God forbid that those 591 thousand people be represented in their house of representatives.

Yeah, sounds like bull to me. Make it a state or don't but this is just silly.

so violating the constitution is now ok as long as it's for something you agree with?

Nice.

Here's one for you CONservative Turd George Will:

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organised political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. (Albert Einstein, 1949)

They should force Maryland to take the land back, at gunpoint if necessary. Barring that, a nice federal subsidy for agreeing to govern it.

This used to require a constitutional amendment. Now it doesn't? Did they pass an amendment not requiring amendments?

The Constitution is absolutely clear on this.

Welcome to the Oligarchy.

I've never understood why the whole city is federalized, instead of just creating a Vatican City-style border around just the federal buildings. Citizens of Washington D.C. should be considered citizens of Maryland.

George Will is absolutely correct in his Constitutional analysis. D.C.'s statehood would require a Constitutional amendment.

The Bad News:
Just what we need, more peeps in Washington conniving to spend other peoples money.

The Good News:
More scandals to fill the nightly news and give the late-night comedians material.

George Will consistently writes editorials about the US automotive industry when his wife works as a registered lobbyist for east Asian carmakers. He wouldn't recuse himself on that issue, so I figure we might as well go ahead and recuse our ears from listening to this.

Seriously, we are screwing over half a million people out of voting power in the House of Representatives who pay taxes. This isn't right.

So.... 591,000... five hundred and ninety-one thousand... Americans will now have representation in congress, which they did not have before.

And... the "Conservatives" are butt-hurt that these 591,000 Americans will have representation, because AS EXPLICITLY WHINED ABOUT in the article, these 591,000 Americans tend to vote Democratic.

Man, could these "conservatives" be any more farking obvious in their displays of burning hatred for the average American citizen?

Just imagine the oceans of tears that would flow from "Conservatives", if the millions of Americans in Puerto Rico ever got representation in Congress.

turboeli: George Will consistently writes editorials about the US automotive industry when his wife works as a registered lobbyist for east Asian carmakers. He wouldn't recuse himself on that issue, so I figure we might as well go ahead and recuse our ears from listening to this.

Seriously, we are screwing over half a million people out of voting power in the House of Representatives who pay taxes. This isn't right.

That doesn't mean you get ignore the rules on how to get them represented.

Spanky_McFarksalot: so violating the constitution is now ok as long as it's for something you agree with?


It always has been

General Zang: So.... 591,000... five hundred and ninety-one thousand... Americans will now have representation in congress, which they did not have before.

And... the "Conservatives" are butt-hurt that these 591,000 Americans will have representation, because AS EXPLICITLY WHINED ABOUT in the article, these 591,000 Americans tend to vote Democratic.

Man, could these "conservatives" be any more farking obvious in their displays of burning hatred for the average American citizen?

Just imagine the oceans of tears that would flow from "Conservatives", if the millions of Americans in Puerto Rico ever got representation in Congress.

There is an explicit process for that to happen. You shouldn't celebrate when the government decides to ignore fundamentals of our constitution, no matter what the result.

Spanky_McFarksalot: so violating the constitution is now ok as long as it's for something you agree with?

Nice.

So, violating the constitution is now bad because a Democrat is president?

Nice.

Fatslave: Spanky_McFarksalot: so violating the constitution is now ok as long as it's for something you agree with?


It always has been

Hmm...

Yes, we sometimes forget that.

I think there are far more important things to worry about than whether DC should be treated as, called, or "upgraded" to being, a "state".

On one hand there's the "no taxation without representation" notion; DC residents - as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, etc. - shouldn't have to pay a penny to the US federal government without full representation in Congress. (IIRC, US protectorates and territories do send representatives to Congress, but they're not treated as real representatives, and they can't vote - WTF is that all about?)

On the other hand, I deplore taxation (forced confiscation of private property), and would rather voluntarily pay my representatives (double) to protect me and my community & state from the growing concentration of power in Washington DC.

So call DC what you want to, treat them how you want to, but let's at least realize that there's far more dangerous lunacy in Washington DC than this issue.

thefais: God forbid that those 591 thousand people be represented in their house of representatives.

turboeli: Seriously, we are screwing over half a million people out of voting power in the House of Representatives who pay taxes. This isn't right.

