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

You don't even bother to state what amendment you're talking about. It sounds like you are referring to the 14th amendment, but I haven't heard anyone suggest that as a basis for DC statehood.

And, I'm pretty sure I didn't bring up any amendment.

Oh, please.

Those living in Washington, DC are separate from federal government. Our founders were concerned about issues that do not exist today, or at least not in the same way. That's not surprising.

 

Because they like the fact that they have unequal representation

 

OK.

Except, your suggestion didn't show that.

Those in DC do not have representation. All those in western states DO have representation.

Also, those in DC are denied the normal powers of states - powers that include decision making on such issues as affect healthcare, education, economics, etc.

Pretending that allowing those in DC, who are taxed and ruled by a body in which they have no represaentation, is a partisan power grab just doesn't fly.

And, again - if Republicans want to increase their power, they can work on addressing the issues of the people.

Trump spent his whole 4th of July address continuing his culture war against more than half of all America.

THAT is the problem that Republicans face. Their leader is actively pursuing shrinking the Republican party.

 

??

I think you're running way behind on the nature of DC and related issues.

The land in question is all privately owned. It's not owned by the federal government. The federal government owns only a tiny portion of DC - a portion that has nearly no residents.

 

Seriously, Will ... One city deserves 2 Senators and a Representative? One city? Come on, man. That is soooo absurd. If the law says DC cannot be annexed into VA, then the law can be changed. Bringing DC into an existing state is the only logical solution, or just leave it alone. No one city deserves two senators, period.

 

There are two states that are each smaller than DC - Wyoming and Vermont.

Are you proposing ending their status as states - maybe requiring Vermont to be ceded to New Hampshire? Or, maybe dividing the empty landscape of Wyoming between the surrounding low population states?

What other states do you believe have too few people to be states?

 

DC can and should be merged into MD. The Federal Government jobs, i.e., pork, should be distributed fairly to all States.

 

There are two states that are each smaller than DC - Wyoming and Vermont. DC has almost 50% more peolpe than Wyoming. It has about the same population as Alaska.

They are PLENTY big enough.

It's not just that there are laws preventing ceding DC to another state (most logically Maryland).

The rest of the problem is that Maryland refuses that offer.

Would you suggest that the federal government be given the power to change the borders of US states without the approval of the states being so affected?

My own view is that would be wildly unacceptable. And, I think the rest of America would be on my side on that.

DC is currently a discrete unit with a border, with federal representatives (though they can't vote), with electoral college votes, and without the normal powers considered majorly important for states to have.

They just need to have the powers of statehood so they can make their own freaking decisions on budgets, taxes, etc.

And, they need to have their federal congressmen be allowed to vote - like yours and mine are allowed to vote. Without that, their presence in congress is a sick joke.

 

i am not takin about an amendment art 1 sec 8 has a clause.

the issues still exist in regards to the federal govt being in a state

 

It has lots of clauses. What's your point?

I don't know of any reason for the federal district not being in a state.

I do know that our founders were worried about undue influence on the government, but that certainly does not exist today. Today, the fedeal district is adjacent to a huge and thriving metropolis that spans multiple states. If there was a way for there to be undue influence, we would know about it.

We would not have to read fedealist papers documenting what the founders were worried about, because if there were real concerns we would see them right now.

 

Yet, you don't identify solutions to the various reasons that it can not be done at present.

And, neither of the two directions (statehood or ceding to Maryland) would affect federal employment in ANY way.

 

Cede the land as part of the federal district and I'm right here with the Constitution and the history, you have offered nothing other than complain that people who do not live in a state but in a federal district knowing that territories and federal districts are not states therefore there is no vote on the floors of the Congress although the have full debate privileges and can vote in committees. If you want to be represented by a state then move to a state.

 

As with the last 200+ years nothing needs to be done here, nothing has changed, it's federal district land and should remain so.

 

No because the Constitution does not need to be change the purpose of the federal district has not changed.

 

Only STATES get to vote on the floors. If you want to have a representative with floor voting privileges then live in a state.

 

It's not just how many people but how large area wise but if you really want to go the then let's combine Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts into one state? How about that? Get rid of the tiny ones.

 

And, I had suggested ceding DC to Maryland, too! You need to keep up!

The problem is that acctually looked into it.

In so doing, it became clear that there are multiple reasons for that solution not to work.

I clearly stated them on this thread.

Your idea of having a major metropolis being taxed and governed without representation of the people is against what America stands for.

It's just not acceptable.

 

LOL!!

And, even more laughter at the idea that it has to do with acerage. Government is about people.

 

Something has changed. The House has voted that DC to be a State. If they get control of the Senate and the WH then DC will be a State and the Dems will have added two Senators. My idea would be to take away the taxation without representation argument without adding two Dem Senators.

 

Taxation isn't the only deficit DC lives under today. They can't set their own budget, borrow money, etc. - what DC gets to do is what the House committee on DC lets them do.

Beyond that, you're really struggling to ensure they DON'T get represented and you are doing it for ONE REASON ONLY - abject partisanship.

What's wrong with Republicans learning to address issues that our metro areas care about?

I'm constantly amazed that Republicans think they can not appeal to population centers, they can not appeal to Hispanics (who as a group tend to be socially conservative), can not appeal to our high tech centers (which is a key to our economic competitiveness as everyone learns to manufacture), etc.

If Republicans wanted more Representatives from CA, maybe they could stop berating and attacking CA at every turn - to the point where they even lose the strongly conservative bastions.

Democracy works when the competition is for ideas, not for new tactics in suppressing the representation of those American citizens you hate simply because of their paty affiliation.

 

They have a city council who runs their city and they vote for and they remain a FEDERAL DISTRICT not a STATE. There is only one reason to try and turn that FEDERAL DISTRICT into a STATE and that is abject partisanship. The ONLY reason.

As has been noted over and over there are specific reasons why that is a federal district, why the founding fathers established it and those reasons have not changed. And we are not a Democracy as guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

it does an all are important

it can, we created it out of two in fact

sure those same concerns exist

we don’t see them or at least as badly because we have a federal district. they were smart those founders

 

Yes - you are unaware of how DC is governed.

 

If you knew of such reaons you would have stated them long ago on this thread.

 

i did....read federalist 43 and the Constitution