Statehood for Puerto Rico and DC?

[Jokodo]

I'm trying to find a real world analogy for the way you treat the constitution. Not just dismal, but pretty much everyone in this thread. It's not going to be perfect, but here's what I came up with:

Imagine you work at a company that has a web form where you can enter your name and address to receive a print catalog. Imagine further that the boss and founder Himself wrote a little script that transforms the raw text output of a database query for such records into a nice-looking cover-letter in .doc format, 25 years ago when the company was still small enough that he didn't have his hands full with management duties, and when it was selling to a local consumer base only (and ASCII was the de facto standard of the internet. His script doesn't recognize non-ASCII characters, which has become a problem now that the the consumer base is global -- the script for writing a cover letter will silently fail on Mr. Müller from München in Germany or Ms. Ilić from Užice in Serbia, and they never get their catalogues. (Of course, the output is also in Word97 format, but hey, let's focus on one problem at a time)

Some people in the company see that as a problem, so they're discussing various solutions. Jason Harvestdancer suggests to plug in another script before it that converts "ü" to "u" and "ž" to "z" etc. so they at least get their catalogs (as long as the mailmen are cooperative and recognize the misspelt addresses), even as they're being addressed with a wrong name. ronburgundy thinks addressing them by what's not actually their name might alienate potential costumers, and so suggests to additionally employ someone who checks for the correct spelling after the fact and manually adds the diacritics on the printed letters and envelopes.

All the while dismal says it's not really a problem at all, if those potential costumers are that interested, they can always change their names and move to a normal city with a normal name, like Berlin or Beograd. According to him, the boss obviously sees it the same, otherwise he'd have written a unicode-aware script back in '96.

No-one dares to suggest that the script should be altered or replaced because the boss wrote it, which makes it untouchable.

Well if I were the boss, I'd fire the whole bunch, and dismal first of all.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm trying to find a real world analogy for the way you treat the constitution. Not just dismal, but pretty much everyone in this thread. It's not going to be perfect, but here's what I came up with:

Imagine you work at a company that has a web form where you can enter your name and address to receive a print catalog. Imagine further that the boss and founder Himself wrote a little script that transforms the raw text output of a database query for such records into a nice-looking cover-letter in .doc format, 25 years ago when the company was still small enough that he didn't have his hands full with management duties, and when it was selling to a local consumer base only (and ASCII was the de facto standard of the internet. His script doesn't recognize non-ASCII characters, which has become a problem now that the the consumer base is global -- the script for writing a cover letter will silently fail on Mr. Müller from München in Germany or Ms. Ilić from Užice in Serbia, and they never get their catalogues. (Of course, the output is also in Word97 format, but hey, let's focus on one problem at a time)

Some people in the company see that as a problem, so they're discussing various solutions. Jason Harvestdancer suggests to plug in another script before it that converts "ü" to "u" and "ž" to "z" etc. so they at least get their catalogs (as long as the mailmen are cooperative and recognize the misspelt addresses), even as they're being addressed with a wrong name. ronburgundy thinks addressing them by what's not actually their name might alienate potential costumers, and so suggests to additionally employ someone who checks for the correct spelling after the fact and manually adds the diacritics on the printed letters and envelopes.

All the while dismal says it's not really a problem at all, if those potential costumers are that interested, they can always change their names and move to a normal city with a normal name, like Berlin or Beograd. According to him, the boss obviously sees it the same, otherwise he'd have written a unicode-aware script back in '96.

No-one dares to suggest that the script should be altered or replaced because the boss wrote it, which makes it untouchable.

Well if I were the boss, I'd fire the whole bunch, and dismal first of all.

And suppose the boss also put forth a mechanism where the board could vote on updating the program....but the dismals and Jasons were still against that. Weird.

