“House approves statehood for DC in 232-180 vote“

Well, that and Democrats won't get 2 Senate seats out of it.

 

D.C. does not need a tax break. If they wanted one, I'd only support it if it were accompanied by a repeal of the 23rd Amendment. If you don't pay taxes, you shouldn't help pick the President.

 

1. It's unconstitutional
2. They can join Maryland or Virginia, let the citizens decide via vote.
   
3. Let's move our government throughout the nation. We have the technology to do it. - White House to Idaho, House of Representatives to Alabama, Senate to Ohio, Supreme Court to Texas. Something like that. There is no reason to consolidate power into one target area.

 

I don’t think they ever expected the DC population to grow this much.

 

if one doesn't pay taxes they shouldn't be President.. and no Trump, it doesn't make you smart

 

They get a vote in committees, only States vote on the floors.

 

No taxation without representation. That's what I'm saying. Every citizen should have a Rep in the House and a Senator. If they don't, no taxes.

Seems a pretty fair trade off to me. Puerto Rico should also become a state. Maybe also some other territories either alone or grouped together.

 

So the bottom 20% of earners, and some higher, should not be allowed to vote? Should you have to bring your tax return to the polling place or mail a copy with your mail in ballot?

 

And then no federal funds, seems fair to me. Why would you want to put the burden of Puerto Rico on the citizens of the other states? They should become their own country.

 

The federal properties would be harder to manage and harder to protect not the people in the city of DC. As has already been documented there are reasons the capital is in a federal district and not a state and those reasons have not changed in over 200 years. The other states will not pass an amendment to change that.

 

So you would prefer citizens to be completely detached from the federal government? No taxes, no government representation, no spending? Rather than have them fully engaged? Taxes, spending and representation?

I prefer the full engagement approach rather than creating second class citizens.

 

They are not completely detached from the federal government stop with the specious nonsense.


RFK vs. D.C. Statehood
The Framers had good reason to keep the federal district apart from any state.
"The Framers had good reason to put the capital outside the borders or control of any state. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, writing in opposition to a 1964 statehood bill, summed up their view: “It was indispensably necessary to the independence and the very existence of the new Federal Government to have a seat of government which was not subject to the jurisdiction or control of any State.”

In 1783, a mutinous band of Continental soldiers drove Congress out of Philadelphia after Pennsylvania’s government refused assistance. The recent protests and riots in Washington’s streets make it easy to imagine a similar clash if the federal government lacked sovereignty over the city. To prevent such a situation, the Constitution’s Framers wrote a provision giving Congress the power “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 government of the United States....

...The House bill attempts to hew to the Constitution’s design by excluding a small area of the district—including the White House, other federal buildings and the National Mall—and leaving it as a federal district. RFK rejected a similar proposal in 1964: “A small Federal enclave comprised primarily of parks and Federal buildings . . . clearly does not meet the concept of the ‘permanent seat of government’ which the framers held.”

There’s an additional problem: The bill violates the 23rd Amendment, ratified in 1961, which enfranchised the district’s residents in presidential elections. The amendment allocates three electoral votes to “the district constituting the seat of government of the United States.” Under the House bill, that would be not the new state (which would get three electors of its own), but the rump federal district, with lots of structures but few or no inhabitants."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rfk-vs-d-c-statehood-11593709155?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

 

The answer is to limit DC to non residential areas. And give the residents representation in some way. Put them in Maryland. Create a separate state. Something. But as it stands currently they should have some tax breaks to reflect their lack of federal representation.

 

DC is highly fortified by land air and sea, in a red dawn event they would invade Texas through mexico.

 

The more power the federal government or any centralized body has the bigger problem this will be. And if you understand why that is then you understand why population count and density shouldn't be a factor. What Californians want wont necessarily be what Iowans want. Whats good for an urban inner city like Austin wont necessarily be good for a rural farming town like Marfa. That's why the original design was to see that the farther away a government is the less power it had over you, including structuring the construction of that government (elected officials) in such a way that didn't grossly favor an area simply because it has more people per square mile than another.

And on top of that we should never allow dense areas to hold massive influence based simply on their ability to stack humans on top of each other. Because look what happens. Take virtually every single large city in America and consider what things they have in common: high taxation, high crime, high poverty, high income inequality, and typically unmitigated generational Democrat control. And why? Because brainwashing human beings into constantly believing you're the solution to their problems (problems which you created btw) has never been a difficult thing to accomplish, not in America not anywhere. But its also an effort game and so going after dense areas has a much higher voter payoff than hitting smaller ones.

 

Nobody has proposed or even considered having no federal district. The issue is whether there is a justification for denying equal representation to the hundreds of thousands of those who live within the borders currently laid out.

The denial of rights to those there is not providing some benefit that our federal government needs.

The size of the federal district can be reduced to those areas actually being used or anticipated to be used, including additional space as needed for security or exapnsion of actual use. It's not as if the federal use of land in DC is increasing, nor would a new smaller configuration have to deny any right for the district to increase in size if some need were to be identified in the future.

The bottom line is that there just isn't any justification for denying representation of the large population of DC. No such case can possibly be made.

 

We can't expect DC to address its problems while also denying them the power to do so.

This isn't a new issue.

The sole reason for shrinking the size of DC in 1840 (or whatever the exact date) was that the restrictions on DC were economically detrimental to the USA.

That has not changed. Denying the representation and other rights of states is very real. The legal rights and powers of states ARE important.

The right wing points this out constantly.

 

The answer was given a long time ago and does not need to be answered again. The same reasons exist to keep it a federal district now and then and DC is a huge recipient of federal dollars and they can help fund those dollars.

 

If they do not like living in a Federal District they can move out of it to a surrounding area, you are talking a very small area.

 

Would you have the federal government REQUIRE MD to take DC against their will?

Would you REQUIRE that they reform their state government to include representation from the DC area and otherwise treat this new area of theirs equally wrt federal law?

 

The founders did not know how large the federal districted needed to be.

Our founders put a LIMIT of 10 miles square. They did not have reason to believe that it would require that amount of land.

By 1840 or so the impact of federal district control was recognized as being intollerable.

States have the powers and representation they have for very good reason. Denying that to those in DC is just not acceptable on grounds of equality and it is clearly not successful in terms of economics or other such measures.

 

We know that the DC form of government fails. In fact, it's a founding argument for our indepenence that such governmen fails.

Your solution just doesn't address the issue.

 

Washington figured it out quite well and still works today. Yes STATES have those powers in the United STATES, federal districts do not.

 

There is no issue to address.

 

LOL!!!

DC is not working for America.

Washington suggested a maximum size limit for DC.

And, by the early 1800's America knew that was not working.

Besides, we have principles of representational government that our founders considered worthy of war.