" government... The advocates don't even want statehood, so do some research, douchebag.

[wade moore]

Dola: If you don't know, DC already has one member in the House. Who, oh yeah, doesn't have a vote.

[wade moore]

Double Dola: How would you like to have absolutely NO say in what upwards of 35% of your income is doing?

[wade moore]

Triple Dola: Mayor 4 Lyfe.

[Groundhog]

Shamless post increasing

...oh, wait...

[John Galt]

I too am apparently a douchebag, so I too won't add anything further. Wasn't there another thread about this not too long ago?

[Warhammer]

"You are aware that the word douchebag doesn't have the same meaning, ever since President Douchebag."

-Brian Griffin

[Huckleberry]

All of that energy wasted by some but it still doesn't change the fact that there are many that live under the condition of taxation without representation.

You know, wars have started over that kind of thing.

[flere-imsaho]

What wademoore said.

And frankly, I think places like Puerto Rico, Guam, etc... should all become states as well. Enough of this quasi-colonial stuff.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

What wademoore said.

And frankly, I think places like Puerto Rico, Guam, etc... should all become states as well. Enough of this quasi-colonial stuff.

Or be given their complete freedom.

I don't necessarily have a preference, but I think one or the other makes sense.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

All of that energy wasted by some but it still doesn't change the fact that there are many that live under the condition of taxation without representation.

You know, wars have started over that kind of thing.

I will probably post more later, but I think this alludes to a very valid point. The families of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, et al knew when they moved to the colonies that they would have no representation. Just as I, as a two year and counting douchebag, knew moving to the District of Columbia that I would not have voting representation in Congress.

[clintl]

The fact that it's been in the Constitution for 223 years doesn't mean it's right. The Founding Fathers put a number of unwise things in the Constitution (particularly regarding slavery and the method of counting slaves in the Census). They created a very successful framework overall, but they were far from perfect. I think it's appalling and ethically indefensible that the residents of the nation's capital are disenfranchised. Especially so since Congress and the federal government exercise more control over the local affairs of DC than any other local entity.

[lordscarlet]

I don't mean for this to be a "gang up on SackAttack" thread, I just had a question for him, since he is clearly on the side of the Federal Government Controlling the District. (This also goes to anyone else on that side of the fence)

How do you feel about Home Rule? Congress has the ability to control any budgetary and/or political decisions made by DC. Over the past few decades they have eased up on that control, but they still step in whenever they don't agree with what "we" are doing. Do you feel this is justified just as you feel a lack of voting representation in Congress is justified?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by clintl

The fact that it's been in the Constitution for 223 years doesn't mean it's right. The Founding Fathers put a number of unwise things in the Constitution (particularly regarding slavery and the method of counting slaves in the Census). They created a very successful framework overall, but they were far from perfect. I think it's appalling and ethically indefensible that the residents of the nation's capital are disenfranchised. Especially so since Congress and the federal government exercise more control over the local affairs of DC than any other local entity.

It's also worth pointing out that when the constitution was written, DC would have had much more power in the federal government if given 2 senators and a proportional number of Congressmen.

Not so much now.

[Toddzilla]

I'll just throw this tidbit out there and run...

If the District was 90% by population Affluent White Republicans, it would have become a state 150 years ago.

[Subby]

Non-political view...

I believe that the constitution is an organic document - that it can and should be changed over time, if the situations dictate. The realities of life today are a lot different than they were 200+ years ago. Hundreds of thousands of people live in the District and pay their federal taxes. One of the bedrocks that this country was founded on included taxation with representation. It just seems like the logical and rational step.

Political view...

Hi, I'm Senator Marion Barry. Wanna get high?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Subby

Hi, I'm Senator Marion Barry. Wanna get high?

I thought the bitch set you up?

[lordscarlet]

Just as a piece of information loosely related to the issue: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html

[Huckleberry]

Look, D.C. residents just need to round up a boatload of tea and dump it in the Potomac. I demand good theater.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Just as a piece of information loosely related to the issue: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html

heh - interesting:

Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000

DC: 39.1%

US: 24.4%

[MalcPow]

You people are missing the point. Eleanor Holmes Norton does not vote (or need to), she just stares Congress down until she gets what she wants.

