Statehood for Puerto Rico and DC?

[ronburgundy]

It makes no more sense to make DC part of Maryland than make Delaware part of Maryland.

Making DC a state makes a great deal of sense

This is just flinging about arbitrary assertions. There is no inherent sense in our state borders. They are the product of a series of historical accidents and irrelevancies.

Take a look at the map of Connecticut and try to explain in any meaningful way how "it makes sense". What "makes sense" about that little notch in the top of the state?

Reference to state boundaries prior to two centuries ago, before the US even existed, is meaningless. What is not meaningless or arbitrary is recognizing that DC has never been part of any US state (the US did not exist yet when the Maryland gave lands that became part of DC). This fact highlights that DC has over two centuries of separate laws, history, politics, and culture from Maryland or any neighboring state, which undermines any argument that it should become part of any other state, especially since it would dilute the representation of those existing states. Yet, the residents of DC require representation, leaving the most sensible solution to simply make it a state, leaving the portion with the Federal buildings as a Federal district.

Yet it's residents require full representation which they do not have. So, the r

 

[dismal]

It makes no more sense to make DC part of Maryland than make Delaware part of Maryland.

Making DC a state makes a great deal of sense

This is just flinging about arbitrary assertions. There is no inherent sense in our state borders. They are the product of a series of historical accidents and irrelevancies.

Take a look at the map of Connecticut and try to explain in any meaningful way how "it makes sense". What "makes sense" about that little notch in the top of the state?

Reference to state boundaries prior to two centuries ago, before the US even existed, is meaningless. What is not meaningless or arbitrary is recognizing that DC has never been part of any US state (the US did not exist yet when the Maryland gave lands that became part of DC). This fact highlights that DC has over two centuries of separate laws, history, politics, and culture from Maryland or any neighboring state, which undermines any argument that it should become part of any other state, especially since it would dilute the representation of those existing states. Yet, the residents of DC require representation, leaving the most sensible solution to simply make it a state, leaving the portion with the Federal buildings as a Federal district.

Yet it's residents require full representation which they do not have. So, the r

You may be surprised to learn we have this thing called a "Constitution". And this Constitution sets out that there can be a federal district no greater than 10 sq miles, and that this federal district will be governed by the US Congress.

It's been this way for a while now, so I'm not sure how one can make the argument that DC residents "require representation". They seem to be living in a district known to be governed by the US congress of their own free will.

 

[laughing dog]

You may be surprised to learn we have this thing called a "Constitution". And this Constitution sets out that there can be a federal district no greater than 10 sq miles, and that this federal district will be governed by the US Congress.
It's been this way for a while now, so I'm not sure how one can make the argument that DC residents "require representation". They seem to be living in a district known to be governed by the US congress of their own free will.

Colonial residents of North America lived here of their own free will, yet they did not think they had representation. And some of those very same colonists wrote and/or ratified the Constitution. While we cannot know for certain what they would think about this, I doubt they would have thought there is nothing unreasonable or ahistorical for the residents of DC or Puerto Rico to ask for same sort of representation that the colonists demanded and fought for. At the time, DC the constitution was written, DC was a swamp and very sparsely populated.

 

[Jokodo]

Reference to state boundaries prior to two centuries ago, before the US even existed, is meaningless. What is not meaningless or arbitrary is recognizing that DC has never been part of any US state (the US did not exist yet when the Maryland gave lands that became part of DC). This fact highlights that DC has over two centuries of separate laws, history, politics, and culture from Maryland or any neighboring state, which undermines any argument that it should become part of any other state, especially since it would dilute the representation of those existing states. Yet, the residents of DC require representation, leaving the most sensible solution to simply make it a state, leaving the portion with the Federal buildings as a Federal district.

Yet it's residents require full representation which they do not have. So, the r

You may be surprised to learn we have this thing called a "Constitution". And this Constitution sets out that there can be a federal district no greater than 10 sq miles, and that this federal district will be governed by the US Congress.

It's been this way for a while now, so I'm not sure how one can make the argument that DC residents "require representation". They seem to be living in a district known to be governed by the US congress of their own free will.

Didn't the guys who wrote the constitution have "no taxation without representation" as one of their main slogans?

Clearly, leaving DC residents without is a bug, not a feature.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The claim of DC having over two centuries of separate laws, history, politics, and culture from Maryland is a rather curious one.

In Maryland there are many cities that have a city government, as well as being under the state government and the federal government. Washington, DC, only has two of those layers, federal and city. All being reabsorbed back into Maryland will do is take that existing city government, leave it intact, and put it under Annapolis instead of Congress.

