NYTimes columnist charges GOP w/ racism for no rep in DC.

[Ivon Denosovich]

The " sixty-votes" are parliamentary procedures having to do with ending debate, offering amendments, etc.. It is not necessary for them to be employed, and often they are not, whether or not they might be advantageous.

And considering that most lately ending debate is tantamount to and necessary for passing legislation, I say potato you say pohtohtoh.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

The "majority of the country" never has its voice drowned out.

That's a matter of perspective. (Tom Daschle and the term filibuster come to mind.) However, I'm not dogmatic in my opposition to the 60 vote rule but I still think it could at least be reasonably lowered to 55, which would still be throwing ample influence to the dissenters. But that's just my perspective.

 

[carpro]

Not necessarily. A new capital built at the site of what is currently Columbus, KY, for example, which was, BTW, seriously proposed as a new capital after the War of 1812, would satisfy the requirement in the Constitution, as well, provided KY, or some other state should agree to cede such territory for a "Seat of the Government". The Constitution does not specifically mandate that it has to be, or remain, Washinton, D.C.. And in fact, the city of Washington did not exist at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, or of the creation of the District, although the city of Georgetown did already exist. In fact, Georgetown did not become a part of the city of Washington until almost 1900.

Ed

Changing the "seat of government" at this time would certainly be a problem, if not all but impossible.

You have valid points, but I'll stick with my statement than a Constitutional Amendment would be necessary at this time.

 

[carpro]

Why does this matter? (I ask in the philosophical sense, not in the "we have to care because we have to care" legal sense.) In relation to making representation equal in the legislative process, who cares if it's called Poo Poo Land? It seems to me someone may have missed the spirit of the Constitution: taxation without representation is tyranny.

To achieve your goal of "making representation equal in the legislative process" would still require a Constitutional Amendment. That requires a 2/3 rds majority in both houses to send it to the states for ratification. 38 states have to ratify it.

A simple piece of legislation won't do the trick.

I believe the Times writer has built himself a huge strawman

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

To achieve your goal of "making representation equal in the legislative process" would still require a Constitutional Amendment. That requires a 2/3 rds majority in both houses to send it to the states for ratification. 38 states have to ratify it.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. However, from a strictly human perspective, who cares about why they can't vote? I emphasize, from a strictly human perspective. (A perspective which very well may have some precedent from the Founders.) Out of all the laws we regularly turn a blind eye to, I think blindness in this case would actually serve a constructive purpose.

 

[EdSutton]

Why does this matter? (I ask in the philosophical sense, not in the "we have to care because we have to care" legal sense.) In relation to making representation equal in the legislative process, who cares if it's called Poo Poo Land? It seems to me someone may have missed the spirit of the Constitution: taxation without representation is tyranny.

For what it's worth, I don't think voters in DC would have to be "bused" as you said to participate in another district's elections. Mailed ballots would cover it aptly. Btw, what would you propose for including them in the congressional process as soon as possible?

Several things are simply wrong, here. First, the District of Columbia has representation, albeit perhaps not as much as if it had a Congressman. It does have a voice, and many times, a vote in the House, as I previously stated.

Second, representation has never been equal in the legislative process. What is "equal" about every state having exactly two Senators? What is "equal" about two Senators for California with a current population of >37 Million; two Senators for Kentucky, near the population median at 4.3 Million+; and two Senators for Wyoming with a "busting out at the seams" population of 525,000+. Surely there is nothing remotely close to "equal" about that.

When our country was founded, "Indians not taxed" did not count toward any representation (not to mention, they had no vote), and a person "not free" was worth only 3/5 of a person. All women could not vote anywhere in this country before Wyoming Territory, in 1869, in the state of Wyoming in 1890, although some women (but not all) had first been permitted to vote in New Jersey, from 1790 to 1807, when they were barred from voting. What is "equal" about any of that?

Third, is not representation without taxation not also a "reverse tyranny" to those already 'taxed', as well?

Fourth, would not these "mailed ballots", although perhaps fine in one theory, serve to diffuse the voting rights of some others, by giving additional representation to the other districts they were assigned to? Or do you suggest the logistical nightmare of dividing all these voters (and population) equally among the 435 Congressional districts, at say 1200 population each, in order to avoid this? The Senate would still be unequal representation, in this scenario, you understand. Or are DCers not allowed to vote for a Senator in your proposal? That hardly seems fair, either.