[molson]

Originally Posted by clintl

The Founding Fathers put a number of unwise things in the Constitution (particularly regarding slavery and the method of counting slaves in the Census).

Off-topic, but this is a historical pet peeve of mine - even though I'm not 100% sure I'm right. Wasn't the 3/5 thing actually a racially progressive measure in that the southern states tried to count slaves when it came time to determine the number of state representatives, which would give the whites in those states hugely disproportionate power to those in the north? If anything, slaves shouldn't have been counted AT ALL for census purposes, since they certainly weren't being "represented" by the southern whites, and thus those whites shouldn't have been allowed to count them to increase their power.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Bingo. Lock the thread now before the racial conspiracy theories start.

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I'll just throw this tidbit out there and run...

If the District was 90% by population Affluent White Republicans, it would have become a state 150 years ago.

Man, I hate being right all the time...

[Celeval]

The best part of this discussion are DC's "Taxation Without Representation" license plates.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I don't mean for this to be a "gang up on SackAttack" thread, I just had a question for him, since he is clearly on the side of the Federal Government Controlling the District. (This also goes to anyone else on that side of the fence)

How do you feel about Home Rule? Congress has the ability to control any budgetary and/or political decisions made by DC. Over the past few decades they have eased up on that control, but they still step in whenever they don't agree with what "we" are doing. Do you feel this is justified just as you feel a lack of voting representation in Congress is justified?

I think D.C. citizens should be given more control of their local affairs.

However, the link you cited mentioned a canal project that the District started and subsequently abandoned. Referred to it as an 'open sewer,' and that the project was one of the reasons that the government stepped back in to reassume control.

Basically, it's an oversight thing. Congress can certainly be too heavy-handed, but absent retrocession or statehood, what's the alternative? I think more of a hands-off approach would be good for D.C., but I don't know where that line should be drawn if D.C. were to remain a District.

[wade moore]

So you see all of these things debating your original point, and you pick out the tangential question to respond to?

[Passacaglia]

Hey, at least he didn't have any insults. It's a step up.

[Young Drachma]

I think its a joke.

D.C. is the only capital city in the world that gives its citizens LESS rights than those living in the rest of the country.

Living in Wyoming has just hardened my position about D.C. statehood or some form of full representation in Congress and domain over its own affairs, rather than the way its run now and has been for ages now.

Wyoming was only a territory because of the railroad companies and the constitution was designed specifically to benefit the companies that were here. Whether it was the railroads, the stockade companies bringing cattle here, etc.

When the representatives from the territory went to Congress to talk about what was happening here, they lied. They told Congress there were more people here then in the late 1800s than there are now in 2006. The equality state let women vote first, because otherwise, there would've been a really small voting population.

There was a bill in Congress to split the territory up between Colorado and Idaho and if it weren't the infusion of cattle into the economy at the last minute that turned it into a boom town (for a hot minute..) then we'd be talking about the lower 47 states.

My point is, if this fraud of a state can exist, those folks are worth no less. There have been Presidents going back to James Monroe, who have discussed the importance of representation for D.C. residents.

I think to deny that there is a racial element to it, when there have been white members of Congress who have basically said as much in the past, would be extremely naive. That said, I don't blame the party in power from not making it a priority.

But the issue isn't about politics, its about representation and everyone that opposes it, seems to invoke the arguments of history. But they fail. And even if you wanted to concede founders intent, there are all sorts of laws that already defy that, too.

The fact is, how can you justify American citizens living on the mainland who are subject to what amounts to 2nd class citizenship.

[Young Drachma]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/3924151.html

[sooner333]

I don't want DC to have representation because it hurts Republicans.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I'll just throw this tidbit out there and run...

If the District was 90% by population Affluent White Republicans, it would have become a state 150 years ago.

As far as the Republican part of that, I think you're going back about 100 years too far.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by sooner333

I don't want DC to have representation because it hurts Republicans.

At least you're honest.

[Aylmar]

I think the posted article is a decent solution/compromise. Give them House reps with full voting rights, but no Senators.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Aylmar

I think the posted article is a decent solution/compromise. Give them House reps with full voting rights, but no Senators.