 

[Jokodo]

I'm trying to find a real world analogy for the way you treat the constitution. Not just dismal, but pretty much everyone in this thread. It's not going to be perfect, but here's what I came up with:

Imagine you work at a company that has a web form where you can enter your name and address to receive a print catalog. Imagine further that the boss and founder Himself wrote a little script that transforms the raw text output of a database query for such records into a nice-looking cover-letter in .doc format, 25 years ago when the company was still small enough that he didn't have his hands full with management duties, and when it was selling to a local consumer base only (and ASCII was the de facto standard of the internet. His script doesn't recognize non-ASCII characters, which has become a problem now that the the consumer base is global -- the script for writing a cover letter will silently fail on Mr. Müller from München in Germany or Ms. Ilić from Užice in Serbia, and they never get their catalogues. (Of course, the output is also in Word97 format, but hey, let's focus on one problem at a time)

Some people in the company see that as a problem, so they're discussing various solutions. Jason Harvestdancer suggests to plug in another script before it that converts "ü" to "u" and "ž" to "z" etc. so they at least get their catalogs (as long as the mailmen are cooperative and recognize the misspelt addresses), even as they're being addressed with a wrong name. ronburgundy thinks addressing them by what's not actually their name might alienate potential costumers, and so suggests to additionally employ someone who checks for the correct spelling after the fact and manually adds the diacritics on the printed letters and envelopes.

All the while dismal says it's not really a problem at all, if those potential costumers are that interested, they can always change their names and move to a normal city with a normal name, like Berlin or Beograd. According to him, the boss obviously sees it the same, otherwise he'd have written a unicode-aware script back in '96.

No-one dares to suggest that the script should be altered or replaced because the boss wrote it, which makes it untouchable.

Well if I were the boss, I'd fire the whole bunch, and dismal first of all.

And suppose the boss also put forth a mechanism where the board could vote on updating the program....but the dismals and Jasons were still against that. Weird.

You feel a Bug fix to a file conversion script is something management should get involved with? Remind me to never accept a developer job at any company in which you have any role shaping policies

On a more serious note, this is where the analogy fails

 

[dismal]

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.

Maybe you need to get that dictionary you are so fond of and look up the word “quote”.

But that aside, I can’t wait to hear how “context” causes the US Constitution not to say the Congress can legislate over the federal district not to exceed 10 miles square. Looking up the word “context” in the dictionary has not been helpful with this one.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm trying to find a real world analogy for the way you treat the constitution. Not just dismal, but pretty much everyone in this thread. It's not going to be perfect, but here's what I came up with:

Imagine you work at a company that has a web form where you can enter your name and address to receive a print catalog. Imagine further that the boss and founder Himself wrote a little script that transforms the raw text output of a database query for such records into a nice-looking cover-letter in .doc format, 25 years ago when the company was still small enough that he didn't have his hands full with management duties, and when it was selling to a local consumer base only (and ASCII was the de facto standard of the internet. His script doesn't recognize non-ASCII characters, which has become a problem now that the the consumer base is global -- the script for writing a cover letter will silently fail on Mr. Müller from München in Germany or Ms. Ilić from Užice in Serbia, and they never get their catalogues. (Of course, the output is also in Word97 format, but hey, let's focus on one problem at a time)

Some people in the company see that as a problem, so they're discussing various solutions. Jason Harvestdancer suggests to plug in another script before it that converts "ü" to "u" and "ž" to "z" etc. so they at least get their catalogs (as long as the mailmen are cooperative and recognize the misspelt addresses), even as they're being addressed with a wrong name. ronburgundy thinks addressing them by what's not actually their name might alienate potential costumers, and so suggests to additionally employ someone who checks for the correct spelling after the fact and manually adds the diacritics on the printed letters and envelopes.

All the while dismal says it's not really a problem at all, if those potential costumers are that interested, they can always change their names and move to a normal city with a normal name, like Berlin or Beograd. According to him, the boss obviously sees it the same, otherwise he'd have written a unicode-aware script back in '96.

No-one dares to suggest that the script should be altered or replaced because the boss wrote it, which makes it untouchable.

Well if I were the boss, I'd fire the whole bunch, and dismal first of all.