Fifth, to my knowledge, not one adult is "forced" to live in Washington, D.C., to my knowledge, unless he or she is incarcerated in that jurisdiction. It may well be advantageous, to the individual, but it is not required. If one wants to be able to 'vote' for a Senator and/or Representative, all they have to do is relocate to someplace else, assuming that is some all-consuming desire of the individual.

Finally, I suggested an Amendment or Amendments to address all of this, in my post #5. Outta' curiosity, why am I the only one to include all citizens including those in the rest of the US Territories and Commonwealths in my proposal, and argue for full citizenship for the American Samoans? Why not cover the other 4.5 million Americans living in PR, VI, GU, MP, and AS, as well as the 550K in DC? Does that sound like a fair proposal? Do I see this happening anytime in the near future? Probably not really, but one can work for it. And I certainly find that preferable to what the NY Times Columnist is saying.

carpro well hit it describing the piece as the erection of a "straw-man". He is absolutely right in this, and this is part of what I referred to as the "pandering".

Gotta' run.

Ed

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Several things are simply wrong, here. First, the District of Columbia has representation, albeit perhaps not as much as if it had a Congressman. It does have a voice, and many times, a vote in the House, as I previously stated.

So be it. They do not have a congressman. Forgive my for being colloquial.

Second, representation has never been equal in the legislative process. What is "equal" about every state having exactly two Senators? What is "equal" about two Senators for California with a current population of >37 Million; two Senators for Kentucky, near the population median at 4.3 Million+; and two Senators for Wyoming with a "busting out at the seams" population of 525,000+. Surely there is nothing remotely close to "equal" about that.

Valid complaints, really. But how would continuing inequality in DC rectify any of the above undesirables?

When our country was founded, "Indians not taxed" did not count toward any representation (not to mention, they had no vote), and a person "not free" was worth only 3/5 of a person. All women could not vote anywhere in this country before Wyoming Territory, in 1869, in the state of Wyoming in 1890, although some women (but not all) had first been permitted to vote in New Jersey, from 1790 to 1807, when they were barred from voting. What is "equal" about any of that?

Valid complaints, really. But how would continuing inequality in DC rectify any of the above undesirables?

Third, is not representation without taxation not also a "reverse tyranny" to those already 'taxed', as well?

If you wish to stake a claim against the very concept of coerced taxation have at it. (I take it you're simply waxing melodramatic for the sake of illustration.) In any event, given the fact that DC'ers are already taxed I fail to see how ADDING representation to the scenario is contributing to the perception of tyranny.

Fourth, would not these "mailed ballots", although perhaps fine in one theory, serve to diffuse the voting rights of some others, by giving additional representation to the other districts they were assigned to?

Congratulations! You just made the case against an increasing population. Yes, when new voters are added to the registry it does in effect diminish the seeming significanse of a single vote. Face it, the process is fluid not static. Further, I purport there is no such thing as a 'right' amount of voters. Adding DC'ers to a neighboring district would be no more nightmarish then registering a swath of pimples. Happens all the time, actually. <shrug>

Fifth, to my knowledge, not one adult is "forced" to live in Washington, D.C., to my knowledge, unless he or she is incarcerated in that jurisdiction. It may well be advantageous, to the individual, but it is not required. If one wants to be able to 'vote' for a Senator and/or Representative, all they have to do is relocate to someplace else, assuming that is some all-consuming desire of the individual.

True, DC'ers are not forced to live there. True as well, you are not forced to live in Kentucky. If the law became contradistinctive and only DC'ers could vote, theoretically, you'd have no point of contention. Either one believes that law abiding adults deserve to vote or one doesn't. And if one puts down roots for the former then arbitrary details such as residence become part of the process not obstacles to the process. I find it paradoxical that citizens in the capital of the free world should have less voting freedoms than the rest of us! Paradoxical, not to mention demoralizing.

Finally, I suggested an Amendment or Amendments to address all of this, in my post #5. Outta' curiosity, why am I the only one to include all citizens including those in the rest of the US Territories and Commonwealths in my proposal, and argue for full citizenship for the American Samoans? Why not cover the other 4.5 million Americans living in PR, VI, GU, MP, and AS, as well as the 550K in DC? Does that sound like a fair proposal? Do I see this happening anytime in the near future? Probably not really, but one can work for it. And I certainly find that preferable to what the NY Times Columnist is saying.

Personally, and legalities aside, I see the quickest resolution to a lack of justice as both morally superior and preferrable to a delayed response. To each his own, though. Good points about territories and the like. But first I'd like to see all of our own citizens incorporated into the congressional workings.

carpro well hit it describing the piece as the erection of a "straw-man". He is absolutely right in this, and this is part of what I referred to as the "pandering".