The area surrounding DC has considerable interaction with DC itself. Like many urban areas, the line between Silver Spring, MD or Mt Rainier, MD, and Washington, DC, doesn't show as staunch a contrast as implied.

 

[dismal]

Reference to state boundaries prior to two centuries ago, before the US even existed, is meaningless. What is not meaningless or arbitrary is recognizing that DC has never been part of any US state (the US did not exist yet when the Maryland gave lands that became part of DC). This fact highlights that DC has over two centuries of separate laws, history, politics, and culture from Maryland or any neighboring state, which undermines any argument that it should become part of any other state, especially since it would dilute the representation of those existing states. Yet, the residents of DC require representation, leaving the most sensible solution to simply make it a state, leaving the portion with the Federal buildings as a Federal district.

Yet it's residents require full representation which they do not have. So, the r

You may be surprised to learn we have this thing called a "Constitution". And this Constitution sets out that there can be a federal district no greater than 10 sq miles, and that this federal district will be governed by the US Congress.

It's been this way for a while now, so I'm not sure how one can make the argument that DC residents "require representation". They seem to be living in a district known to be governed by the US congress of their own free will.

Didn't the guys who wrote the constitution have "no taxation without representation" as one of their main slogans?

Clearly, leaving DC residents without is a bug, not a feature.

They are governed by the same representatives that govern all the rest of us.

But if this really bothered someone I would not support forcing them to live there.

 

[Jokodo]

Didn't the guys who wrote the constitution have "no taxation without representation" as one of their main slogans?

Clearly, leaving DC residents without is a bug, not a feature.

They are governed by the same representatives that govern all the rest of us.

But if this really bothered someone I would not support forcing them to live there.

I think you may have to get yourself a dictionary and look up "representation".

 

[ronburgundy]

The claim of DC having over two centuries of separate laws, history, politics, and culture from Maryland is a rather curious one.

If by "curious" you mean objectively factual, then sure.

In Maryland there are many cities that have a city government, as well as being under the state government and the federal government. Washington, DC, only has two of those layers, federal and city. All being reabsorbed back into Maryland will do is take that existing city government, leave it intact, and put it under Annapolis instead of Congress.

Which is the same as saying "All that will happen if Connecticut is absorbed into New York is that their existing local governments will remain in tact and put under New York instead of Connecticut.

It is a drastic step with massive ramifications.

 

[ronburgundy]

You may be surprised to learn we have this thing called a "Constitution". And this Constitution sets out that there can be a federal district no greater than 10 sq miles, and that this federal district will be governed by the US Congress.

You may be surprised to learn that the Constitution was written 230 years ago when there were few residents on that land. You may be surprised to know that "no greater than" indicates an absolute maximum limit reflecting the founders intent to make the Federal district as small as possible to house the functions of government. You may be surprised to learn that those founders had no concept nor intent for that land to be 90% occupied by 700,000 citizens (20% of the entire US population at the time) living and working in various non-government industries and having no elected representation in the Congress or Senate, an idea that they were vehemently opposed to and which contradicts the very heart of that Constitution.

They are governed by the same representatives that govern all the rest of us.

They have no representatives in Congress or the Senate. They are ruled by people who they were not allowed to vote for or against.
They do not live in a democracy.

But if this really bothered someone I would not support forcing them to live there.

That's mighty white of you, but those of us who actually care about the principle of Democracy and equal representation don't think that there should be a magical land within US borders where US citizens suddenly lose their right to representation if they rent an apartment on one side of the street rather than another. The development of modern DC with what will soon be a million people (faster growing than any state) without representation is an unforeseen flaw that contradicts the core principles of the US constitution. Fortunately, there are non-idiots among us capable of formulating and easy solution to the problem that retains the Federal District the founders envisioned while preventing the anti-democratic non-representation that violates their far greater principles and concerns.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The claim of DC having over two centuries of separate laws, history, politics, and culture from Maryland is a rather curious one.

If by "curious" you mean objectively factual, then sure.

By a sufficiently loose value of "objectively factual".

In Maryland there are many cities that have a city government, as well as being under the state government and the federal government. Washington, DC, only has two of those layers, federal and city. All being reabsorbed back into Maryland will do is take that existing city government, leave it intact, and put it under Annapolis instead of Congress.

Which is the same as saying "All that will happen if Connecticut is absorbed into New York is that their existing local governments will remain in tact and put under New York instead of Connecticut.

It is a drastic step with massive ramifications.

It is not the same thing, the state government of Connecticut cannot remain intact if the state is absorbed into New York. The District of Columbia does not have a government separate from the City of Washington and the Federal government, and it is the District of Columbia that is the proper comparison to the State of Connecticut. Washington will still be a city with a city government either way.