And suppose the boss also put forth a mechanism where the board could vote on updating the program....but the dismals and Jasons were still against that. Weird.

This silly little fable, and your post-script to it are both weird, you've got that much right.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

Maybe you need to get that dictionary you are so fond of and look up the word “quote”.

But that aside, I can’t wait to hear how “context” causes the US Constitution not to say the Congress can legislate over the federal district not to exceed 10 miles square. Looking up the word “context” in the dictionary has not been helpful with this one.

The Constitution says the Constitution can be changed.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

Maybe you need to get that dictionary you are so fond of and look up the word “quote”.

But that aside, I can’t wait to hear how “context” causes the US Constitution not to say the Congress can legislate over the federal district not to exceed 10 miles square. Looking up the word “context” in the dictionary has not been helpful with this one.

It doesn't. It does however make it so that citing that fact as some kind of evidence that there's nothing wrong with disenfanchising millions of citizens amounts to a clear (willful?) misunderstanding of the document's intent as envisioned by the actual people who crafted it.

It's also a fallacious argument from authority, but in this case, the authority wielded strongly disagrees with you.

 

[dismal]

Maybe you need to get that dictionary you are so fond of and look up the word “quote”.

But that aside, I can’t wait to hear how “context” causes the US Constitution not to say the Congress can legislate over the federal district not to exceed 10 miles square. Looking up the word “context” in the dictionary has not been helpful with this one.

It doesn't. It does however make it so that citing that fact as some kind of evidence that there's nothing wrong with disenfanchising millions of citizens amounts to a clear (willful?) misunderstanding of the document's intent as envisioned by the actual people who crafted it.

It's also a fallacious argument from authority, but in this case, the authority wielded strongly disagrees with you.

It's not a "fallacious argument from authority" it is the highest law of the land.

It doesn't get less "fallacious" than that when it comes to legal issues. Directly, clearly, undisputedly (except for some bizarre "ZMFOG teh context11!!" guy on the internet) specified in the Constitution.

If you feel it is so important you know what you have to do to change it. Good luck.

 

[Jokodo]

Maybe you need to get that dictionary you are so fond of and look up the word “quote”.

But that aside, I can’t wait to hear how “context” causes the US Constitution not to say the Congress can legislate over the federal district not to exceed 10 miles square. Looking up the word “context” in the dictionary has not been helpful with this one.

It doesn't. It does however make it so that citing that fact as some kind of evidence that there's nothing wrong with disenfanchising millions of citizens amounts to a clear (willful?) misunderstanding of the document's intent as envisioned by the actual people who crafted it.

It's also a fallacious argument from authority, but in this case, the authority wielded strongly disagrees with you.

It's not a "fallacious argument from authority" it is the highest law of the land.

It doesn't get less "fallacious" than that when it comes to legal issues. Directly, clearly, undisputedly (except for some bizarre "ZMFOG teh context11!!" guy on the internet) specified in ...

If the discussion is about "is this legal?", you have a point. However, the adults are discussing the separate but related question "is this right?"

If that's not what you want to talk about, kindly just get out!

 

[dismal]

It's not a "fallacious argument from authority" it is the highest law of the land.

It doesn't get less "fallacious" than that when it comes to legal issues. Directly, clearly, undisputedly (except for some bizarre "ZMFOG teh context11!!" guy on the internet) specified in ...

If the discussion is about "is this legal?", you have a point. However, the adults are discussing the separate but related question "is this right?"

If that's not what you want to talk about, kindly just get out!

Well, it's generally right to obey the law.

Or, change the law if you think it's wrong. Instead of wasting everyone's time making silly arguments about quotes and contexts.

For example, there is some history in support of retrocession to a state because some people didn't like a law.

The people of Alexandria were worried the US Congress was going to pass a law outlawing their lucrative slave trade, so they worked to leave Washington DC and become part of Virginia again. Now they get to cast their near-meaningless votes for 1 out of 435 congressmen too.

