Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Currently the people of Washington, DC pay taxes just like the rest of us, yet they do not get any representation in Congress. A bill was passed in the House (last year I believe) that would temporarily increase the size of the House of Representatives to 437, adding a seat for Washington, DC (which would likely vote Democrat) and also adding a seat for Utah, which barely missed the cutoff for getting another seat during the last census redistricting (and would likely vote Republican). Unfortunately when the legislation got to the Senate it was shamefully filibustered by some Republicans and did not pass. I recognize the issue of DC statehood is a complicated one, but can anyone please tell me why the people of Washington, DC cannot get representation in Congress like all other American Citizens who pay federal income tax?
Currently the people of Washington, DC pay taxes just like the rest of us, yet they do not get any representation in Congress. A bill was passed in the House (last year I believe) that would temporarily increase the size of the House of Representatives to 437, adding a seat for Washington, DC (which would likely vote Democrat) and also adding a seat for Utah, which barely missed the cutoff for getting another seat during the last census redistricting (and would likely vote Republican). Unfortunately when the legislation got to the Senate it was shamefully filibustered by some Republicans and did not pass. I recognize the issue of DC statehood is a complicated one, but can anyone please tell me why the people of Washington, DC cannot get representation in Congress like all other American Citizens who pay federal income tax?
They have 435 representatives in the House and 100 in the Senate. That's enough.
The District was created specifically to be an apolitical site for the federal government. There is no overriding reason to change that.
They are essentially a country all on their own, and technically all laws which come out of Washington are only legit for that small swath of land. Don't believe me, do a little research on the creation and legal status of the District of Columbia. But as usual, knowing something is true and actually doing anything about it are far apart. Essentially, the District of Columbia is the USA.
"NoTaxation without Representation" is not implied at all in any part of the constitution. Many people in America are taxed, but have no vote. Mainly immigrants and convicts and minors.
What the constitution IS clear on is that elections of federal office-holders are rhe responsibility of the states to administer. Since DC does not fall under the jurisdiction of any state, there is no constitutional authority for the district to have any election from which a federal office-holder can be chosen.
Many people in America are taxed, but have no vote. Mainly immigrants and convicts and minors.
I personally don't agree with the slave labor that is performed by prisoners. However, they are being punished for doing something wrong, whereas the people of DC have done nothing wrong. Minors and immigrants are not considered to be full-fledged citizen. For example, persons under 18 and immigrants cannot be drafted, this is not the case for the people of DC.
Quote:
What the constitution IS clear on is that elections of federal office-holders are rhe responsibility of the states to administer. Since DC does not fall under the jurisdiction of any state, there is no constitutional authority for the district to have any election from which a federal office-holder can be chosen.
This is not completely true. The 23rd Amendment gives people living in DC the right to vote for President. With regards to the election of Senators and Representatives, there is much disagreement among legal scholars about whether or not it is constitutional to allow members of Congress representing DC to have full voting powers.
I'm very comfortable with it. Feels like an oild shoe.
Perhaps then we could simply rotate this lack of representation rather than putting it on the backs of DC people all the time. Suppose we compromise by giving a vote to DC for the next 200 years or so, while taking one away from eastern Washington state. No real reason for any of those folks to complain, so long as we are able to remain at the old-shoe level of 435 rather than endure the dislocations of surging to 437 in one fell swoop as had been proposed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
I didn't see any. Hence my post.
This perhaps goes more to your level of vision that to anything else.
They are essentially a country all on their own, and technically all laws which come out of Washington are only legit for that small swath of land. Don't believe me, do a little research on the creation and legal status of the District of Columbia. But as usual, knowing something is true and actually doing anything about it are far apart. Essentially, the District of Columbia is the USA.
And the Fed is privately owned, and you don't really have to pay your income taxes. The internet is such a powerful tool when used for purposes of good...
"NoTaxation without Representation" is not implied at all in any part of the constitution. Many people in America are taxed, but have no vote. Mainly immigrants and convicts and minors.
Voting is a privilege, not a right, and the general terms of that privilege may be determined by the state in addressing its legitimate interests. The state must not however slip into violation of the rights of the people in making its determinations. The terms of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses continue to operate. While a (sometimes borderline) case can be made with respect to immigrants, felons, and minors, there does not seem to be any legitimate state interest served by denying representation to the people of DC en masse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
What the constitution IS clear on is that elections of federal office-holders are rhe responsibility of the states to administer. Since DC does not fall under the jurisdiction of any state, there is no constitutional authority for the district to have any election from which a federal office-holder can be chosen.
At best, this argument goes to the means by which the problem might most appropriately be resolved. It offers nothing to diminish the observation that the problem itself does exist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