General Zang: So.... 591,000... five hundred and ninety-one thousand... Americans will now have representation in congress, which they did not have before.

It's just a goddamn piece of paper eh?

ipsofacto: So, violating the constitution is now bad ok because a Democrat is president?

If it was wrong under bush it's wrong under obama.

Dancin_In_Anson: It's just a goddamn piece of paper eh?

Yeah, like you have any right to bring that argument out.

CaesarSneezy: General Zang: So.... 591,000... five hundred and ninety-one thousand... Americans will now have representation in congress, which they did not have before.

And... the "Conservatives" are butt-hurt that these 591,000 Americans will have representation, because AS EXPLICITLY WHINED ABOUT in the article, these 591,000 Americans tend to vote Democratic.

Man, could these "conservatives" be any more farking obvious in their displays of burning hatred for the average American citizen?

Just imagine the oceans of tears that would flow from "Conservatives", if the millions of Americans in Puerto Rico ever got representation in Congress.

There is an explicit process for that to happen. You shouldn't celebrate when the government decides to ignore fundamentals of our constitution, no matter what the result.

THIS

This is setting a dangerous precedent that will have unexpected results.

This has always been a good idea. This is the worst possible way to go about this though. Ugh.

SynthLord: I think there are far more important things to worry about than whether DC should be treated as, called, or "upgraded" to being, a "state".

On one hand there's the "no taxation without representation" notion; DC residents - as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, etc. - shouldn't have to pay a penny to the US federal government without full representation in Congress. (IIRC, US protectorates and territories do send representatives to Congress, but they're not treated as real representatives, and they can't vote - WTF is that all about?)

Puerto Rico and VI citizens pay absolutely no federal taxes.

D.C. should be as small as possible to accomodate the core of government. Nobody who lives there should be allowed to vote, except possibly on local laws that don't apply to nonresidents. But it should be uninhabited except for the President, Vice President, and their families. Give the rest back to Maryland by force.

George Will is not a constitutional scholar. If he were, he wouldn't pretend that there's only one interpretation of article I, section 2. He'd also acknowledge that the document was written before there was a federal district, so the intent behind the quoted section is likely radically different than his own intent, which is clearly to prevent heavily Democratic D.C. voters from having representation.

The real goal is two permanent Senators(D) and one Electoral College vote for 600k citizens. Disproportionate representation anyone?

Amend the f*cking document.

DC is not a state; it is the seat of the US government of 50 independent states. I have to agree with George Will on this one. If DC residents want representation in Congress, they need to move away from the District.

General Zang
So.... 591,000... five hundred and ninety-one thousand... Americans will now have representation in congress, which they did not have before.

The Republican's lack of support for giving DC a voting congressman is no less "obvious" than the Democrats scrambling to add a vote where it can only benefit them.

And chances are good they stand to lose a vote from a New England state that would've gone to Utah; now they might be able to hang onto one there too. Instead of letting the 2010 census reallocate congressmen and giving DC one then, took gerrymandering to a new level.

flannelled fool: ... and one Electoral College vote for 600k citizens. Disproportionate representation anyone?

You dumbass, they already get THREE.

/ mumbling to myself - I knew that

This is not really rocket science. If there's enough will to have the people of DC represented, then amend the Constitution. I think the Republic will survive having one measly Congresscritter added to represent half a million people.

Hat Madder: The Republican's lack of support for giving DC a voting congressman is no less "obvious" than the Democrats scrambling to add a vote where it can only benefit them.

I can only think that this shiatty Dems. vs. Repubs. mess could be greatly improved by fixing ballot access laws and adopting a ranked preference ballot.

Dancin_In_Anson: thefais: God forbid that those 591 thousand people be represented in their house of representatives.

turboeli: Seriously, we are screwing over half a million people out of voting power in the House of Representatives who pay taxes. This isn't right.

General Zang: So.... 591,000... five hundred and ninety-one thousand... Americans will now have representation in congress, which they did not have before.

It's just a goddamn piece of paper eh?


