Virginia took back its part 150 years ago. Give the Maryland part back, and let's all enjoy not hearing from DC whiners anymore.

I look forward to seeing the official license plate change to "You can take the car, just please don't hurt me"

Whatever. As long as we don't have to try and squeeze another star onto the flag. 50's a nice round number.

filth: Virginia took back its part 150 years ago. Give the Maryland part back, and let's all enjoy not hearing from DC whiners anymore.

Maryland doesn't want it.

The founders never envisioned people actually living in the
swamps of mid-southern Maryland: they just imagined that it
would be used part-time by the citizen-lawmakers.

For all their practicality in other ways, they completely
ignored the fact that people would inevitably camp out at the
government's doorstep to beg for scraps.

But, as much as I am all for some form of representation for
the population of DC, the fact is that the federal government
needs to be located on 'Neutral Ground' that belongs to no
particular state, even in this day of a strong central
government.

DjangoStonereaver: filth: Virginia took back its part 150 years ago. Give the Maryland part back, and let's all enjoy not hearing from DC whiners anymore.

Maryland doesn't want it.

The founders never envisioned people actually living in the
swamps of mid-southern Maryland: they just imagined that it
would be used part-time by the citizen-lawmakers.

For all their practicality in other ways, they completely
ignored the fact that people would inevitably camp out at the
government's doorstep to beg for scraps.

But, as much as I am all for some form of representation for
the population of DC, the fact is that the federal government
needs to be located on 'Neutral Ground' that belongs to no
particular state, even in this day of a strong central
government.

I'm pretty sure Maryland would happily accept it if it were offered. What calamity would befall us if the seat of federal government were part of a state?

DjangoStonereaver: filth: Virginia took back its part 150 years ago. Give the Maryland part back, and let's all enjoy not hearing from DC whiners anymore.

Maryland doesn't want it.

The founders never envisioned people actually living in the
swamps of mid-southern Maryland: they just imagined that it
would be used part-time by the citizen-lawmakers.

For all their practicality in other ways, they completely
ignored the fact that people would inevitably camp out at the
government's doorstep to beg for scraps.

But, as much as I am all for some form of representation for
the population of DC, the fact is that the federal government
needs to be located on 'Neutral Ground' that belongs to no
particular state, even in this day of a strong central
government.

The emancipation of the slaves also caused a population boom in the capitol. And you're right, it was never intended to be a "residential" city.

Great one subby

////+11ty
//+eleventy

Fark the Utah Republicans who took the bribe of a temporary House seat to piss all over the Constitution.

filth: DjangoStonereaver: filth: Virginia took back its part 150 years ago. Give the Maryland part back, and let's all enjoy not hearing from DC whiners anymore.

Maryland doesn't want it.

The founders never envisioned people actually living in the
swamps of mid-southern Maryland: they just imagined that it
would be used part-time by the citizen-lawmakers.

For all their practicality in other ways, they completely
ignored the fact that people would inevitably camp out at the
government's doorstep to beg for scraps.

But, as much as I am all for some form of representation for
the population of DC, the fact is that the federal government
needs to be located on 'Neutral Ground' that belongs to no
particular state, even in this day of a strong central
government.

I'm pretty sure Maryland would happily accept it if it were offered. What calamity would befall us if the seat of federal government were part of a state?

The potential tax revenues the city would generate would not
offset the long-term costs of upgrading the crumbling
infrastructure, for one. I'm from New Jersey, which is only
a couple of steps above The Forbidden Zone when it comes to
infrastructure, and even the nicer roads and areas in DC are
severely under-maintained (not just my perception: DC has long
been at the top of AAA's worst maintained roads list). Without
federal subsidy, the city would become the kind of hell hole
it was in the 70's and 80's all over again, and maybe worse.

So, even if shrinking the District down to be, say, a 20 block
radius around The Mall (which would include a good portion of
the major government buildings, but nowhere near all of them)
and then ceding the rest of the city back to Maryland may make
logical sense, no way it will ever happen.

There is no way Maryland would accept the District, especially now. It would further bust the state budget, and further weaken the traditional Baltimore power base in state politics.