I agree that the vote against DC wasn't racist. It was probably political as most things are.

 

[EdSutton]

So be it. They do not have a congressman. Forgive my for being colloquial.

I was not tryng to make any reference to any sort of "colloquial" wording. The point was and is, that they do have some representation in Congress, as I stated. They do not have a Congressman, and I said as much earlier. And that is because of the Constitution, as it currently stands, and not for any other reason, as the District of Columbia, just as the Territory of, say, Guam, is not a state. The only difference is that DC is the "Seat of the Government", and is located in the 48 contiguous-state mainland of the United States.

Valid complaints, really. But how would continuing inequality in DC rectify any of the above undesirables?

Valid complaints, really. But how would continuing inequality in DC rectify any of the above undesirables?

I do not consider the disproportinate representation in the Senate to be an "undesirable", per se. I do not consider what happened in our history to be a current "undesireable" either. They are simply historical facts, in the case of the latter, and a Constitutional provision, in case of the former.

And I am "complaining" about neither. I am not the one making any sort of "emotional appeal" to some sense of "fair", as in some supposedly ideal democracy, either. In fact, I have argued against that very thing, as I am strongly in favor of the "Electoral College".

You (assuming you are a US citizen, for I have no way of knowing, but I do suspect this to be true) and I have no "Constitutional right" to vote for the President of the United States. The 538 electors have the only right to vote for the President. These electors are appointed in such manner as the legislatures of the several states may direct. And they are not all appointed in the same way, nor are their duties all defined, in the same way. All the states currently 'Direct' the electors to be determined by a popular vote of WE, the People for the President and Vice-President of the US.

But this 'uniformity' stops there. Maine and Nebraska award two electors to the 'winner' of the entire state. The remaining electors are awarded by Congressional District, one for each district. Thus one can have a number of 'splits' in the results of these two states. California is currently considering a proposal that would do the same thing, BTW. (With 53 electoral votes, that could lead to any of 51 possible outcomes for CA, as opposed to the current one of "winner-take-all", there.) The remaining states, including CA currently, award the electors on a "winner-take-all" basis, and a plurality is all that is necessary, for there is no provision for any "run-off" in a national election, as far as I know, in any state.

Some states "direct" that the electors must vote for the presumptive winner of the election. Some do not have this provision, hence the occasional odd-ball vote by a "faithless" elector, in a Presidential race. (Actually, there have been 158 instances of this, although 63 of these were the result of the death of one candidate, Horace Greely.) Such appeared as early as 1796 and late as the elections of 2000 & 2004.

And as late as 1960, and 1964, some electors were "unpledged" to a candidate, in at least some states, with a slate of these electors on the ballot in Alabama in both these years, and also in LA and MS in 1960. The 'choosing' of some of these electors resulted in 15 electoral votes for Senator Harry F. Byrd in 1960.

If you wish to stake a claim against the very concept of coerced taxation have at it. (I take it you're simply waxing melodramatic for the sake of illustration.) In any event, given the fact that DC'ers are already taxed I fail to see how ADDING representation to the scenario is contributing to the perception of tyranny.

Neither is the case, here.

Congratulations! You just made the case against an increasing population. Yes, when new voters are added to the registry it does in effect diminish the seeming significanse of a single vote. Face it, the process is fluid not static. Further, I purport there is no such thing as a 'right' amount of voters. Adding DC'ers to a neighboring district would be no more nightmarish then registering a swath of pimples. Happens all the time, actually. <shrug>

Huh??

True, DC'ers are not forced to live there. True as well, you are not forced to live in Kentucky. If the law became contradistinctive and only DC'ers could vote, theoretically, you'd have no point of contention. Either one believes that law abiding adults deserve to vote or one doesn't. And if one puts down roots for the former then arbitrary details such as residence become part of the process not obstacles to the process. I find it paradoxical that citizens in the capital of the free world should have less voting freedoms than the rest of us! Paradoxical, not to mention demoralizing.

Are you really making the claim of someone being law-abiding here? Consider this, while so doing:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (Article VI; Clause 2)

Any question on this??

Personally, and legalities aside, I see the quickest resolution to a lack of justice as both morally superior and preferrable to a delayed response. To each his own, though. Good points about territories and the like. But first I'd like to see all of our own citizens incorporated into the congressional workings.

