Hey, they were found unConstitutional. So that makes sense.

It'd be interesting if they actually seat a Congressperson. I'd like to see that case go to the Supreme Court. What happens if the court finds that the people of DC have a fundamental right to representation?

Why can't we just amend the Constitution? I mean does *anybody* really think these people shouldn't get representation? The founders never thought that actual people would live in DC, just the poor people who, at the time,couldn't vote.

I understand that it would give the Democrats another seat, so Republicans don't want to do it, but honestly...how can you defend that on TV? Put these people on the spot:

"Congressman. Why don't you think all American citizens should have Congressional representation?"

DamnYankees: It'd be interesting if they actually seat a Congressperson. I'd like to see that case go to the Supreme Court. What happens if the court finds that the people of DC have a fundamental right to representation?

They become part of Maryland?

what_now: "Congressman. Why don't you think all American citizens should have Congressional representation?"

"I do. But I also think we should follow the constitution. If they want the federal district to become a state, they should avail themselves of the same process used by 37 previous territories that became states, or seek recession to Maryland."

Snarfangel: They become part of Maryland?

That should never happen. No state should house the Congress, White House, Supreme Court, etc.

They should just remain DC, and get a representitive and maybe a Senator.

The constitution does not spell out any specific theoretical reason for DC not voting in congress, other than its technically not part of any state. It seems like a semantic argument to me that can be solved by just saying they get some representation. Such representation would not conflict with any other part of the constitution if worded correctly.

Or, here's another idea... can't you carve out all of the governmental areas of DC and return the rest (Georgetown, etc.) to Maryland?

The constitution does not say DC has to be of any specific size, it just can't be more than 10 square miles (I think).

downstairs: Snarfangel: They become part of Maryland?

That should never happen. No state should house the Congress, White House, Supreme Court, etc.

They should just remain DC, and get a representitive and maybe a Senator.

Portland, Oregon is just a little smaller than D.C. Should it get its own senator?

Retrocession has already been used to give back part of the district to Virginia. There is no reason it wouldn't work to give the remainder back to Maryland, excluding a tiny federal district containing the White House, the Capitol, and the Supreme Court.

just what you want - people in DC with semiautomatic weapons

DamnYankees: What happens if the court finds that the people of DC have a fundamental right to representation?

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. The question is not whether they have a right to representation, the question is whether the constitution allows them to have a representative in the House, which it does not, otherwise they would have one and the Constitution would not have had to be amended to give them votes in the electoral college. They do actually have representation in Congress. Every single one of the Congressmen is also an "alderman" for Washington. They have abrogated this responsibility since the sixties to a mayor and a city council.

So, the simple solution. Take a map of Washington, set a compass for a radius of about a mile and place the point on the Washington monument. Strike an arc from one bank of the Potomac, around to the east, enclosing the Captitol, and back to the Potomac. That's the new Washington. The rest goes back to Maryland again. Or pick some streets as boundarys, but reduce the size of the District to as small as possible.

downstairs: The constitution does not spell out any specific theoretical reason for DC not voting in congress, other than its technically not part of any state. It seems like a semantic argument to me that can be solved by just saying they get some representation. Such representation would not conflict with any other part of the constitution if worded correctly.

The writers of the Constitution deliberately and clearly did not give the residents of the capital district representation in Congress. They had reasons, such as defense, avoiding a culture where too much power accrued to the state holding the capital, that you could read about if you wanted to. The conflicts with the other parts of the Constitution, such as Congressmen must be residents of a state, or that Washington can have some electoral votes as if it were a state can't be ironed out without amending the Constitution.

downstairs: It seems like a semantic argument to me that can be solved by just saying they get some representation

semantics? the constitution is pretty clear that voting rights go to the states, not the federal district or territories. the founders did debate DC voting and rejected it.

Dead for Tax Reasons: just what you want - people in DC with semiautomatic weapons

Yeah, because yesterday, nobody in DC had any guns whatsoever.

albo: "I do. But I also think we should follow the constitution. If they want the federal district to become a state, they should avail themselves of the same process used by 37 previous territories that became states, or seek recession to Maryland."

Ahhh you misunderstood me. I think we SHOULD try to amend the constitution, and then when someone disagrees (for partisan reasons) you ask him why he doesn't support the amendment.

albo: the constitution is pretty clear that voting rights go to the states, not the federal district or territories. the founders did debate DC voting and rejected it.

And they were wrong. Which is why they also gave us the mechanism to amend the constitution.

I totally disagree with this law as it stands. It *is* unconstitutional. But in this case, the constitution is wrong.

I guess I just don't understand why some people who don't want the votes counted or representation of the poor and liberal peop... ooooh... Now I get why some are against this.

They pay taxes and are US citizens, so they should get a vote and representation in Congress. Besides that they are poor and/or liberal people and will likely always vote for the Dems, what reasoning is behind not allowing their votes and having a say in congress?