Anyone know the video of a Representative woman from D.C. taking to Stewart/Colbert about getting a seat in Congress?

Obama's already ripped up the Constitution, so naturally the house should follow suit.

I say we ban guns while we're at it.

Is it really taxation without representation if you are free to move to a place where you would be represented?

I mean, it's not like it was practical for the colonists to move back to England. It's a different story for someone who can *WALK* out of the "no representation" area in an afternoon. No border is farther than 5 miles away, which at walking pace is at most 2.5 hours.

Yeah, technically they aren't represented, but if all it takes to get that representation is to move a couple of miles, I have little sympathy for your plight, especially if it is specified in the Constitution.

Give most of it back to Maryland. Just like we gave Arlington back to VA before the civil war. Say hello to Washington County, MD. A blue county/city to a blue state.

Keep the Capitol, Supreme Court, White House, and a few other federal buildings as "The District of Columbia" - a kind of vatican city. At most, the District should go no farther South and East than the Anacostia River, no farther west than the Rock Creek Park, and no farther North than Massachussets Avenue.

Of course, this wouldn't have anything to do with giving the Democrats a guaranteed seat.

/conservative supreme court will blow this bill right out of the water anyway
//glad to see it's not just the republicans who like ignoring huge sections just because they find it inconvenient

Fark em. People moved there knowing they wouldn't be represented, and they stay there anyways. If they don't like it, move. I don't like winter blizzards, so I don't live in Buffalo NY. Capice?

We could just not make the residents pay federal taxes and get the same result.

I have a problem with officials not elected in any way by the residents having a large and decisive say in the policy of my city without our $.02

Not to mention, when you have a problem with a proposed piece of Congressional legislation, who do you call? People listen to Eleanor Holmes Norton because she has earned a lot of respect, but without a vote she has no power beyond persuasion.

muck4doo: Fark em. People moved there knowing they wouldn't be represented, and they stay there anyways. If they don't like it, move. I don't like winter blizzards, so I don't live in Buffalo NY. Capice?

This

ZachF81: Obama's already ripped up the Constitution, so naturally the house should follow suit.

Which is another impressive aspect of Obama, given that the Constitution already tattered and torn when it was presented to him.

ZachF81: Obama's already ripped up the Constitution, so naturally the house should follow suit.

I say we ban guns while we're at it.

Man that's a LOT of butthurt.

filth: Virginia took back its part 150 years ago. Give the Maryland part back, and let's all enjoy not hearing from DC whiners anymore.



YEP

dittybopper: Is it really taxation without representation if you are free to move to a place where you would be represented?

I mean, it's not like it was practical for the colonists to move back to England. It's a different story for someone who can *WALK* out of the "no representation" area in an afternoon. No border is farther than 5 miles away, which at walking pace is at most 2.5 hours.

Yeah, technically they aren't represented, but if all it takes to get that representation is to move a couple of miles, I have little sympathy for your plight, especially if it is specified in the Constitution.

Are you insane?!! It's ringed with the most vicious of violent offenders with nothing to lose, and the bridges are all mined. I once tried to walk out of the District to southern Maryland, and I didn't make it past 7th before Isaac Hayes had me tied up shouting "Duke of Northeast! A number one!" Thank God for Kurt Russell.

catblender: I have a problem with officials not elected in any way by the residents having a large and decisive say in the policy of my city without our $.02

Not to mention, when you have a problem with a proposed piece of Congressional legislation, who do you call? People listen to Eleanor Holmes Norton because she has earned a lot of respect, but without a vote she has no power beyond persuasion.


You knew how it would be when you moved to DC. Leave or STFU.

nlscb: /conservative supreme court will blow this bill right out of the water anyway
//glad to see it's not just the republicans who like ignoring huge sections just because they find it inconvenient

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Conservative legal stalwarts like Viet Dinh and Ken Starr think there is a strong argument that the bill is constitutional.

dittybopper: Is it really taxation without representation if you are free to move to a place where you would be represented?