Your position is basically the same as those who wanted to preserve the slave trade. But they at least had the honor and dignity to change the laws instead of making bullshit arguments on the internet.

 

[Jokodo]

It's not a "fallacious argument from authority" it is the highest law of the land.

It doesn't get less "fallacious" than that when it comes to legal issues. Directly, clearly, undisputedly (except for some bizarre "ZMFOG teh context11!!" guy on the internet) specified in ...

If the discussion is about "is this legal?", you have a point. However, the adults are discussing the separate but related question "is this right?"

If that's not what you want to talk about, kindly just get out!

Well, it's generally right to obey the law.

Or, change the law if you think it's wrong. Instead of wasting everyone's time making silly arguments about quotes and contexts.

For example, there is some history in support of retrocession to a state because some people didn't like a law.

The people of Alexandria were worried the US Congress was going to pass a law outlawing their lucrative slave trade, so they worked to leave Washington DC and become part of Virginia again. Now they get to cast their near-meaningless votes for 1 out of 435 congressmen too.

Your position is basically the same as those who wanted to preserve the slave trade. But they at least had the honor and dignity to change the laws instead of making bullshit arguments on the internet.

So, let me get this straight, you just said wanting universal franchise for all citizens is "basically the same" as wanting to preserve slavery?

 

[dismal]

Well, it's generally right to obey the law.

Or, change the law if you think it's wrong. Instead of wasting everyone's time making silly arguments about quotes and contexts.

For example, there is some history in support of retrocession to a state because some people didn't like a law.

The people of Alexandria were worried the US Congress was going to pass a law outlawing their lucrative slave trade, so they worked to leave Washington DC and become part of Virginia again. Now they get to cast their near-meaningless votes for 1 out of 435 congressmen too.

Your position is basically the same as those who wanted to preserve the slave trade. But they at least had the honor and dignity to change the laws instead of making bullshit arguments on the internet.

So, let me get this straight, you just said wanting universal franchise for all citizens is "basically the same" as wanting to preserve slavery?

Well, the last time people in DC wanted to leave preserving the slave trade was the big issue.

An interesting note in the wikipedia article on retrocession is that approval among DC residents for retrocession into Maryland has polled in the 20s in all the polls cited.

Seems like it's going to be hard to drape yourself in the cloak of "democracy" while forcing DC residents into something they don't want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession

 

[Jokodo]

Well, it's generally right to obey the law.

Or, change the law if you think it's wrong. Instead of wasting everyone's time making silly arguments about quotes and contexts.

For example, there is some history in support of retrocession to a state because some people didn't like a law.

The people of Alexandria were worried the US Congress was going to pass a law outlawing their lucrative slave trade, so they worked to leave Washington DC and become part of Virginia again. Now they get to cast their near-meaningless votes for 1 out of 435 congressmen too.

Your position is basically the same as those who wanted to preserve the slave trade. But they at least had the honor and dignity to change the laws instead of making bullshit arguments on the internet.

So, let me get this straight, you just said wanting universal franchise for all citizens is "basically the same" as wanting to preserve slavery?

Well, the last time people in DC wanted to leave preserving the slave trade was the big issue.

An interesting note in the wikipedia article on retrocession is that approval among DC residents for retrocession into Maryland has polled in the 20s in all the polls cited.

Seems like it's going to be hard to drape yourself in the cloak of "democracy" while forcing DC residents into something they don't want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession

Let me repeat this, I have not once in this thread argued for (or for that matter against) retrocession.

There are other ways to ensure franchise - statehood is one that has been brought up, others are treating DC as citizens of some state or other for the purpose of tallying the vote in federal elections while otherwise leaving the status quo intact, or more radically reorganize federal elections to be decided by a national popular vote.

I'm sure you can think of more too.

Britain somehow Managed to let the people of Gibraltar vote in the Brexit referendum without making it a constituent country on a par with England or Scotland, so how hard can it be? They didn't get their will, Gibraltar voted Remain with like 96% and yet Leave it is, but that's just how democracy works, you don't always get your will.

