- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 35,027
- Reaction score
- 19,490
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Merge it with Maryland, done.
No need for a new state.
Maryland would have to want it first.
Merge it with Maryland, done.
No need for a new state.
Sorry, but the issue isn't representation. The issue is four more Democrat Senators and more Democrat representatives. The concern Democrats have for proper representation is demonstrated by their willingness to have dead people voting, foreign nationals voting, and felons voting.
The solution of allowing the residents of DC to vote with Maryland is quite valid and Constitutional. Sadly, it wouldn't give the Democrats another two Senators. And they could continue to vote their favorite crack addict for mayor.
And, no, a felon does not, and should not, have all rights restored at the completion of his sentence. Does a man convicted of repeated forcible rapes have a right to not be discriminated against in employment at a girls boarding school, for example. The current administration thinks he does and doesn't think the school should know of the rapist's history.
Merge it with one of the surrounding states and problem is solved.
So here we get to the core of the conservative argument on this topic. Which is yes they would want DC statehood if only they voted Republican. But because they lean left then "NO!!!!!" Same crap excuse they have for not wanting Puerto Rico to have statehood as well. Just to maintain the over representation of conservatives in this country.
Textbook example of why conservatives make such horrible leaders.
You wouldn't see a problem if your state had NO reps and NO Senators, or you just don't care that 700,000 of the others don't? If it's just other people whose rights to representation in Congress you don't give a damn about, that is quite noble of you.... :roll:
Great Britain felt the same way about the colonies a while back. You might recall that there was a war fought, at least in part, over the principle that you're now disregarding.
Funny you don't think taxation without representation is a pro OEM seeing how the birth of this country exactly because of that problem.
Not necessarily and considering that I lived there by choice and could easily move a mile? Nope. I could handle that.
OK, so you can't address the merits of the issue at all. Got it! No need to discuss further.
I can only point out again that a small move down the road solves the problem. Spending political capital on creating a new State seems like a Mad Hatter plan.
I don't claim any merits in creating a new State. That was you and quite unconvincingly, if I might add.
I wonder how many votes Eleanor Holmes Norton has placed during all her years in Congress. I'd bet a few thousand.
Whatever state it is merged with it has to be a left wing state since DC is a left wing pothole.
Votes that count = ZERO.
All were recorded and count to whichever side she voted. By doing so, she slightly diluted the voting weight of my representative and yours.
Q: How does Congresswoman Norton vote on legislation?
A: Congresswoman Norton does not vote on final passage of legislation but can vote on amendments in the Committee of the Whole....
I never limited the solution to a new state, and you haven't addressed the actual issue of representation in Congress except to say you don't give a damn because if the 700,000 people don't like it they can all presumably move.
Hell, if the U.S. government strips one of your rights (pick a right - the right to a firearm perhaps, or to free speech), there is an easy solution for you - YOU can always just move to another country! Right, that's a stupid argument... which is the point. A resident and citizen of the U.S. shouldn't have to move to exercise the ability to have representation in Congress. If you think otherwise, you haven't offered a coherent reason.
Bernie Sanders is now calling for the formation of a state by the same exact area which coincides with what is now known as the District of Columbia.
What implications would a 51st state have in federal law?
3 days before D.C. primary, Bernie Sanders calls for statehood - CNNPolitics.com
I certainly do not see any reason to change the status quo. But maybe someone will explain why it makes sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/51st_stateUnder Article IV, Section Three of the United States Constitution, which outlines the relationship among the states, Congress has the power to admit new states to the union.
How about the fact that currently there are over 672,000 American citizens residing in the District of Columbia who have no representation in Congress?
That's more than either Vermont (626,000), or Wyoming (586,000) who each have 2 Senators and 1 Congressman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
D. C. has 1 non-voting DELEGATE to the House of Representatives. (As do Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.)
Consider the old war cry "No taxation without representation?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/51st_state
I know all that. So?
First: Sorry. I forgot to read through the whole thread before I posted. I'd have noticed most of this was already raised.
Second: These are all American citizens living in the USA, and if you can't see the reason why they should have actual representation in Congress...
I'm certainly unwilling to try to convince you. :shrug:
You want it changed. If you cannot convince, you will have to do it by dictate. And you certainly have not convinced me. You haven't really even reawakened my interest in a been there, got the t-shirt question, beyond alerting me to the fact that BS is as bad as I thought.
I did not say I wanted it changed. I was merely responding to your original question as to why anyone might. :shrug:
That's just not true. There are only 435 voting members in the House and Norton is not one of them - she is a delegate. So when legislation is being considered, a majority of 218 will always carry the day. From her website:
Bernie Sanders is now calling for the formation of a state by the same exact area which coincides with what is now known as the District of Columbia.
What implications would a 51st state have in federal law?
3 days before D.C. primary, Bernie Sanders calls for statehood - CNNPolitics.com