POL: 2010 Census and redistricting

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

That logic astounds me. 500,000 citizens of the United States should not have representation in the Senate because the rest of the country doesn't think DC should be a state?

Absolutely. Or rather, not because 'the rest of the country doesn't think DC should be a state,' but because the Constitution expressly says that the seat of Federal Government shall NOT reside in any state, and I think that also precludes DC being a state itself.

Look, here's the thing. The reason the seat of federal government is separate from any particular state was to prevent any particular state from wielding disproportionate influence over the others.

It has been separate from the states for, what, 225 years? It's not like D.C.'s status should come as a surprise to anybody. This isn't something that snuck up on any of the 500,000 people living there.

Further, the Constitution specifies what representation in the House and Senate shall be for the States. D.C. is not a State. Even the 23rd Amendment, by way of implication, admits this:

Originally Posted by United States Constitution

1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State;

Under that interpretation, even a House seat with voting rights is a no-no. The District does have a representative in the House with no voting rights, and that is the same policy as exists for other territories and protectorates of the United States which are not States themselves.

Look, let's put this another way. 500,000 people live in the District. 8 [b]million[/] people live in New York City. Make D.C. its own state? I gotta go with 'no' on that. Yeah, a lot of western states have small populations as well, but those states were accepted into the Union 50 years ago and more, when the national population was much smaller than it is now.

If the Congress says "Look, here's all the land we need for the various federal buildings, we'll return the residential lands to the state of Maryland and D.C. will just be what the founders intended from now on," I can get behind that. That wouldn't even require a Constitutional amendment, IMO - the Constitution says that Congress runs the District, and so I'd imagine a simple act of Congress would be all that would be necessary.

The folks there wouldn't be D.C. residents anymore, but they would have voting rights.

Just my feelings on the matter.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Absolutely. Or rather, not because 'the rest of the country doesn't think DC should be a state,' but because the Constitution expressly says that the seat of Federal Government shall NOT reside in any state, and I think that also precludes DC being a state itself.

Look, here's the thing. The reason the seat of federal government is separate from any particular state was to prevent any particular state from wielding disproportionate influence over the others.

It has been separate from the states for, what, 225 years? It's not like D.C.'s status should come as a surprise to anybody. This isn't something that snuck up on any of the 500,000 people living there.

I am not arguing for statehood, I am arguing for the same rights as the rest of the country. Either take away my federal income taxes (at a minimum), or give me equal rights. The Constitution calls for a district for the federal government to operate in that does not over disproportionate influence over the others. I fail to see how giving voting rights to that district's citizens gives DC undue influence over the federal government. We already have home rule, which is what most people feared in the first place. How does giving us EQUAL (rather than disproportionately low) control of the federal government give us the upper hand?

As far as it being a surprise, it is not surprising to the 500,000, but it is to the 250million living in the rest of the country. As I have said many times, it was no surprise to the colonists that they had no representation in the British Parliamant. The Constitution was designed to be changed, and this is a reason that it should be.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Further, the Constitution specifies what representation in the House and Senate shall be for the States. D.C. is not a State. Even the 23rd Amendment, by way of implication, admits this:



Under that interpretation, even a House seat with voting rights is a no-no. The District does have a representative in the House with no voting rights, and that is the same policy as exists for other territories and protectorates of the United States which are not States themselves.

Look, let's put this another way. 500,000 people live in the District. 8 [b]million[/] people live in New York City. Make D.C. its own state? I gotta go with 'no' on that. Yeah, a lot of western states have small populations as well, but those states were accepted into the Union 50 years ago and more, when the national population was much smaller than it is now.

If the Congress says "Look, here's all the land we need for the various federal buildings, we'll return the residential lands to the state of Maryland and D.C. will just be what the founders intended from now on," I can get behind that. That wouldn't even require a Constitutional amendment, IMO - the Constitution says that Congress runs the District, and so I'd imagine a simple act of Congress would be all that would be necessary.

The folks there wouldn't be D.C. residents anymore, but they would have voting rights.

Just my feelings on the matter.

I am amused by several things here. First, the quote you pasted is from the AMENDMENT that gave DC citizens the right to participate in the electoral college (I believe in 1967). Before then, you couldn't have even made this argument. Secondly, I have not argued for statehood. I may have joked in the beginning that we should be made a state "while they were at it" with PR, but I don't require statehood to be happy, merely equal rights to the rest of the Nation.

[cartman]

I think if this were right after the passing of the Constitution, there might be a point. But it has now been 217 years since the Constitution was passed, and people now living in D.C. have known about the Constitutional dead zone that is the District of Columbia.

To me, people complaining about the lack of representation are the same as people who move next to an airport and then complain about the noise. You knew the situation going in, and why exactly were you expecting it to change?

[gstelmack]

When did people start moving in to actually live in DC, rather than in the surrounding countryside and just work in DC?