 

[dismal]

You may be surprised to learn that the Constitution was written 230 years ago when there were few residents on that land.

In spite of that, my copy of the Constitution still says the same thing. It's almost like those things are totally irrelevant.

 

[ronburgundy]

By a sufficiently loose value of "objectively factual".

In Maryland there are many cities that have a city government, as well as being under the state government and the federal government. Washington, DC, only has two of those layers, federal and city. All being reabsorbed back into Maryland will do is take that existing city government, leave it intact, and put it under Annapolis instead of Congress.

Which is the same as saying "All that will happen if Connecticut is absorbed into New York is that their existing local governments will remain in tact and put under New York instead of Connecticut.

It is a drastic step with massive ramifications.

It is not the same thing, the state government of Connecticut cannot remain intact if the state is absorbed into New York. The District of Columbia does not have a government separate from the City of Washington and the Federal government.

But your argument presumes that state governments are irrelevant and have no impact on more local governments. That assumption is essential to your absurd claim that DCs governance would be intact and unimpacted by being under the auspice of the Maryland state government. Your same unexamined assumption therefore implies that State level governments can be changed without any meaningful impact. As you say, Hartford will be a city with a city government either way, so no one in Hartford would notice the difference.

Of course, your assumption is absurd. All local governments are a byproduct of the state governments they exist under them and whose laws and state constitutions they must conform to. The local government of DC would not remain in tact, but would be just as affected as the government of Hartford would if the State of Connecticut was absorbed into NY.

Likewise, State governments are impacted by the local areas they subsume, and absorption of DC would have major impact on Maryland politics.

The solution that would not as drastically alter the nature of DC local government or Maryland state government, but merely solve the specific problem of Federal non-representation would be to simply change the status of DC to a state.

- - - Updated - - -

You may be surprised to learn that the Constitution was written 230 years ago when there were few residents on that land.

In spite of that, my copy of the Constitution still says the same thing. It's almost like those things are totally irrelevant.

No, it's almost like you lack the intellectual honesty to acknowledge the clear logical relevance, despite having that relevance spelled out for you and you being unable to offer any response by blind dismissal.

What your Constitution says is that the Federal district could be as small as 1 sq inch. Making DC a state, excluding the couple sq miles that house Federal buildings, is perfectly consistent with what you quoted and infinitely more consistent with the far more important foundational principles of that document.

 

[Jokodo]

You may be surprised to learn that the Constitution was written 230 years ago when there were few residents on that land.

In spite of that, my copy of the Constitution still says the same thing. It's almost like those things are totally irrelevant.

The constitution is not revealed scripture, it is a tool made be men for the purpose of making it harder to pass bad laws. When the constitution, in such an obvious manner as in this case, not only allows but actively encourages bad laws, it needs fixing.

So if you're actually going to argue that the constitution requires DC residents to be barred from voting, you're making an argument that it deserves to go to the wastebin of history in its current form.

Fortunately for the constitution and unfortunately for your argument, it doesn't appear to require any such thing.

 

[Jokodo]

By a sufficiently loose value of "objectively factual".



It is not the same thing, the state government of Connecticut cannot remain intact if the state is absorbed into New York. The District of Columbia does not have a government separate from the City of Washington and the Federal government.

But your argument presumes that state governments are irrelevant and have no impact on more local governments. That assumption is essential to your absurd claim that DCs governance would be intact and unimpacted by being under the auspice of the Maryland state government. Your same unexamined assumption therefore implies that State level governments can be changed without any meaningful impact. As you say, Hartford will be a city with a city government either way, so no one in Hartford would notice the difference.

Of course, your assumption is absurd. All local governments are a byproduct of the state governments they exist under them and whose laws and state constitutions they must conform to. The local government of DC would not remain in tact, but would be just as affected as the government of Hartford would if the State of Connecticut was absorbed into NY.

Likewise, State governments are impacted by the local areas they subsume, and absorption of DC would have major impact on Maryland politics.

The solution that would not as drastically alter the nature of DC local government or Maryland state government, but merely solve the specific problem of Federal non-representation would be to simply change the status of DC to a state.

Another solution would be proportional voting for national lists in federal elections, which would allow full voting rights for DC residents without either making it a state or annexing it to another sate, and solve the problem of one vote in Wyoming having more than three times the impact of one vote in California, and solve the problem of a deadlocked two-party system.

 

[dismal]

You may be surprised to learn that the Constitution was written 230 years ago when there were few residents on that land.