Not getting to vote in the first place isn't how democracy works.

 

[dismal]

Well, the last time people in DC wanted to leave preserving the slave trade was the big issue.

An interesting note in the wikipedia article on retrocession is that approval among DC residents for retrocession into Maryland has polled in the 20s in all the polls cited.

Seems like it's going to be hard to drape yourself in the cloak of "democracy" while forcing DC residents into something they don't want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession

Let me repeat this, I have not once in this thread argued for (or for that matter against) retrocession.

There are other ways to ensure franchise - statehood is one that has been brought up, others are treating DC as citizens of some state or other for the purpose of tallying the vote in federal elections while otherwise leaving the status quo intact, or more radically reorganize federal elections to be decided by a national popular vote.

I'm sure you can think of more too.

Britain somehow Managed to let the people of Gibraltar vote in the Brexit referendum without making it a constituent country on a par with England or Scotland, so how hard can it be? They didn't get their will, Gibraltar voted Remain with like 96% and yet Leave it is, but that's just how democracy works, you don't always get your will.

Not getting to vote in the first place isn't how democracy works.

Well, given retrocession is the only plan with precedent and more than a snowball’s chance in hell of happening I think it’s safe to conclude you don’t actually give a crap about these people voting. Which I guess is fine since they don’t seem to care much either.

Where you seem to be in error most is that congressmen and senators come from states. If you don’t live in a state, you don’t have a congressman or a senator. The US has always had citizens that did not live in states. Always, since it was founded.

 

[Jokodo]

Well, the last time people in DC wanted to leave preserving the slave trade was the big issue.

An interesting note in the wikipedia article on retrocession is that approval among DC residents for retrocession into Maryland has polled in the 20s in all the polls cited.

Seems like it's going to be hard to drape yourself in the cloak of "democracy" while forcing DC residents into something they don't want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession

Let me repeat this, I have not once in this thread argued for (or for that matter against) retrocession.

There are other ways to ensure franchise - statehood is one that has been brought up, others are treating DC as citizens of some state or other for the purpose of tallying the vote in federal elections while otherwise leaving the status quo intact, or more radically reorganize federal elections to be decided by a national popular vote.

I'm sure you can think of more too.

Britain somehow Managed to let the people of Gibraltar vote in the Brexit referendum without making it a constituent country on a par with England or Scotland, so how hard can it be? They didn't get their will, Gibraltar voted Remain with like 96% and yet Leave it is, but that's just how democracy works, you don't always get your will.

Not getting to vote in the first place isn't how democracy works.

Well, given retrocession is the only plan with precedent (...)

Not true, according to your link: "From the foundation of the District in 1790 until the passage of the Organic Act of 1801, citizens living in D.C. continued to vote for members of Congress in Maryland or Virginia;" -- there was a time where residents of DC were considered residents of a state for the purposes of voting in federal elections without being under that state's jurisdiction.

It also sounds like a pretty good solution in that it's transferrable to other, even smaller territories, such as Guam or American Samoa or the Virgin Islands: let them cast their vote with Hawaii/Florida in federal elections, but otherwise let them retain full autonomy (for that reason, also don't let them vote in state elections), where neither retrocession nor statehood seem like an option.

 

[SimpleDon]

The question of the retrocession of most of the District to Maryland doesn't seem to be thought out very well. It has a few problems that haven't been discussed.

• There is no reason to believe that the people and the officials of the District and of the state of Maryland would want to combine together.
• The retrocession would dilute the political strength of Maryland while reducing the autonomy that the District now enjoys.
• This means that either the proponents here of the retrocession have a better understanding of the popular opinions in the affected areas.
• Or that they are advocating that the full force of the federal government should be used to impose this on the people of Maryland and the District.
• Or that it is being proposed knowing full well that it is a non-starter from the beginning and will result in the status quo being maintained and the district under-represented.
• And with the ability to smugly state that the people of the state and the district don't want to give the district its due representation, an argument only slightly less facetious than saying that if the people of the district really wanted to be represented they can simply move to a state.
• Unlike Puerto Rica it is very clear that the people in the district want to be a state.
• The constitution gives to Congress the power to determine the requirements for statehood,
• Unlike statehood, retrocession would require a constitutional amendment otherwise the small federal district with few people remaining in it would have three electors to vote for the president granted to them in the 23rd admendment.