[ntndeacon]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

That logic astounds me. 500,000 citizens of the United States should not have representation in the Senate because the rest of the country doesn't think DC should be a state?

Well, they shouldn't be a state. And if that ever was a serious possibility, I hope that Maryland follow Virginia's example and take back their land. Then there would be no need for statehood for the District of Columbia.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by cartman

I think if this were right after the passing of the Constitution, there might be a point. But it has now been 217 years since the Constitution was passed, and people now living in D.C. have known about the Constitutional dead zone that is the District of Columbia.

To me, people complaining about the lack of representation are the same as people who move next to an airport and then complain about the noise. You knew the situation going in, and why exactly were you expecting it to change?

That's how I feel.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

That logic astounds me. 500,000 citizens of the United States should not have representation in the Senate because the rest of the country doesn't think DC should be a state?

No, the 500,000 should be incorporated into another State.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

I think if this were right after the passing of the Constitution, there might be a point. But it has now been 217 years since the Constitution was passed, and people now living in D.C. have known about the Constitutional dead zone that is the District of Columbia.

To me, people complaining about the lack of representation are the same as people who move next to an airport and then complain about the noise. You knew the situation going in, and why exactly were you expecting it to change?

Noboby's ever decided not to move to DC because they didn't have congressional representation. Yet once they're there it becomes a constitutional emergency. It's kind of tiring.

It's interesting that DC residents don't seem to want to simply be absorbed by other states (or do they?). That would seem to be the obvious solution, unless there's something about DC's status that's preferable to its residents. If representation is more important than those advantages of living in the District then they should be absorbed.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by molson

Noboby's ever decided not to move to DC because they didn't have congressional representation. Yet once they're there it becomes a constitutional emergency. It's kind of tiring.

It's interesting that DC residents don't seem to want to simply be absorbed by other states (or do they?). That would seem to be the obvious solution, unless there's something about DC's status that's preferable to its residents. If representation is more important than those advantages of living in the District then they should be absorbed.

I'm not sure if it is that they don't want to be absorbed, or nobody wants them. If you want get the rest of the country involved, we should force a state to take them (Maryland gave them the land, but Virgina actually makes more sense to me.)

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by cartman

I think if this were right after the passing of the Constitution, there might be a point. But it has now been 217 years since the Constitution was passed, and people now living in D.C. have known about the Constitutional dead zone that is the District of Columbia.

To me, people complaining about the lack of representation are the same as people who move next to an airport and then complain about the noise. You knew the situation going in, and why exactly were you expecting it to change?

Again, people moving to the colonies knew their rights as well. Blacks and women could have moved to Canada to obtain voting rights. This argument is by far the worst argument out there. Since when does the United States simply accept things because they are? Washington, D.C. is a great city to live in and people should not have to choose between voting rights and living in the District. It is nothing like moving next to an airport -- your solution to having equal rights to all citizens of the United States is to irradicate the residential areas of D.C.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

When did people start moving in to actually live in DC, rather than in the surrounding countryside and just work in DC?

Actually, since the middle of the 20th century the population of D.C. has reduced by about 50%.

Originally Posted by ntndeacon

Well, they shouldn't be a state. And if that ever was a serious possibility, I hope that Maryland follow Virginia's example and take back their land. Then there would be no need for statehood for the District of Columbia.

Are you people reading what I have written? I AM NOT PROPOSING STATEHOOD. Please read what I wrote, that you quoted. I said that the logic that DC residents should not have equal voting rights because they shouldn't be a state is absurd -- there is no reason an amendment could not be ratified that gave voting rights without giving statehood.

Originally Posted by molson

Noboby's ever decided not to move to DC because they didn't have congressional representation. Yet once they're there it becomes a constitutional emergency. It's kind of tiring.

It's interesting that DC residents don't seem to want to simply be absorbed by other states (or do they?). That would seem to be the obvious solution, unless there's something about DC's status that's preferable to its residents. If representation is more important than those advantages of living in the District then they should be absorbed.

Again, this shouldn't even be a decision that someone has to make. Before I moved to DC (or even thought about it), I thought DC should have the right to vote. There is no reason that residents inside the United States (as opposed to territories) should not have the right to vote, particularly when they pay the same federal taxes as the rest of the country. What is tiring is the fact that people still don't think that we should have the right to vote.

I would not be opposed to being retroceded to Maryland. However, I have never heard that issue raised within Congress. In addition, it has its own Constitutional hurdles; ones far more clear-cut than the voting rights issue.

For those that don't see anything wrong with this, or that skirt the issue with the pathetic argument that "you knew you didn't have your proper civil rights when you moved there," are you aware that no other democracy works this way? (I am trying to find the exact right way to present this, but I can't find the reference -- I'm not sure if its no major democracy, no democracy period, no country, or exactly how it is worded. But, basically -- no one else you would consider a developed country has citizens with reduced voting rights based on where they live)

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I'm not sure if it is that they don't want to be absorbed, or nobody wants them. If you want get the rest of the country involved, we should force a state to take them (Maryland gave them the land, but Virgina actually makes more sense to me.)

