Statehood for Puerto Rico and DC?

[Jokodo]

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.

You literally asserted 'I'm not sure how one can make the argument that DC residents "require representation"' based on the fact that the constitution provides for a federal district. That's essentially saying a deficit that's not explicitly flagged as such can't really be treated as a deficit at all -- even if it's something as obvious as 100s of 1000s or millions of citizens being disenfranchised.

 

[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.

You literally asserted 'I'm not sure how one can make the argument that DC residents "require representation"' based on the fact that the constitution provides for a federal district. That's essentially saying a deficit that's not explicitly flagged as such can't really be treated as a deficit at all -- even if it's something as obvious as 100s of 1000s or millions of citizens being disenfranchised.

I didn't "assert it", I "observed it".

 

[Jokodo]

You literally asserted 'I'm not sure how one can make the argument that DC residents "require representation"' based on the fact that the constitution provides for a federal district. That's essentially saying a deficit that's not explicitly flagged as such can't really be treated as a deficit at all -- even if it's something as obvious as 100s of 1000s or millions of citizens being disenfranchised.

I didn't "assert it", I "observed it".

So in your universe, a state of affairs being compatible with the constitution is sufficient to determine that no change is required.

Yeah, treating it as scripture it is.

 

[dismal]

You literally asserted 'I'm not sure how one can make the argument that DC residents "require representation"' based on the fact that the constitution provides for a federal district. That's essentially saying a deficit that's not explicitly flagged as such can't really be treated as a deficit at all -- even if it's something as obvious as 100s of 1000s or millions of citizens being disenfranchised.

I didn't "assert it", I "observed it".

So in your universe, a state of affairs being compatible with the constitution is sufficient to determine that no change is required.

Yeah, treating it as scripture it is.

I recall saying that if you don't like it there's a process for amending it. Good luck!

 

[Jokodo]

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.

There are currently more disenfranchised Americans in Puerto Rico and DC than there were in the 13 colonies.

If that isn't a good enough indication that something's broken for you, it would better suit you to stop pretending that you're in favor of democracy. It isn't a very credible act.

Then absorb DC into Maryland like I suggested and they'd be represented and enfranchised. Those who go on about how awful this is have another motive. They are the ones pretending they are in favor of democracy and putting on a not very credible act.

I never once expressed preference for any one solution. I only said that the status quo is untenable.

 

[dismal]

Then absorb DC into Maryland like I suggested and they'd be represented and enfranchised. Those who go on about how awful this is have another motive. They are the ones pretending they are in favor of democracy and putting on a not very credible act.

I never once expressed preference for any one solution. I only said that the status quo is untenable.

Yet people have been tening it for more than 200 hundred years.

 

[Jokodo]

Then absorb DC into Maryland like I suggested and they'd be represented and enfranchised. Those who go on about how awful this is have another motive. They are the ones pretending they are in favor of democracy and putting on a not very credible act.

I never once expressed preference for any one solution. I only said that the status quo is untenable.

Yet people have been tening it for more than 200 hundred years.

People have been accepting of slavery for millennia until someone wiser than you concluded tradition isn't really an argument at all.

 

[dismal]

Yet people have been tening it for more than 200 hundred years.

People have been accepting of slavery for millennia until someone wiser than you concluded tradition isn't really an argument at all.

But no one is being forced to live in Washington DC. You get that right? The people that live there do so voluntarily?

It seems apparent they don't feel have a small say in 1 of 435 congressional elections makes them materially better off than having no say in any congressional elections.

I can't say I blame them as this seems highly reasonable.

 

[Jokodo]

Yet people have been tening it for more than 200 hundred years.

People have been accepting of slavery for millennia until someone wiser than you concluded tradition isn't really an argument at all.

But no one is being forced to live in Washington DC. You get that right? The people that live there do so voluntarily?

It seems apparent they don't feel have a small say in 1 of 435 congressional elections makes them materially better off than having no say in any congressional elections.

I can't say I blame them as this seems highly reasonable.

You could at least have the honesty to stop quoting a bunch of people who started a civil war over representation in support of your Position that non-representation is A-okay.

 

[laughing dog]

Yet people have been tening it for more than 200 hundred years.

People have been accepting of slavery for millennia until someone wiser than you concluded tradition isn't really an argument at all.

You don't get it. The argument is that the residents of DC voluntarily choose to live in DC, so they clearly prefer their position of not having a vote in who represents them at the Federal level. You may note that many of the same people who proffer that argument in the case of DC and Puerto Rico also claim that taxes are not paid voluntarily - even though taxpayers voluntarily choose to live in the taxing jurisdiction.

 

[dismal]

But no one is being forced to live in Washington DC. You get that right? The people that live there do so voluntarily?

It seems apparent they don't feel have a small say in 1 of 435 congressional elections makes them materially better off than having no say in any congressional elections.

I can't say I blame them as this seems highly reasonable.

You could at least have the honesty to stop quoting a bunch of people who started a civil war over representation in support of your Position that non-representation is A-okay.

That was all original material.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yet people have been tening it for more than 200 hundred years.

People have been accepting of slavery for millennia until someone wiser than you concluded tradition isn't really an argument at all.

But no one is being forced to live in Washington DC. You get that right? The people that live there do so voluntarily?

It seems apparent they don't feel have a small say in 1 of 435 congressional elections makes them materially better off than having no say in any congressional elections.