 

[dismal]

Well, given retrocession is the only plan with precedent (...)

Not true, according to your link: "From the foundation of the District in 1790 until the passage of the Organic Act of 1801, citizens living in D.C. continued to vote for members of Congress in Maryland or Virginia;" -- there was a time where residents of DC were considered residents of a state for the purposes of voting in federal elections without being under that state's jurisdiction.

It also sounds like a pretty good solution in that it's transferrable to other, even smaller territories, such as Guam or American Samoa or the Virgin Islands: let them cast their vote with Hawaii/Florida in federal elections, but otherwise let them retain full autonomy (for that reason, also don't let them vote in state elections), where neither retrocession nor statehood seem like an option.

It says The organic act was what officially created the district and brought it under a Federal control. Before it passed they were still officially part of Maryland and Virginia.

 

[dismal]

The question of the retrocession of most of the District to Maryland doesn't seem to be thought out very well. It has a few problems that haven't been discussed.

• There is no reason to believe that the people and the officials of the District and of the state of Maryland would want to combine together.
• The retrocession would dilute the political strength of Maryland while reducing the autonomy that the District now enjoys.
• This means that either the proponents here of the retrocession have a better understanding of the popular opinions in the affected areas.
• Or that they are advocating that the full force of the federal government should be used to impose this on the people of Maryland and the District.
• Or that it is being proposed knowing full well that it is a non-starter from the beginning and will result in the status quo being maintained and the district under-represented.
• And with the ability to smugly state that the people of the state and the district don't want to give the district its due representation, an argument only slightly less facetious than saying that if the people of the district really wanted to be represented they can simply move to a state.
• Unlike Puerto Rica it is very clear that the people in the district want to be a state.
• The constitution gives to Congress the power to determine the requirements for statehood,
• Unlike statehood, retrocession would require a constitutional amendment otherwise the small federal district with few people remaining in it would have three electors to vote for the president granted to them in the 23rd admendment.

I think I could make most of these arguments about my back yard too.

It’s a good thing I can choose to make it it’s own state, right?

 

[Jokodo]

Well, given retrocession is the only plan with precedent (...)

Not true, according to your link: "From the foundation of the District in 1790 until the passage of the Organic Act of 1801, citizens living in D.C. continued to vote for members of Congress in Maryland or Virginia;" -- there was a time where residents of DC were considered residents of a state for the purposes of voting in federal elections without being under that state's jurisdiction.

It also sounds like a pretty good solution in that it's transferrable to other, even smaller territories, such as Guam or American Samoa or the Virgin Islands: let them cast their vote with Hawaii/Florida in federal elections, but otherwise let them retain full autonomy (for that reason, also don't let them vote in state elections), where neither retrocession nor statehood seem like an option.

It says The organic act was what officially created the district and brought it under a Federal control. Before it passed they were still officially part of Maryland and Virginia.

The Distric was outside the states' control before, I believe you will find.

 

[lpetrich]

Can Democrats Win The Senate By Adding States? It’s Been Done Before | FiveThirtyEight

It’s been 60 years since a new state entered the union, but now Democrats and liberals are accelerating efforts to gain statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. One of their motivations is the future of the U.S. Senate, which is currently biased toward the Republican Party. The logic goes that if Democrats can get unified control of the federal government after the 2020 election, they could push through statehood for both, adding four more seats to the Senate, and all four would likely be Democratic leaning.

Something like how the Republicans admitted thinly-populated territories in the mid to late 19th cy. The Dakota Territory was split in two to give the Republicans more votes.

The Republicans might retaliate by doing things like splitting Texas into 5 states.