DamnYankees: What happens if the court finds that the people of DC have a fundamental right to representation?

I know full well this bill isn't Constitutional. It doesn't make denying 700,000 tax paying American citizens the right to have a say in their governance any more right either.

albo: semantics? the constitution is pretty clear that voting rights go to the states, not the federal district or territories. the founders did debate DC voting and rejected it.

It's not entirely clear on that matter. For example, Virginia is not a state. It is a commonwealth that is afforded the rights of a state. The same could and should be argued about DC.

discount sushi: It doesn't make denying 700,000 tax paying American citizens the right to have a say in their governance any more right either.

i don't mean to sound callous--well, maybe i do--but they can move if they like. if they want a congressman or senator, maryland and virginia are next door.

they're living in the federal district--it's a special situation and has been so for 220 years. it's not like this is a surprise.

Da Bum: Besides that they are poor and/or liberal people and will likely always vote for the Dems, what reasoning is behind not allowing their votes and having a say in congress?

The Constitution of the United States. Instead of doing an end run around the document, CHANGE the document. Make anyone who doesn't want to, explain WHY he thinks 700,000 people shouldn't have the right to vote.

pandabear: So, the simple solution. Take a map of Washington, set a compass for a radius of about a mile and place the point on the Washington monument. Strike an arc from one bank of the Potomac, around to the east, enclosing the Captitol, and back to the Potomac. That's the new Washington. The rest goes back to Maryland again. Or pick some streets as boundarys, but reduce the size of the District to as small as possible.

This is neither a simple solution, nor an intelligent one. The argument of retrocession into other states is highly contentious. The retrocession of Arlington to Virginia still hasn't been decided by any court. Many believe that was unconstitutional.

The whole notion opens the door to merging states together that clearly don't belong. Why not just merge Rhode Island with its neighbor? I'm sure they would like that too.

absoluteparanoia: For example, Virginia is not a state. It is a commonwealth that is afforded the rights of a state. The same could and should be argued about DC.

no, commonwealths are states--the term is synonomous and there is no legal difference. PA is the same.

Da Bum: I guess I just don't understand why some people who don't want the votes counted or representation of the poor and liberal peop... ooooh... Now I get why some are against this.

They pay taxes and are US citizens, so they should get a vote and representation in Congress.

Zero out federal taxes for the district and federal spending to the district outside of the federal buildings. Since DC received $5.55 for every dollar in federal tax (as of 2005, I haven't seen later figures), the rest of the country could actually get a small tax break.

And giving DC residents ready access to guns around members of Congress and lobbyists sounds intriguing, and I hope a newsletter is involved.

albo: but they can move if they like. if they want a congressman or senator, maryland and virginia are next door.

they're living in the federal district--it's a special situation and has been so for 220 years. it's not like this is a surprise.

So aside from ignoring DC history and proposing a completely impractical solution, you believe that we could honestly solve this political slight by ignoring it?

Are you shiatting me?

There will always be civilians living in DC. This whole country was built on the concept of paying taxes AND receiving a vote. You do one, then you get the other. The pragmatic reality is that there are more people living here than Rhode Island. There is a host of functions that this city provides that supports the federal government.

We deserve a right to vote.

albo: no, commonwealths are states--the term is synonomous and there is no legal difference. PA is the same.

They are not synonymous nor are they legally the same. There were specific constitutional concessions made on this point. For example, many consider Puerto Rico a commonwealth.

what_now: Make anyone who doesn't want to, explain WHY he thinks 700,000 people shouldn't have the right to vote.

we shouldn't be creating city-states with power out of proportion to their size--if DC is a state, why not louisville? similar population.

absoluteparanoia: Why not just merge Rhode Island with its neighbor?

Dude...I don't want Rhode Island!!

Give them to Connecticut. Connecticut sucks.

absoluteparanoia: They are not synonymous nor are they legally the same. There were specific constitutional concessions made on this point. For example, many consider Puerto Rico a commonwealth.

you're confused. commonwealth as applied to states like PA, VA and MA is synonomous. it's a historic appellation.

puerto rico can call itself a commonwealth, but of course that doesn't make it a state.

albo: we shouldn't be creating city-states with power out of proportion to their size--if DC is a state, why not louisville? similar population.

I don't think we SHOULD be making DC a state.

albo: we shouldn't be creating city-states with power out of proportion to their size--if DC is a state, why not louisville? similar population.

Louisville already has the right to vote. DC does not. Strawman defeated.

This is easy.

Arguing against DC getting the vote is like arguing that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Argument ad absurdium.

downstairs: Or, here's another idea... can't you carve out all of the governmental areas of DC and return the rest (Georgetown, etc.) to Maryland?

The constitution does not say DC has to be of any specific size, it just can't be more than 10 square miles (I think).