I mean, it's not like it was practical for the colonists to move back to England. It's a different story for someone who can *WALK* out of the "no representation" area in an afternoon. No border is farther than 5 miles away, which at walking pace is at most 2.5 hours.

Yeah, technically they aren't represented, but if all it takes to get that representation is to move a couple of miles, I have little sympathy for your plight, especially if it is specified in the Constitution.

THIS.

You don't like it, move.

I think we should give them 2 senators. Then maybe the Senate will have more than one black member (who was appointed and is now being encouraged to resign).

airish: nlscb: /conservative supreme court will blow this bill right out of the water anyway
//glad to see it's not just the republicans who like ignoring huge sections just because they find it inconvenient

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Conservative legal stalwarts like Viet Dinh and Ken Starr think there is a strong argument that the bill is constitutional.

If Ken Starr is for it, it's a bad idea.

DjangoStonereaver: Maryland doesn't want it.

True. It's an administrative nightmare, with far too many problems to make it much of a prize. The DC government has enough trouble balancing the needs of its constituents with the demands of the federal government. Who'd want to inherit that morass?

The founders never envisioned people actually living in the
swamps of mid-southern Maryland: they just imagined that it
would be used part-time by the citizen-lawmakers.

Er, not so much. The region was parceled out to include Georgetown, which was one of the most populous commercial hubs in the region. The downtown area wasn't very developed, but DC is more than the National Mall.

Cat Food Sandwiches: I think we should give them 2 senators. Then maybe the Senate will have more than one black member (who was appointed and is now being encouraged to resign).

Yeah, screw the constitution, our govt be should run by people based on how their skin color reflects the public.

liam76: Cat Food Sandwiches: I think we should give them 2 senators. Then maybe the Senate will have more than one black member (who was appointed and is now being encouraged to resign).

Yeah, screw the constitution, our govt be should run by people based on how their skin color reflects the public.

The House does just that by gerrymandering.

The worst part of the deal is that the Democrats have just voted themselves two extra seats in the House, the one in DC and the one they would've lost to Utah after the 2010 census. Republicans would've gotten the seat in Utah anyway.

liam76: Cat Food Sandwiches: I think we should give them 2 senators. Then maybe the Senate will have more than one black member (who was appointed and is now being encouraged to resign).

Yeah, screw the constitution, our govt be should run by people based on how their skin color reflects the public.

Affirmative Action NOW!

Cat Food Sandwiches: I think we should give them 2 senators. Then maybe the Senate will have more than one black member (who was appointed and is now being encouraged to resign).

Roland Burris: Everything that is wrong with Affirmative Action

Cat Food Sandwiches: liam76: Cat Food Sandwiches: I think we should give them 2 senators. Then maybe the Senate will have more than one black member (who was appointed and is now being encouraged to resign).

Yeah, screw the constitution, our govt be should run by people based on how their skin color reflects the public.

The House does just that by gerrymandering.


Then why isn't the house a perfect reflection fo race in this country?

Or are you implying they gerrymander it so there are too many white people?

Why shouldn't DC be a state today?

List your reasons and show your work.

We asked for "no taxation without representation." Look at what representation got us.

DC, you don't want it. You're better off without it.

Aexia: Why shouldn't DC be a state today?

List your reasons and show your work.

Small population of less then 600,000 is a lot for standard states rights (2 senators at least on representative)

The constitution says so

Porto Rico is not a state and everyone is cool with it so if DC becomes a state I think we have to take Porto Rico as a state as well

/x dc resident live in maryland now would gladly take it back if we get the good parts to

liam76: Cat Food Sandwiches: liam76: Cat Food Sandwiches: I think we should give them 2 senators. Then maybe the Senate will have more than one black member (who was appointed and is now being encouraged to resign).

Yeah, screw the constitution, our govt be should run by people based on how their skin color reflects the public.

The House does just that by gerrymandering.


Then why isn't the house a perfect reflection fo race in this country?

Or are you implying they gerrymander it so there are too many white people?

Unfortuately we still have to let people vote, which sort of screws up the system.

Man I farken hate all the biatching about DC getting some representation.

News flash, not all 50 "states" are technically states. Virginia is a commonwealth for a start, so if you follow strict interpretation of the constitution why do they get representation?