In spite of that, my copy of the Constitution still says the same thing. It's almost like those things are totally irrelevant.

The constitution is not revealed scripture, it is a tool made be men for the purpose of making it harder to pass bad laws. When the constitution, in such an obvious manner as in this case, not only allows but actively encourages bad laws, it needs fixing.

So if you're actually going to argue that the constitution requires DC residents to be barred from voting, you're making an argument that it deserves to go to the wastebin of history in its current form.

Fortunately for the constitution and unfortunately for your argument, it doesn't appear to require any such thing.

My argument is not that the Constitution is revealed scripture, it's that it's the law.

Go ahead and amend it if you don't like it. There's a process for that.

 

[ronburgundy]

The constitution is not revealed scripture, it is a tool made be men for the purpose of making it harder to pass bad laws. When the constitution, in such an obvious manner as in this case, not only allows but actively encourages bad laws, it needs fixing.

So if you're actually going to argue that the constitution requires DC residents to be barred from voting, you're making an argument that it deserves to go to the wastebin of history in its current form.

Fortunately for the constitution and unfortunately for your argument, it doesn't appear to require any such thing.

My argument is not that the Constitution is revealed scripture, it's that it's the law.

Go ahead and amend it if you don't like it. There's a process for that.

No amendment required. As explained to you, nothing about making the area of DC outside of the Federal buildings a state violates any part of the Constitution. Your lack of comprehension of your own quote doesn't change that.

 

[ronburgundy]

By a sufficiently loose value of "objectively factual".



It is not the same thing, the state government of Connecticut cannot remain intact if the state is absorbed into New York. The District of Columbia does not have a government separate from the City of Washington and the Federal government.

But your argument presumes that state governments are irrelevant and have no impact on more local governments. That assumption is essential to your absurd claim that DCs governance would be intact and unimpacted by being under the auspice of the Maryland state government. Your same unexamined assumption therefore implies that State level governments can be changed without any meaningful impact. As you say, Hartford will be a city with a city government either way, so no one in Hartford would notice the difference.

Of course, your assumption is absurd. All local governments are a byproduct of the state governments they exist under them and whose laws and state constitutions they must conform to. The local government of DC would not remain in tact, but would be just as affected as the government of Hartford would if the State of Connecticut was absorbed into NY.

Likewise, State governments are impacted by the local areas they subsume, and absorption of DC would have major impact on Maryland politics.

The solution that would not as drastically alter the nature of DC local government or Maryland state government, but merely solve the specific problem of Federal non-representation would be to simply change the status of DC to a state.

Another solution would be proportional voting for national lists in federal elections, which would allow full voting rights for DC residents without either making it a state or annexing it to another sate, and solve the problem of one vote in Wyoming having more than three times the impact of one vote in California, and solve the problem of a deadlocked two-party system.

That addresses other problems, but I'm unclear how it addresses the problem that people not part of a state have no representation at all in Congress. Are you assuming that everyone in the US votes for all candidates for both Houses, without regard to state?
If not, then the residents of DC still need to be part of a State or they will not get to vote for anyone.

 

[dismal]

The constitution is not revealed scripture, it is a tool made be men for the purpose of making it harder to pass bad laws. When the constitution, in such an obvious manner as in this case, not only allows but actively encourages bad laws, it needs fixing.

So if you're actually going to argue that the constitution requires DC residents to be barred from voting, you're making an argument that it deserves to go to the wastebin of history in its current form.

Fortunately for the constitution and unfortunately for your argument, it doesn't appear to require any such thing.

My argument is not that the Constitution is revealed scripture, it's that it's the law.

Go ahead and amend it if you don't like it. There's a process for that.

No amendment required. As explained to you, nothing about making the area of DC outside of the Federal buildings a state violates any part of the Constitution. Your lack of comprehension of your own quote doesn't change that.

The Constitution clearly says DC is to be ruled by the US congress. I suppose you could try to make DC not be DC first, and then try to make not-DC be a state. The Constitution has a process for making states. I'm not sure it has a clear process for making parts of DC be not-DC.

 

[Jokodo]

No amendment required. As explained to you, nothing about making the area of DC outside of the Federal buildings a state violates any part of the Constitution. Your lack of comprehension of your own quote doesn't change that.

The Constitution clearly says DC is to be ruled by the US congress. I suppose you could try to make DC not be DC first, and then try to make not-DC be a state. The Constitution has a process for making states. I'm not sure it has a clear process for making parts of DC be not-DC.

Then it's broken

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If you don't get two permanent Democrat senators and shift the balance of the Senate more in your favor, the process is broken.

And that's what this is really about for most.