But it would still get 3 electoral votes, no matter how small it is. You would need to amend the constitution to change that. And if you're gonna amend the constitution, might as well amend it to just give DC its own representation.

absoluteparanoia: Arlington to Virginia still hasn't been decided by any court.

That might just be because the people of Arlington wanted it that way, especially since they wouldn't be allowed to keep their slaves if they hadn't gone back to Virginia. No challenge, no court.

The only limitation on the District in the Constitution is that it not be bigger than 100 square miles, that the land be ceded by the state(s), and that Congress approves it . There's nothing unconstitutional about reducing the size of the District of Columbia to a bare minimum.

States could not be merged, that is clearly unconstitutional. See Article 4, Section 3--New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States 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.

albo: we shouldn't be creating city-states with power out of proportion to their size--if DC is a state, why not louisville? similar population.

How is it out of proportion to the size? DC wouldn't even be the smallest state in America.

pandabear: The only limitation on the District in the Constitution is that it not be bigger than 100 square miles, that the land be ceded by the state(s), and that Congress approves it . There's nothing unconstitutional about reducing the size of the District of Columbia to a bare minimum.

Your missing the point I was making. Your plan wasn't simple, nor is it in any way practical. In fact, since DC sits on land seceded by a state, you posted the relevant part of the constitution that makes it unconstitutional to merge it back. You defeated your own argument

albo: i don't mean to sound callous--well, maybe i do--but they can move if they like. if they want a congressman or senator, maryland and virginia are next door.

How do you suggest compensating for the privately owned land here, then how do you want to pay to upkeep it? The city proper is 60 square miles with 600,000 residents. For reference we out populate the state of Wyoming.

The only people who suggest things like that are idiots who have never actually been here, or if they have they didn't leave the Mall.

How is it out of proportion to the size? DC wouldn't even be the smallest state in America.

geographic size. Rhode Island is 20 times the size of DC. it's ridiculous making it a state and it makes a mockery of the term.

And you're creating a city-state at the seat of the federal government--the founders were right to see the potential for improper influence.

DC's a city, a city that can't even run itself as a municipality, let alone a state. it should be a part of a state, not a state itself. give it back to maryland. problem solved

albo: give it back to maryland.

Unconstitutional and completely retarded idea that solves nothing.

albo: geographic size. Rhode Island is 20 times the size of DC. it's ridiculous making it a state and it makes a mockery of the term.

Why? Who cares about the physical size of the state? Alaska is literally over 400 times bigger than Rhode Island! We don't seem to care.

absoluteparanoia: seceded by a state

I said "ceded." As in ceded for the purpose. If the Congress decided today that they wished to meet in, say, the neighborhood of Kansas City, and Missouri ceded them a square of land ten miles on a side, and the Congress agreed, then that would be the capital district, and Washington DC would become part of Maryland again.

absoluteparanoia: Unconstitutional and completely retarded idea that solves nothing.

that's why you change the constitution. you have to change it either way.

and how doesn't it solve the problem? DC residents then get representation in Congress. plus they get the resources of the state of Maryland to help them get their stuff together. And we can get them off the federal teat. It's a win/win

albo: and how doesn't it solve the problem? DC residents then get representation in Congress.

No, that's like saying that a cup full of water is well represented in a toilet.

albo: plus they get the resources of the state of Maryland to help them get their stuff together.

Have you BEEN to maryland?

Wasn't an amendmend stiking down "the fairness doctrine" rolled into that same bill?

amendment. durrr.

/just woke up. must make coffee

absoluteparanoia: Have you BEEN to maryland?

love the place. baltimore is awesome. did some time at ft. meade. dad had a cottage on the elk river. used to buy my beer there when the drinking age was 18. mountain liquors, off route 15

Am I just naive thinking that when you bring a bill to Congress, it should be about ONE F***ING THING and not all this other s*** that gets tacked on at the end?

NittLion78: Am I just naive thinking that when you bring a bill to Congress, it should be about ONE F***ING THING and not all this other s*** that gets tacked on at the end?

But it's how nothing ever gets done.

/agrees with you

Move the federal district to the intersection of Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. The center of the country gets a nice stimulus as a new capital is built, and DC can vote with Maryland. Besides, it's a lot closer to the population center of the United States.

DamnYankees: What happens if the court finds that the people of DC have a fundamental right to representation?

Those people? Nah. They don't deserve representation. You want representation? Move outta DC.

Snarfangel: Move the federal district to the intersection of Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. The center of the country gets a nice stimulus as a new capital is built, and DC can vote with Maryland. Besides, it's a lot closer to the population center of the United States.

We already have Walmart's corporate office there. That part of the country doesn't NEED a stimulus.

We should just move the federal district to Palestine. Not like anyone is currently living there.

DamnYankees: We should just move the federal district to Palestine. Not like anyone is currently living there.

Palestine would first have to become a state. Or did you mean lovely Palestine, IL?