The citizens of VI, PR, GU, MP, are just as much "our own citizens" as any of the citizens of DC, KY or any of the other 50 states! There is no difference, here! Only American Samoans have no right to citizenship, naturally, which point I already made! And how can you so blithely set aside the legalities of the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, to begin with, by proposing, or even agreeing with this "end run", and make any credible claim about any "lack of justice", let alone stake any claim to 'a moral High Ground'?? That makes absolutely no sense, IMO.

I agree that the vote against DC wasn't racist. It was probably political as most things are.

Well, at least we agree on this not being racist and being political.

Ed

 

[Magnetic Poles]

And where is the "Seat of the Government" then going to be? Some new capital built in a completly unpopulated 100 square mile area, ceeded by another state or states? An area that probably does not exist anywhere, with the possible exceptions of areas in Alaska, or in some National Park. (Ten mile square areas with zero population are a little hard to come by, these days.

Anyway-

Ain't never going to happen! That little problem of the Constitution, once again.

So, even if the current "Seat of the Government" were to be "given back" to Maryland, the problem ain't been solved yet!

Ed

Sure it is. Capital is now Washington, Maryland.

 

[EdSutton]

Sure it is. Capital is now Washington, Maryland.

Not so.

The Congress shall have Power...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-- (Article I; Section 8; Clauses 1a, 17)

What part of this is confusing? I missed it.

Ed

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Not so.What part of this is confusing? I missed it.

Ed

Again, what is so difficult. Nothing a little amendment won't fix. And it may not even take that drastic a measure.

After all, it has happened before. Arlington County (formerly Alexandria County) was once part of DC, and given back to the Old Dominion in 1846 by a simple act of Congress.

 

[EdSutton]

Again, what is so difficult. Nothing a little amendment won't fix. And it may not even take that drastic a measure.

After all, it has happened before. Arlington County (formerly Alexandria County) was once part of DC, and given back to the Old Dominion in 1846 by a simple act of Congress.

Point is, there was a "District", and 2/3 remained as "the District", in the Alexandria/Arlington instance. Under your proposal, there wouldn't be any District.

Granted, an Amendment can "fix," by supercedure, this, or any provision in the Constitution. And that is whether or not is really needs 'fixing', IMO.

Ed

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

I am not the one making any sort of "emotional appeal" to some sense of "fair"[SNIP]

I don't consider "fair'' to be an emotional argument. I consider it quite logical and intuitive to boot, but I take it you disagree. So be it, I should have freedom of speech and you should not. (This is the part where you channel your inner Craig and complain while still denying any traces of hypocrisy.)

You (assuming you are a US citizen, for I have no way of knowing, but I do suspect this to be true) and I have no "Constitutional right" to vote for the President of the United States. The 538 electors have the only right to vote for the President. These electors are appointed in such manner as the legislatures of the several states may direct. And they are not all appointed in the same way, nor are their duties all defined, in the same way. All the states currently 'Direct' the electors to be determined by a popular vote of WE, the People for the President and Vice-President of the US.

I thought the President elected the citizens. (Why are you talking about this in a thread about congressional voting???) I mean your factoids are interesting and all, and equally impressive is your prowess of cut-and-paste, but my point is the residents of DC should have a congressman and I'm wholly unconcerned about the convoluted technicalities denying this. Sometimes laws must be evalutated with critical thinking skills in order to preserve freedom, rather than rubber stamped with a vast sense of disconnection from any judgment. Don't thank me for this precedent. Thank George, Thomas, and company. Okay, well, maybe you can thank me just once.

It's like this: I keep arguing for the necessary obstacles to be changed and you keep citing them verbatim. What your rote regurgitation doesn't address is, for the second time in this conversation, the spirit of the Consitution. Taxation without representation is tyranny. It's a matter of the world which is versus the world which, I think, should be.

Warm regards my fellow Kentuckian!

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Again, what is so difficult. Nothing a little amendment won't fix. And it may not even take that drastic a measure.

After all, it has happened before. Arlington County (formerly Alexandria County) was once part of DC, and given back to the Old Dominion in 1846 by a simple act of Congress.

Seems like a plausible, well reasoned solution.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Reason notes that former (conservative) congressman J C Watts along with Michael Steele believe the GOP is engaging in racist behavior by denying residents a legit voice.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122442.html

Excerpt:

In his Second Inaugural address, President Abraham Lincoln said the injustice of slavery had led directly to the horror of war. That same principle applies today — where government allows injustice to remain, the people will suffer. [AND] The citizens have absolutely no say on the floor of the Congress — through the vote of their duly elected representative — about the matters that directly affect the people born and raised in our nation's capital. This is a blemish on our democracy and it must come to an end. [AND] The Framers didn't intend to create a city where American citizens were completely unrepresented. But this is the situation we have. [AND] We believe the Senate should act post-haste to end taxation without representation in our nation's capital.