""

[lordscarlet]

Power Elite Lean on Congress to Approve Bill

By Yolanda Woodlee and Nikita Stewart
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, November 7, 2006; Page B04

A prominent group of D.C. politicians and business leaders is making a new push for approval this year of a bipartisan bill in Congress that would give District residents full voting rights in the House for the first time.

The initiative comes six months after Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) and U.S. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that includes a provision for D.C. voting rights. The advocates are calling on Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to move the bill to a floor vote in Congress before the session adjourns.

Thirty D.C. supporters of voting rights, including Adrian M. Fenty, the Democratic candidate for mayor, discussed the measure last week at a dinner hosted by local businessman Jeff Zients and Lanny A. Breuer, a lawyer and former special counsel to President Bill Clinton.

Others attending were former mayor Sharon Pratt; former Army secretary Clifford L. Alexander; political commentator Mark L. Plotkin; former New York representative Jack Kemp (R); former Louisiana senator John Breaux (D); former U.S. attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr.; and John Hill Jr., executive director of the Federal City Council.

"It's critically important," Breuer said. "It would be extraordinary at this time for there to be a bipartisan solution to give residents of the District of Columbia what they so deserve."

Passage depends on a bipartisan trade-off expanding the House from 435 to 437 members. One seat would go to the District and the other to Utah, which would make it a statewide position. Because more than three-quarters of registered voters in the District are Democrats and Utah is a Republican stronghold, the compromise would likely keep a balance between the parties.

Breuer said the group decided to make calls on Capitol Hill and reach out to lawmakers in Utah.

Michael Mower, a spokesman for Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. (R), said his office has received about a half-dozen calls from District voting-rights advocates, including Kemp, who want the state to approve a redistricting map, the first step toward creating a fourth seat in the state.

"The calls are always helpful, but we're committed to doing this," Mower said. "Our governor has said he's going to call a special session of the legislature very soon after the election to adopt a redistricting map."

Although the dinner meeting in the District did not create a new strategy for getting statehood, it strengthened what was already in place, said Ilir Zherka, executive director of D.C. Vote, a nonprofit entity established in 1998 to get voting rights for the city. D.C. Vote was made up of 24 groups a year ago and now has 60, Zherka said.

Breaux, who served in Congress for more than 30 years and is now a lobbyist at the law firm of Patton Boggs, said the key is to rally support across the country.

"It was never something that people in Louisiana were interested in," said Breaux, who lives in Maryland but also has a condominium in Georgetown.

Fenty said yesterday that he found the meeting at Zients's home informative. "It was a good briefing for me to get updated on the current situation and also hear from people who have expertise," he said.

Fenty heard from a pair of voting rights activists who recommended that he mention the importance of D.C. representation in his victory address if he wins today. They gave Fenty a "Free DC!" campaign pin, which he put it on his lapel.

Power Elite Lean on Congress to Approve Bill

[JPhillips]

Giving Utah another seat is less than ideal, but its a good compromise solution for DC representation.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Giving Utah another seat is less than ideal, but its a good compromise solution for DC representation.

I think the concept of having to add a "Republican" seat to the house is assinine, but I know it's the only way we will ever get proper representation.

[stevew]

It seems to be a move in the right direction. And possibly by, say, the 2020 census they should get the full population apportionment of representives they deserve.

I dunno if the territories have to pay income tax(guam, et al), but if they do, then they should also get their representitive as well. Representation for taxation is one of those rights that should be a given.

Oh yeah

Mayor 4 Lyfe

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by stevew

It seems to be a move in the right direction. And possibly by, say, the 2020 census they should get the full population apportionment of representives they deserve.

While writing my reply, I looked something up. We have like.. 50-100k more residents than Wyoming, who gets one representative. One representative may be the proper number.

Originally Posted by stevew

I dunno if the territories have to pay income tax(guam, et al), but if they do, then they should also get their representitive as well. Representation for taxation is one of those rights that should be a given.

I don't believe they do. When people try to compare us to territories, I say, "Fine. Take away our federal taxes." (To which, of course, people bring up how much federal money we get)

Originally Posted by stevew

Oh yeah

Mayor 4 Lyfe

Bitch set me up.