PowerSlacker: You knew how it would be when you moved to DC. Leave or STFU.

I feel the same way about people living in tornado prone states. Fark you all and your FEMA handouts. Ya'll knew the danger before moving there so you can expect fark all money out of me if your home is knocked down.

/rolls eyes.

technocrat: Small population of less then 600,000 is a lot for standard states rights (2 senators at least on representative)

Wyoming has less than 600,000 people.

Vermont, North Dakota, and Alaska have less that 700,000.

What do you think the population cut-off should be?

Wyoming has just under 533,000, which would DC the second smallest (though it's 97,818 sq mi vs. 68 sq mi). And damn, Puerto Rico has almost 4,000,000 people. Didn't know that.

And I like the Vatican city idea. Send most of DC back to whatever of those tiny east coast states it's from and keep the 1-2 square miles of government buildings in a smaller DC.

Republicans: Rammstein's Sonne (sun)


The World counts loudly to ten.....................when Balance is lost............


bring back The Balance...........or else............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix24CXwQ7j4

technocrat: Porto Rico is not a state and everyone is cool with it so if DC becomes a state I think we have to take Porto Rico as a state as well

Well, I'd just like to point out that Puerto Rico is not a state because they voted against becoming one. They made the decision themselves.

If taxation without representation is wrong, then shouldn't they give teenagers who hold part time jobs (and pay income taxes) the right to vote?

nlscb: Give most of it back to Maryland. Just like we gave Arlington back to VA before the civil war. Say hello to Washington County, MD.

Washington County, MD says Hi back at ya. (new window)

liam76: dittybopper: Is it really taxation without representation if you are free to move to a place where you would be represented?

Yes. I pay federal taxes, and have no voting representation in Congress. Simple as that.

I mean, it's not like it was practical for the colonists to move back to England. It's a different story for someone who can *WALK* out of the "no representation" area in an afternoon. No border is farther than 5 miles away, which at walking pace is at most 2.5 hours.

What a great idea! Let's have 600,000 leave the city limits. There's plenty of room in northern Virginia and Maryland for district residents. Besides, abandoned homes do wonders for urban renewal.

Yeah, technically they aren't represented, but if all it takes to get that representation is to move a couple of miles, I have little sympathy for your plight, especially if it is specified in the Constitution.

THIS.

You don't like it, move.

Do you really want to be associated with the "If you don't like it, then get out" guy from South Park? Really?

This is a ridiculous argument, and was probably uttered during most major social reforms. "You don't like that women can't vote? THEN MOVE."

The whole point of the Constitution is that it can be changed. Why shouldn't I want to improve my home?

ItHurtsWhenIDoThis: And I like the Vatican city idea. Send most of DC back to whatever of those tiny east coast states it's from and keep the 1-2 square miles of government buildings in a smaller DC.

Even if you do that, you're still going to end up with people living there, and those people should be represented in government.

DC was a stupid comprimise foisted upon us (once again) by the South. We really should have left the capital in NYC, which would have made us just like civilized countries like England and France.

One more thing: we've a had a moratorium on adding seats to the House for a while now.

The reason? They don't have room for any more desk! This is freaking outrageous, as it means that people are not being properly represented. It would actually hurt the NE, but we've had massive population growth in the SW and we should recognize that.

ZachF81: Obama's already ripped up the Constitution, so naturally the house should follow suit.

I say we ban guns while we're at it.

I haven't been getting the memo - is constitutional abuse something I'm supposed to care about again?

Yes, the march forward to abuse power in every way possible continues with earnest. Democrats have tried and failed repeatedly to have DC made a state the old fashioned way so now they're going to do an end run around the Constitution to give themselves two more Senators and some more Representatives.

The reason DC is not a state was largely due to the fact that it was decided that no state should have the distinction of being the nations capitol. Then all of a sudden Democrats figured out they could have more power if they could only get DC to be a state.

As with most things Democrats want done, when they can't get the people to vote them what they want they just get a court to do it for them or make something new up. Will of the people be damned when a Democrat doesn't like what the people like.