(Bolding mine.) "Michael Steele is the former Republican lieutenant governor of Maryland and J.C. Watts is a former Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Oklahoma. "

 

[EdSutton]

I don't consider "fair'' to be an emotional argument. I consider it quite logical and intuitive to boot, but I take it you disagree. So be it, I should have freedom of speech and you should not. (This is the part where you channel your inner Craig and complain while still denying any traces of hypocrisy.)

The 'smilie' notwithstanding, I did not even offer to suggest that you, or any other person, should not have freedom of speech. (What the heck is an "inner Craig", anyway? I never heard the term.) I would question whether that 'freedom' is any more important than any other part of the Constituion, however. Last time I checked, the Amendments were exactly on a par with any other provisions of the Constitution. That is found in Article V, which I have previously quoted in its entirety, in post # 5, BTW.

I thought the President elected the citizens.

Say what?? Are you really meaning this sentence. "I thought the President was elected by the citizens." ? That sentence, even though erroneous, would make sense. What you actually said does not make any sense, in any way.

(Why are you talking about this in a thread about congressional voting???) I mean your factoids are interesting and all, and equally impressive is your prowess of cut-and-paste,

Although I'm pleased you find that my "factoids are interesting and all,", my purpose, in this thread, is to enlighten rather than entertain. My "prowess of cut-and-paste", as you put it, in this thread has consisted entirely of parts of the US Constitution. And I seldom offered any 'novel interpretations' on it, letting it speak for itself, not was I attempting to ascertain some supposed "spirit" behind the actual words. I was not around in 1787, and I am not sure, unlike some apparently, as to what this "spirit' would entail. But I could have offered the 'rationale' and arguments for the Constitution as written, by citing from The Federalist Papers, written by pubulis, the collective pseudonym of two of the 'geniuses' of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, but chose not to muddy the waters, unnecessarily. My words in quotation marks are also generally words from the Constitution, although I maydid out some words in quotation marks that one or more posters have said.

but my point is the residents of DC should have a congressman and I'm wholly unconcerned about the convoluted technicalities denying this. Sometimes laws must be evalutated with critical thinking skills in order to preserve freedom, rather than rubber stamped with a vast sense of disconnection from any judgment. Don't thank me for this precedent. Thank George, Thomas, and company. Okay, well, maybe you can thank me just once.

I'm sorry you see the words of the Constitution, and the principles and practices therein stated, as "convoluted technicalities", to which George Washington, George Read, George Clymer, Thomas Mifflin, Thomas FitzSimons and company affixed their signatures. And I believe I also made the point in post #5, that I favored an Amendment that would somewhat alter the Constitution, and give the District of Columbia, a full Representative, as well. It is not necessary for an Amendment to take all that long to be ratified, either. The entire constitution, in its 8 Articles was signed and submitted on Sept. 17, 1787, and was ratified on June 21, 1788, a period of 9 mos., 4 days. Amendment XXVi was presented on March 23, 1971, and ratified July 1, 1971. For all the math whizzes, that is 3 mos., 8 days. Of the first twelve Amendments simultaneously presented on Sept. 25, 1789, Article #1 was never ratified (Although it is still 'active', it would take another 27 states to complete ratification of this article, and no state has done so since KY in 1792.); Article 3-12 were ratified effective Dec. 17, 1791 (and became Amendments 1-10, known as the Bill of Rights), in a period of 2 yrs., 2 mos., 22 days, for those who like to see some symbolism in all the numbers; and Article 2 was ratified, as well, on May 7, 1992, in a dizzying, lightening-speed time of 202 yrs., 7 mos., 12 days. Dizzying, that is, to three-toed sloths and snails!

Also, I have offered proposals that go far beyond any of what you are proposing. I suggested that American Samoans (AS) should have the same opportunity to become full citizens, just as those from, PR, VI, DC, GU, and MP, as well as those in any and all of the 50 states. The silence in response to this is deafening. Let me correct that! You said (My emphases!)

I find it paradoxical that citizens in the capital of the free world should have less voting freedoms than the rest of us! Paradoxical, not to mention demoralizing.

