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.
I wonder if DC would have been a state a long time ago if it was 60 to 70 percent white instead of 60 to 70 percent black?
I'd like to think there's absolutely no truth in that, but ... I think there might be, at least on the part of some in Congress over the years. Certainly, there is an air of "plantation" in how some in Congress look upon (or down on) the District and its residents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beenhereandthere
The fact that it is not a state (or part of) is a disgrace, give them full representation rights without any restrictions or make it a 51st state (with the full representation) or make it a part of MD.
End of story.
Yeah, to me it's not so much what the law says or doesn't say - laws can and are changed all the time. Rather, it's a matter of fairness. It is simply wrong to have any U.S. citizens, residing in the continental United States, paying federal taxes, serving in the U.S. armed forces, and serving on juries in U.S. courts, to not have full and complete representation in Congress.
It is the height of irony that the U.S. Constitution - a document born out of the Colonies' struggle for freedom from Great Britain - would mandate that the residents of the capital of this country would suffer one of the same great injustices that led to the American Revolution ... taxation without representation.
And it is the height of absurdity that the United States is the only nation on Earth with a representative government and democratic constitution that denies voting representation in that government to the residents of their capital city.
I don't think there should be anyone living in DC itself other than Congress persons but should be turned into an entertainment park of sorts and military reservation. There should be quarters establish to house Congress persons while Congress is in session thus removing any need for Congressional housing allowances. Should they choose not to live in Congressional housing they can commute from their districts where they do have representation.
As far as government employess, plenty of them commute from suburbs. It's not that far from Largo, MD. Let 'em ride the train.
I'd like to think there's absolutely no truth in that, but ... I think there might be, at least on the part of some in Congress over the years. Certainly, there is an air of "plantation" in how some in Congress look upon (or down on) the District and its residents.
The District of Columbia was created from the authority granted by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution:
Quote:
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene
Yeah, to me it's not so much what the law says or doesn't say - laws can and are changed all the time. Rather, it's a matter of fairness. It is simply wrong to have any U.S. citizens, residing in the continental United States, paying federal taxes, serving in the U.S. armed forces, and serving on juries in U.S. courts, to not have full and complete representation in Congress.
Yet that is precisely what happens in ALL US territories, not just in DC. Puerto Rico, the northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands are all US territories, where US citizens reside, pay federal taxes, serve in the Armed Forces, and serve on juries in US courts, and NONE of them have any voting representation in Congress because none of them are States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene
It is the height of irony that the U.S. Constitution - a document born out of the Colonies' struggle for freedom from Great Britain - would mandate that the residents of the capital of this country would suffer one of the same great injustices that led to the American Revolution ... taxation without representation.
There is no irony. DC has no Governor, no legislature, and no budget. DC's budget comes out of every US taxpayer's pocket, not just those who live in DC, and Congress acts as DC's legislature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene
And it is the height of absurdity that the United States is the only nation on Earth with a representative government and democratic constitution that denies voting representation in that government to the residents of their capital city.
The only absurdity I'm witnessing is by those who are completely clueless about the US Constitution, particularly those members of Congress who voted for the unconstitutional statute on both sides of the aisle. Which is proof that ignorance is non-partisan.
DC wouldn't exist in the first place if not for the US Constitution. Give it a read some time, you might actually learn something, but I'm not holding my breath.
Yet that is precisely what happens in ALL US territories, not just in DC. Puerto Rico, the northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands are all US territories, where US citizens reside, pay federal taxes, serve in the Armed Forces, and serve on juries in US courts, and NONE of them have any voting representation in Congress because none of them are States.
That is not entirely correct territories do not pay federal income tax only payroll and entitlement taxes and in the case of Puerto Rico they could become a state anytime they choose. Residents of the district are not allowed the statehood referendums Puerto Ricans are granted and I gurentee you if they were DC would be a state tomorrow.
Also the constitutional question is easy to resolve. Reduce the size of DC to only cover monuments and federal buildings and create a State of Columbia in the remainder. The constitution sets a size maximum but no minimum for a district of Columbia. That would be the best solution and would only require the repeal of a defunct 23rd amendment which would be a matter of course.
As a former D.C. resident, I could care less about all the political posturing and constitutional madness..If I pay taxes, I deserve to be represented in Congress Democrat or Republican. The constitution still says that Negroes are 3/5 of a human so stupid sh*t can be amended.
That is not entirely correct territories do not pay federal income tax only payroll and entitlement taxes and in the case of Puerto Rico they could become a state anytime they choose. Residents of the district are not allowed the statehood referendums Puerto Ricans are granted and I gurentee you if they were DC would be a state tomorrow.