I can't say I blame them as this seems highly reasonable.

Well, that's the same with every other state which all only have a minority representation in Congress. Especially with Congress no longer controlling the purse strings and that being wholly in the power of the Presidency, the whole thing may as well just be dissolved and Trump can give the regional governors direct control over their territories.

 

[Jokodo]

But no one is being forced to live in Washington DC. You get that right? The people that live there do so voluntarily?

It seems apparent they don't feel have a small say in 1 of 435 congressional elections makes them materially better off than having no say in any congressional elections.

I can't say I blame them as this seems highly reasonable.

You could at least have the honesty to stop quoting a bunch of people who started a civil war over representation in support of your Position that non-representation is A-okay.

That was all original material.

Quoting the words while raping the spirit is still intellectually dishonest.

You should get yourself a dictionary and look up the word "context".

When you've done that, get yourself any history book and look up the context of the document you're citing. You'll find that it was written by a bunch of people otherwise best known for triggering a bloody civil war over the issue of representation. To the extent that the document allows or even requires millions of Americans to go without, it is safe to say that that's very much an unintended consequence, a bug, and that its authors would probably sue you for defamation for your attempts to pretend they wanted it that way.

 

[dismal]

That was all original material.

Quoting the words while raping the spirit is still intellectually dishonest.

You should get yourself a dictionary and look up the word "context".

When you've done that, get yourself any history book and look up the context of the document you're citing. You'll find that it was written by a bunch of people otherwise best known for triggering a bloody civil war over the issue of representation. To the extent that the document allows or even requires millions of Americans to go without, it is safe to say that that's very much an unintended consequence, a bug, and that its authors would probably sue you for defamation for your attempts to pretend they wanted it that way.

Actually the part I'm mostly struggling with is where I quoted anyone.

If one is not quoting anyone at all it seems unreasonable to be accused of quoting something out of context, but then I must confess I didn't get myself a dictionary and look up "context" so maybe its not.

 

[Jokodo]

That was all original material.

Quoting the words while raping the spirit is still intellectually dishonest.

You should get yourself a dictionary and look up the word "context".

When you've done that, get yourself any history book and look up the context of the document you're citing. You'll find that it was written by a bunch of people otherwise best known for triggering a bloody civil war over the issue of representation. To the extent that the document allows or even requires millions of Americans to go without, it is safe to say that that's very much an unintended consequence, a bug, and that its authors would probably sue you for defamation for your attempts to pretend they wanted it that way.

Actually the part I'm mostly struggling with is where I quoted anyone.

So when you said that the 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 just made that up? You weren't paraphrasing the actual texts?

Its either that or back to constitution-as-scripture. You do realise it was actually written by people with names and surnames and personal histories at a particular point in history? That you're quoting them by quoting from the constitution, and that the context is the rest of the document and the time and place when they wrote (and to some extent their personal histories)?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Actually the part I'm mostly struggling with is where I quoted anyone.

So when you said that the 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 just made that up? You weren't paraphrasing the actual texts?

Its either that or back to constitution-as-scripture. You do realise it was actually written by people with names and surnames and personal histories at a particular point in history? That you're quoting them by quoting from the constitution, and that the context is the rest of the document and the time and place when they wrote (and to some extent their personal histories)?

The alleged quoted material is:

But no one is being forced to live in Washington DC. You get that right? The people that live there do so voluntarily?

It seems apparent they don't feel have a small say in 1 of 435 congressional elections makes them materially better off than having no say in any congressional elections.

I can't say I blame them as this seems highly reasonable.

I don't see that in the constitution.

 

[Jokodo]

The alleged quoted material is:

But no one is being forced to live in Washington DC. You get that right? The people that live there do so voluntarily?

It seems apparent they don't feel have a small say in 1 of 435 congressional elections makes them materially better off than having no say in any congressional elections.

I can't say I blame them as this seems highly reasonable.

I don't see that in the constitution.

You may have too peak over dismal's shoulder as he looks up "context".

This is far from his first contribution, and I wasn't particularly referring to latest one. In fact, I even provided a literal quote from the one I did refer to. That thing between double quoted? Never typed it myself, just copy-pasted.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I didn't know he was so tall that I had to worry about the peak of his shoulder.

 

[dismal]

Actually the part I'm mostly struggling with is where I quoted anyone.

So when you said that the 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 just made that up? You weren't paraphrasing the actual texts?

Its either that or back to constitution-as-scripture. You do realise it was actually written by people with names and surnames and personal histories at a particular point in history? That you're quoting them by quoting from the constitution, and that the context is the rest of the document and the time and place when they wrote (and to some extent their personal histories)?

I’m not sure what your particular species of delusion is here. Are you saying the Constitution does not say this? My copy quite literally does.

 

[Jokodo]

Actually the part I'm mostly struggling with is where I quoted anyone.

So when you said that the 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 just made that up? You weren't paraphrasing the actual texts?

Its either that or back to constitution-as-scripture. You do realise it was actually written by people with names and surnames and personal histories at a particular point in history? That you're quoting them by quoting from the constitution, and that the context is the rest of the document and the time and place when they wrote (and to some extent their personal histories)?

I’m not sure what your particular species of delusion is here. Are you saying the Constitution does not say this? My copy quite literally does.

You seemed to be saying it doesn't when you insisted that you didn't quote anyone, just above.