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

It works just fine and as designed, people who choose to live there know it's not a state but a federal district.

 

Yes, that's the problem.

But, you have offered no solution.

Those in 1840 offered a solution - they ceded a significant portion back to the state from which it came. But, they didn't go all the way.

The House offered another solution - make it a state. It would be the 49th smallest population state out of 51 states - being larger than Wyoming and Vermont.

 

We're not going to depopulate that 44,000 acres. That is not a solution.

And, those who live there are acutely aware of the problems that having reduced representation and no state powers means.

 

Lots of people.

I am actually astounded that so many people who profess to be conservatives are in favor of citizens being denied the right to elected federal representation while at the same time being subjected to the taxes that the legislative branch passes.

 

As am I.

They talk about "states rights", too. Yet they are plenty happy to deny rights that only exist in the context of a state.

 

I'm all for letting them elect federal representation, as a part of the state of Maryland.

 

That would be ok with me too. It is one of several possible solutions.

But disenfranchising them is wrong.

 

We agree... So they join Maryland and still abide by the Constitution.. What you have is your party so desperate for power they want to go against the Constitution because they want those Senate seats.. That is all this is about.

 

DC does not need two democrat senators to redistribute tax dollars from the rich white parts to the poor black parts

the government workers in DC can start a private charity for reparations if they do not want to go the public way.

 

And they choose to live in a federal district not a state.

 

It's for the individual to decide if they choose to live in the federal district.

 

No it's not a problem it works as designed it's not about the size of the population which chooses to live in a federal district as opposed to a state.

 

And you think it’s ok to disenfranchise them for that choice.

 

No one disfranchised them it has always been a federal district in which they voluntarily live.

Here's Why Washington D.C. Isn't a State

"James Madison outlined the reasoning behind this provision in Federalist 43, calling the arrangement an “indispensable necessity.” He wrote, “The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it… Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.”


In other words, the founders worried that if the capital were to be a state, the members of the government would be unduly beholden to it. Madison envisioned that voting members of a D.C. state would be able to ‘insult’ or ‘interrupt’ the proceedings of government to get their way, simply by virtue of physical proximity to the halls of power."
https://time.com/4296175/washington-dc-statehood-history/

 

I wouldn't mind having DC become the 51st state if, in exchange, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and northern California could be turned into the 52nd state.

Fair is fair.

 

Being from WA, I would point out that eastern WA is subsidized by tax dollars collected on the west side of the state. Plus, for the best economic outcome the agricultural east side will need the continued transportation investments of the west side for efficiently delivering east side agriculture to port facilities. As a single state, that can be justified. As a state that no longer includes the east side, investments such as this become harder to justify to west side tax payers and as noted above the east side doesn't have the tax base to pay for it.

It would be a significant hit to eastern WA to no longer receive tax subsidies and in fact become more on the hook for supporting transportation and other infrastructure.


Also, your "fair is fair" argument is ridiculous. The USA is becoming more and more urban and our economic competitivness as a nation is shifting toward industry that thrives in an urban environment - hight tech, automation, information, etc.

Shifting America's political framerwork to be evern MORE influenced by the interests of numerous low population rangeland states is just plain ridiculous. It's not who we are. It's not who we are ever again going to be.

 

You have a VERY weird view of what states do.

So, I have to ask: What do you think the purpose is for having states AT ALL?

 

This is not an answer to any question regarding DC statehood.

It's the same as suggesting that if the colonial Americans wanted represeantation they should just mov back to England.

Instead they went to war over issues involving representation and self governance that we now proudly stand for.

They set up our system to depend on representation. Denying that representation is not bad just for those who don't get represented - it's a problm for America as a whole.

 

If the district of columbia wishes to become a state, then the united state federal government must be physically relocated to a new location. That is how the law works. The federal government can only be located in a federal enclave, not in a state.

 

Yes does answer, you just don't like the answer in which I quote the FOUNDING FATHERS who established the district and I think they know the history far better than you.

 

Yes, that is an issue..

The accepted solution to that is that there would still be a federal district where it is right now.

It would just be limited to land now used and reasonably expected to be needed in the futrure - noting that the land actually used is pretty much unchanging.

That's a small fraction.

 

No, they had no idea of the history of the USA. They only knew its inception.

We are the ones who know the history.

Everybody knows there will continue to be a federal district. We of today know what size is needed. Our founders did not. They just guessed that it wouldn't be more than 100 square miles.

 

it can’t be a state. the constitution requires a federal district. did the house offer an amendment?

why not give part back to MD that they don’t need for the federal district? like they did before with VA?

 

Again, nobody is suggesting that there won't be a federal district. What would happen is that the size of the federal district would be reduced to what is needed today. The needed size has been static for a long time, as I understand it.

Your second point is also good. I've pointed to ceding as a solution, too, but then I started looking at what the issues might be. I'm not so convinced anymore. I don't believe the statehood direction was taken frivolously.

My understanding of that is in post #266 above.

 

cool...the house should have voted to ceded in back to maryland i will support that