Your deep and abiding concern for the constitution has been duly noted over the past 8 years.

Quite frankly, I'm of the opinion that Barack Obama's credentials as an Attorney, a Constitutional Law Scholar, and his past as a Professor of Constitutional Law allow him to make a more nuanced judgement of the constitutionality of this issue, than your random "Conservative" farkwit blathering on about how People in D.C vote 78% Democratic.

If it is unconstitutional for the people in D.C to have representatives, then it doesn't farking matter who they vote for. If it's unconstitutional, then citing the factors that make it unconstitutional should be a sufficient argument.

The fact that the author of the article felt the need to whine about the voting record of the people in DC, shows that he knew his base wouldn't give a flying fark about the finer nuances of constitutional law.... but they'd salivate like Pavlov's dogs if told that the eviiiiil liberals might somehow benefit from the change.

Oh, and look, here's one of the trained animals barking out his masters' opinion now.

How cute.

By the way, you do realize, don't you, where the word "Conservative" comes from, right?

It's from the French language.

"Con" means "idiot", "serve" means "serf", and "-ative"is a word ending that means "to act in such a manner or fashion".

Spanky_McFarksalot: ipsofacto: So, violating the constitution is now bad ok because a Democrat is president?

If it was wrong under bush it's wrong under obama.

We agree. I imagine if D.C. were a 78% republican stronghold, republicans would be pushing for representation, and Democrats would be opposing. This issue (like every other) won't be debated on the merits.

Without representation in Congress, I believe D.C. shouldn't have to pay federal taxes. Don't like it? Ratify them as a city-state.

GAT_00: Yeah, like you have any right to bring that argument out.

General Zang: Your deep and abiding concern for the constitution has been duly noted over the past 8 years

It's you guys turn now eh?

I don't get this whole DC statehood thing. Isn't the whole point of an independent DC is that it's NOT beholden to a state body?

General Zang: So.... 591,000... five hundred and ninety-one thousand... Americans will now have representation in congress, which they did not have before.

To be fair, and following the Constitution, they are mostly black. So what's three-fifths of 591,000?

/I know, I know...

CaesarSneezy: This used to require a constitutional amendment. Now it doesn't? Did they pass an amendment not requiring amendments?

For your object lesson, I refer you to prohibition. Prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment. Prohibition of everything since (see the entire current list here^) at most requires a congressional vote, but can be done by fiat of the AG on an "emergency" basis that expires after one year.

flannelled fool: The real goal is two permanent Senators(D) and one Electoral College vote for 600k citizens. Disproportionate representation anyone?

First, Alaska has fewer residents than DC.

Second, the only reason that the residents of DC might elect "permanent" Senators(D), is if they feel that the Democrats will represent their interests better than the Republicans.

If this outcome is viewed as less than optimal by the Republicans, then all they have to do is work hard to show urban inner-city voters that the Republican Party cares about their interests, and wishes to represent them fairly and honestly.

Afterwards, we can all gather and watch pigs fly.

Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: Yeah, like you have any right to bring that argument out.

General Zang: Your deep and abiding concern for the constitution has been duly noted over the past 8 years

It's you guys turn now eh?

No.

If allowing DC to have representation in the House was shown to be unconstitutional by someone who had any sort of credibility, or any sort of reputation for honesty and integrity, then I have to oppose allowing representatitives for DC, as I personally respect the Constitution.

However, that's not what this article offered... and, indeed, is not what Dancin_in_Anson offers.

Your lack of integrity, lack of honesty, lack of introspection, and lack of even the *potential* to feel shame for your actions and statements, has shown us all that your arguments are worthless.

So... yes, I support the Constitution 100%... but I sure as hell ain't gonna follow DIA's farkwitted interpretations of it, without looking for credible second opinions by people who actually know what they're talking about.

ipsofacto: Spanky_McFarksalot: ipsofacto: So, violating the constitution is now bad ok because a Democrat is president?

If it was wrong under bush it's wrong under obama.

We agree. I imagine if D.C. were a 78% republican stronghold, republicans would be pushing for representation, and Democrats would be opposing. This issue (like every other) won't be debated on the merits.