You are mistaken, all US territories and possessions pay the same federal taxes as every State. Also, Puerto Rico can only become a state if allowed by Congress. See Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:
Quote:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
Also the constitutional question is easy to resolve. Reduce the size of DC to only cover monuments and federal buildings and create a State of Columbia in the remainder. The constitution sets a size maximum but no minimum for a district of Columbia. That would be the best solution and would only require the repeal of a defunct 23rd amendment which would be a matter of course.
Not as easy to resolve as you might think. Assuming Congress does propose an amendment to make DC a state, and it somehow passes with the required two-thirds of the vote from both houses of Congress. It would still require the ratification of 38 other states before the US Constitution is amended, and no state is going to ratify that amendment because it would diminish its own power in Congress.
It is a stupid idea by those who have never bothered to actually read the US Constitution, and it will join the other stupid ideas Congress has construed in their 50+ proposed amendments currently pending in Congress, and go absolutely nowhere.
You are mistaken, all US territories and possessions pay the same federal taxes as every State. Also, Puerto Rico can only become a state if allowed by Congress. See Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:
Not as easy to resolve as you might think. Assuming Congress does propose an amendment to make DC a state, and it somehow passes with the required two-thirds of the vote from both houses of Congress. It would still require the ratification of 38 other states before the US Constitution is amended, and no state is going to ratify that amendment because it would diminish its own power in Congress.
It is a stupid idea by those who have never bothered to actually read the US Constitution, and it will join the other stupid ideas Congress has construed in their 50+ proposed amendments currently pending in Congress, and go absolutely nowhere.
US terrortories such as Puerto Rico do not pay federal income taxes.
Also Puerto Rico is offered referendums on statehood fairly regularly. You are correct that it is congress that creates states but in general they have allowed territories to decide for themselves if they want statehood.
Finally no federal amendment is needed to reduce the size of DC and grant statehood to the remainder as no change to the constitution is needed. Only a majority vote in congress this is because DC will still exist just a much smaller DC with no residents aside from the President and others residing in federal buildings. The constitution states a maximum area for the district but no minimum and with the 1843 retrocession of Arlington county there is a precident that no amendment is need to reduce the size of the federal district. The extra area can be made in to a state no amendment necessary with simply the backing of congress.
I do concur with you completely, and would like to say that you couldn't make that Knowledge any clearer. Me studying Banking, Corporations, Sovereignty, Accounting, Civil Law, the Redemption manual, etc., I know and understand that what you're saying is Right and Exact. For instance, the Federal Government having its domicile in the District of Columbia, being a Corporation UNITED STATES/DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. If Congress were to revoke its own sovereignty and full ownership and police powers over the DISTRICT, that means the Government would have to either cease and dissolve its existence, or move to another physical place for its exclusive operation and jurisdiction. That's why I think it is foolish for DC residents to be pesturing Congress about this void subject of Voting Rights and DC Statehood. If those people would actually understand the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17), along with the nature and status of the Federal Government, they will then either say "if I want to be afforded the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, as an American, then I will assume citizenship in a state of the Union". The Free Republican rights of American citizens don't apply to any of the Federal territories (DC, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, military property, National Park Service property, or any property located physically within a state of the union, owned and operated by the U.S General Services Administration(GSA), or any Federal agency.
Listen, Article I section 8 clause 17 of the Constitution clearly gives Congress complete and exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, and because the U.S Federal Government is a mere corporation, it must have a physical domicile to exercise its soverreignty. So let's say if DC was to become a state with representation, then the US government would have to dissolve and cease existence, or otherwise relocate its principality to Puerto Rico or another Federal territory, or either purchase land from a state by cessation consent from that state legislature.
Listen, Article I section 8 clause 17 of the Constitution clearly gives Congress complete and exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, and because the U.S Federal Government is a mere corporation, it must have a physical domicile to exercise its soverreignty. So let's say if DC was to become a state with representation, then the US government would have to dissolve and cease existence, or otherwise relocate its principality to Puerto Rico or another Federal territory, or either purchase land from a state by cessation consent from that state legislature.
DC cannot become a state for the very reason you specified: Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution. DC was created originally by taking land away from Virginia and Maryland. If DC were to be abolished, those lands would revert back to their former states. Nobody is going to make some place that can only be 10 square miles in size a state. That would be stupid. They already have three Electoral College votes, which is more than any US territory or possession gets.
Even if some idiot wanted to make DC a state, it would require altering Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution, which can only be done through the amendment process.
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.
I Concur!
