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

No they don't. If 19 million have the same representation as the other 220 million, its simple math ?

 

As expected -- you're OK with the Democrats passing legislation with the intent and effect to increase their power in the Senate, but you're not OK with Republicans doing the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_hack

 

Hogwash.

 

The senate represent the states, not the people, and thus, the senators each represent 0 people.
Each state gets 2 seats, and thus, equal.
This is civics 101 stuff...

 

Read the Constitution... Perhaps you should read posts directed to you as this has already been explained instead of calling someone a "toady" simply because you dont know enough about this topic

 

Democrats desperately trying to increase electoral votes on their side. Nothing else.

 

Republicans desperately want to increase electoral votes on their side. Nothing else---that's why they don't want DC to achieve statehood.

 

Isn't that the chief aim of politics---to increase your power?

 

If Washington DC was populated with conservative Republicans, I bet the folks screaming against their statehood, would be all for it.

 

every state has two senators..the senate represents the state. the house represents the people and is broken into districts Cali has far more then say Rhode Island because they have a larger population

 

DC has electoral votes

 

I know what the constitution says.

The issue is whether the federal disctrict part of DC should be all that is reserved and that the rest should become a state.

THAT is what is being discussed.

There isn't anything in the constitution opposing that. Washington laid out DC as being NO LARGER than 100 square miles. People of that time fully realized that it could be smaller, and within less than 100 years they shrank DC. by about 23 square miles.

And, the reasons they did that are still fully valid today and apply to the rest of DC that is not being used as federal government footprint.

 

What exactly do you think you mean by this?
When forming your response, remember that DC already has 3 electoral votes.

And yes, the GOP opposes a Democrat bill passed for the sole purpose of giving the Democrats 2 additional seats in the senate.
File this is under "No shi'ite, Sherlock".

 

And they would be joined by exactly zero Democrats, because, as you well know, they would oppose any GOP bill that gives the GOP 2 more seats in the Senate.

 

Yes.

The issue is that they are administered by a congress in which they have no Senators and no Representatives and that the people an government of DC do not have the rights that states have - a problem seen as serious even in the early 1800's.

They are taxed without representation. They do not have the rights that are of key importance to states. Their DC decisions are subject to review by the federal legislature in which they have no Representative or Senator.

There is no valid justification for this gross mistreatment of US citizens numbering more than those of Wyoming and more than those of Vermont - both of which DO have states rights, DO get to make decisions without requiring confirmation by the US House, both of which DO have representation on taxation decisions.

 

They have 0 Snators and 0 Representatives.

And, it is the legislature that decides what taxes they pay and how thy do their business.

They are run by a governmental organization in which they have no representation as well as no legal recourse.

That was recongnized as a serious proble in the early 1800's - the reason for ceding more than a quarter of DC back to Virginia.

 

geez it’s round and round w you. They don’t because they are a federal district , as our founders created and wanted.

the issues and reasons are outlined in federalist 43. you have yet to provided support highlighting those concerns don’t still exist.

 

No, it's not round and round. I haven't changed my argument.

If you believe that some section of feeralist 43 is still demanding of the current organization of Washington, DC, then you should bring that up.

Madiosn was a smart guy. He had real concens. But, the federalist papers are not law and his concerns were not all born out. We've had major changes in how influence works, in how communication works, etc.

So, if you see something there that is worth discussing, I encourage you to specify it and explain why you still see it as a reason to deny representation to hundreds of thousands of American citizens and to have the federal government rule them in ways that we would NEVER consider appropriate for a state.

As I've pointed out, by the 1800's (not even 50 years later), the method of governance of DC was already seen as a problem - including an economic problem, not just a problem of representation (the reason for the war).

 

And the issue can be resolved by ceding DC's residential areas back to Maryland.
This, however, does not give the Democrats 2 extra seats in the senate, so they have no interest in it.
And thus, we see how the Democrats -really- feel about the representation for the people of DC.

 

Yes - I've pointed that out.

The catch is that there are strong impediments to that.

I think the largest is that MD doesn't want DC (and DC doesn't want MD). Our federal government does not have the power to change state borders without consent.

Next, there have been laws enacted since we ceded more than a quarter of the orignial DC back to Virginia for reasons of facilitating economic development - which DC has limited ability to do on its own, because it is not a state.

The impact on DC of being not a state, being controled by the federal government, has left significant damage in DC. Turning DC over to MD to administer those issues is not seen as a valid solution by MD or DC. It merely gives control of DC to a body other than the US legislature.


If you want to defend your idea, you need to offer solutions to these issues.

 

i know you just haven’t supported your argument showing the concerns the founders had don’t still exist.

every section of it. it’s. it law but the constitution is law and the paper was their reasons behind it.

why don’t you read the paper then break down how those concerns don’t exist now as you have claimed

 

YOU need to do your own work to find arguments to support your position.

And, they need to be arguments that are are applicable today.

My position is that you've got nothing that is of concern today. And, that includes federalist 43, which certainly is NOT an analysis of the DC structure we have today or its necessity.

Federalist 43 is certainly NOT an analysis of DC or its necessity. It's primarily about copyrights and patents.

If you can find something in that pertaining to the necessity of denying hundreds of thousands of Americans representation in issues of their own governance, taxation and even investment - go for it.

I just do not.

 

what are you taking about? i did. They are all in Federalist 43. i adopted Madison’s argument and don’t see where they don’t still hold...because you haven’t addressed them
why isn’t it? it was used to create it. You are making assertions without addressing anyone if the concerns

 

I've addressed everything you've said as far as I know.

If you think I didn't address an argument you made, please help me out by telling me what it is.

But, don't tell me "federalist 43" because that isn't an argument. You need to tell me what the reason is today.

Our founders had LOTS of serious concerns about how this new nation of theirs would turn out. Many like Jefferson doubted it would last long. Today, we need to be aware of their concerns, perhaps, but not all of their worries turned out to be demanding issues today.

 

i’ve enjoyed are debate...with that said in all due respect...the arguments raised by Madison, the concerns our founders had, stilll exist today in my opinion. They are laid out in detail, written actually amazingly by Madison.

i am open minded enough for you to change my mind...please address the concerns.