Without representation in Congress, I believe D.C. shouldn't have to pay federal taxes. Don't like it? Ratify them as a city-state.

Nope, it's a Federal Territory. They should only have to pay Federal taxes, no Maryland taxes or even sales tax should apply. It may be the case already?

A federal territory should not have seperate representation in the federal government. The citizens should either be considered part of Maryland or not considered. This would be like giving people who live in national parks direct Congressioanl Representation rather than having them be a part of and represented by, their state Government.

Wouldn't it be funny if every National Park had it's own Congressional Representative for the people who live only within the park?

El_Dan: He'd also acknowledge that the document was written before there was a federal district

Unlike you, he'd probably also know that the federal district is directly and specifically referenced in "the document," and that the creation of the same was expressly considered and anticipated.

General Zang: If allowing DC to have representation in the House was shown to be unconstitutional by someone who had any sort of credibility, or any sort of reputation for honesty and integrity, then I have to oppose allowing representatitives for DC, as I personally respect the Constitution.

kronicfeld: George Will is absolutely correct in his Constitutional analysis. D.C.'s statehood would require a Constitutional amendment.

Okay, just to balance things out, let's turn Alaska back into a territory, with non-voting representation in Congress, and make D.C. a "state-like entity" with two senators and a single representative. The number of desks in the two chambers wouldn't change, nor would the number of stars on the flag. And D.C. has nearly twice as many people as Alaska anyway.

/sounds fair to me

T-Servo: General Zang: So.... 591,000... five hundred and ninety-one thousand... Americans will now have representation in congress, which they did not have before.

To be fair, and following the Constitution, they are mostly black. So what's three-fifths of 591,000?

/I know, I know...

Well, like Abraham Lincoln said in 1857 during a debate with Douglas,

"I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races....I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors out of negores, nor of qualifying them to hold office"

If we just abide by the wishes of the Great Emancipator we do not have a problem anyway. I heard on the news he was one of the Greatest Presidents, if not the Greatest President. He must know what's right for the country.

/bad news, for Obama

General Zang: flannelled fool: The real goal is two permanent Senators(D) and one Electoral College vote for 600k citizens. Disproportionate representation anyone?

First, Alaska has fewer residents than DC.

Second, the only reason that the residents of DC might elect "permanent" Senators(D), is if they feel that the Democrats will represent their interests better than the Republicans.

If this outcome is viewed as less than optimal by the Republicans, then all they have to do is work hard to show urban inner-city voters that the Republican Party cares about their interests, and wishes to represent them fairly and honestly.

Afterwards, we can all gather and watch pigs fly.

Alaska has more. Wyoming has less. Wyoming= two permanent republican senators. fark off george will you cock sucking homo.

General Zang: So.... 591,000... five hundred and ninety-one thousand... Americans will now have representation in congress, which they did not have before.

And... the "Conservatives" are butt-hurt that these 591,000 Americans will have representation, because AS EXPLICITLY WHINED ABOUT in the article, these 591,000 Americans tend to vote Democratic.

Man, could these "conservatives" be any more farking obvious in their displays of burning hatred for the average American citizen?

Just imagine the oceans of tears that would flow from "Conservatives", if the millions of Americans in Puerto Rico ever got representation in Congress.

Not it is not because they tend to vote democrat. It is because the constitution says the House must be people from the several states. DC is NOT a state. The problem is the dems want to add the seat because they know they will ALWAYS win it. If you want to add a seat for DC either amend the constitution or admit the territory as a state. Do it legal and right.

Contents of a Space Wasp's stomach: Nope, it's a Federal Territory.

Isn't that the crux of the problem? Either tax them with distinct representation, or have the people absorbed into the neighboring state(s). I don't see the justification for claiming people's residences as federal territory so as to effectively deny them representation in Congress.

DC is not a state. You can't just subvert the constitution cause it helps "your side". If the residents of DC are so concerned about the lack of vote they can move the 10 miles to Maryland. It's highly doubtful that DC was ever supposed to have residential inhabitants aside from workers for the Federal buildings.

ipsofacto: I don't see the justification for claiming people's residences as federal territory

You're about 222 years late for that debate.