Personally, and legalities aside, I see the quickest resolution to a lack of justice as both morally superior and preferrable to a delayed response. To each his own, though. Good points about territories and the like. But first I'd like to see all of our own citizens incorporated into the congressional workings.

Once again, why the distinction between the citizens of DC and the citizens of the rest of the US?? Your response shows that you were either unaware of the fact that all the territories' residents, save AS, have full access to citizenship, and in fact, most are, just as most are citizens in the 50 states and DC. There is no distinction in this citizenship. None at all! Why does the citizen of DC rate, in your response, above the citizen of PR, or the citizen of GU, for example? You are only proposing, or arguing for 1/9 of these that I am arguing for. The Population of DC is ~585K, mostly citizens. The Population of Puerto Rico is ~4M, mostly citizens. The Population of Guam is ~175K, mostly citizens. The Population of Virgin Islands is ~110K, mostly citizens. The population of the Northern Mariana Islands is ~85K, mostly citizens. The Population of American Samoa is ~58K, who are NOT citizens! (FTR, I had already said that the "American National" status was demeaning to those of AS. And here as well, I was met with silence.)

So it looks like I am advocating Representation for about 8 1/2 times as many "of our own citizens", as you are, if my math is correct.

It's like this: I keep arguing for the necessary obstacles to be changed and you keep citing them verbatim. What your rote regurgitation doesn't address is, for the second time in this conversation, the spirit of the Consitution. Taxation without representation is tyranny. It's a matter of the world which is versus the world which, I think, should be.

I obviously disagree with some of the contusions, - 'er I mean conclusions, here, but I have to get to bed, without answering in any more detail. 6AM will come long before I am ready for it.

Warm regards my fellow Kentuckian!

Same to you. G'nite, all.

Ed

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

I... just... don't... have... <sigh> the energy. You win. Much of my above posts were written cheek-i-ly, btw. For the record, I do see any restriction on natural rights as convoluted technicalities (the Constitution isn't my hobby horse for slavery, forced juries, prohibition and other reasons) and frankly don't care how the problem is remedied but that's just me and I don't pretend to be a team player. As one who sees legitimate law as a reflection (not origin) of freedom I'm pragmatic to a flaw and would have no problem letting residents of DC vote in a nearby district regardless if it was constitutional. Consequently, I tend to view politics strictly from a philosphical lense and am detached from circular systematicness that dictate inner trappings trump inborn freedom in the name of preserving inborn freedom. Pragmatically, I'd like to have seen the Senate pass this.

And I did misread your post about territories having citizenship. Good call.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Cato agrees w/ Magnetic Poles:

A proposal to grant the District a full vote in the House has passed the House and the Senate government affairs committees, and a full Senate vote is scheduled for July. President Bush threatens to veto the measure if it passes. But the congressmen promoting it are overlooking a radical and vastly superior alternative: giving the bulk of the District back to Maryland, just as Congress returned Alexandria and Arlington to Virginia in 1846.

Mayor Adrian Fenty might not like it, but retrocession would be superior for most District residents on political, fiscal and economic grounds. Politically, District voters would get full representation in the House of Representatives, plus the opportunity to vote for the two senators from Maryland, the several senior state officials and the local legislators.

Given the Senate representation too, it looks better than simply awarding the district a sole congressman.

 

[Eric B]

And where is the "Seat of the Government" then going to be? Some new capital built in a completly unpopulated 100 square mile area, ceeded by another state or states? An area that probably does not exist anywhere, with the possible exceptions of areas in Alaska, or in some National Park. (Ten mile square areas with zero population are a little hard to come by, these days.

Anyway-

Ain't never going to happen! That little problem of the Constitution, once again.

So, even if the current "Seat of the Government" were to be "given back" to Maryland, the problem ain't been solved yet!

Ed

Point is, there was a "District", and 2/3 remained as "the District", in the Alexandria/Arlington instance. Under your proposal, there wouldn't be any District.

Granted, an Amendment can "fix," by supercedure, this, or any provision in the Constitution. And that is whether or not is really needs 'fixing', IMO.

I always thought Alexandria and Arlington looked like they were once apart of the District, they way they are shaped (almost completing a perfect "diamond"). I didn't know they actually were once apart of it.

I always thoght, what about the District to Columbia only being the Capitol strip (from the Capitol, down the Mall, to all the monuments, the White House, and the rest of the Govt. buildings.) The residential areas only would then be given back to Maryland, or whatever. (And the Capitol district could even cross the river again, and make the Pentagon and any other offices in the area apart of it! Maybe even the airport and the cemetary!)