Why does Virginia make more sense?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Why does Virginia make more sense?

It seems more a part of Virginia to me. Plus, Maryland already has an urban blight (Baltimore).

[cartman]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Again, people moving to the colonies knew their rights as well. Blacks and women could have moved to Canada to obtain voting rights. This argument is by far the worst argument out there. Since when does the United States simply accept things because they are? Washington, D.C. is a great city to live in and people should not have to choose between voting rights and living in the District. It is nothing like moving next to an airport -- your solution to having equal rights to all citizens of the United States is to irradicate the residential areas of D.C.

So, by the examples you are giving, we need to overthrow the government? You keep bringing up the colonies, but don't seem to understand the difference in the situations. There was a revolution because King George didn't give a damn about what the people in the colonies thought. There is a process to change the Constitution, and that process has been successfully used to grant women the right to vote as well as abolish slavery. The same process has also been invoked to grant statehood to D.C., but the measure did not pass. So please stop with the pleadings that this is just like the Colonies, when it is nothing of the sort.

The airport situation is absolutely a strong argument. Someone moves next to an airport and complains that it is too loud, and how come the authorities can't make it quieter where they used to live. You want quiet, don't live next to an airport. You want representation, don't live in D.C.

You seem to think that people outside of D.C. are not aware of the non-voting status. While I am sure that there is a large portion of the US population that is not aware of this, it is by no means everyone.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

And when the colonies complained
The king said, "I don't care"

Not enough love for the S-Rock pull here.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by cartman

So, by the examples you are giving, we need to overthrow the government? You keep bringing up the colonies, but don't seem to understand the difference in the situations. There was a revolution because King George didn't give a damn about what the people in the colonies thought. There is a process to change the Constitution, and that process has been successfully used to grant women the right to vote as well as abolish slavery. The same process has also been invoked to grant statehood to D.C., but the measure did not pass. So please stop with the pleadings that this is just like the Colonies, when it is nothing of the sort.

The airport situation is absolutely a strong argument. Someone moves next to an airport and complains that it is too loud, and how come the authorities can't make it quieter where they used to live. You want quiet, don't live next to an airport. You want representation, don't live in D.C.

You seem to think that people outside of D.C. are not aware of the non-voting status. While I am sure that there is a large portion of the US population that is not aware of this, it is by no means everyone.

Bringing up the colonies is obviously an extreme example meant to prove a point. I also bring up women's suffrage and slavery, which did not require a revolution (well, one required a Civil War). I have fully stated in this thread that there was an amendment passed by Congress that was not ratified by enough states. I know there is a process, and I know it failed. That does not mean that the outcome was appropriate.

78% of people in the United States are not aware of D.C.'s not voting status according to a poll conducted by KRC researc in 2005. (http://www.dcvote.org/newsletter/spring05.pdf) 78% seems like more than a "large portion" to me. That's is damn near everyone (or at least, 22% from being everyone).

In that same poll, 82% of respondents said that D.C. citizens shoudl have equal fvoting rights in the House and Senate (Americans Back DC Voting Rights: Angus Reid Global Monitor. I think you are the naive one if you think that most Americans know what the situation is. I have gone to bars in other states and they thought I had a fake ID because it is for DC.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by cartman

You seem to think that people outside of D.C. are not aware of the non-voting status. While I am sure that there is a large portion of the US population that is not aware of this, it is by no means everyone.

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I think you are the naive one if you think that most Americans know what the situation is.

Umm... what?

[sachmo71]

i think they should let a computer decide, like the BCS of politics! that would end all of this controversy.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by cartman

Umm... what?

When you use general terms like "A large number" it is hard to say what number you think that is. My assumption was that you meant less than half because you did not say "a majority."

[maxwarrior]

No one is forced to live in DC. No one has to stay in DC if they want representation. We all choose where to live based on the things we prefer. The constitutional rule on DC has always been in place. No one should complain when the rule was there before them

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Plus, Maryland already has an urban blight (Baltimore).

I think, while intended as humor, this is not far from the truth. I think one of the things stopping any sort of retrocession to Maryland is the fact that Maryland doesn't want the city of Washington because they'd then be on the hook for a lot more state government services while not really expanding the tax base that much (most of the valuable property in DC belongs to Federal or foreign governments and they're probably not going to get taxed by the state of Maryland in any fashion).

Virginia also isn't interested (not least of which because the current DC was never part of Virginia to begin with).

I do wonder as a thought exercise if the US capital were to move to a new "district" somewhere near Kansas City for example, what would happen to the old one? I suppose with the constitutional requirement not applying anymore, the folks in Washington would a) get their own determination (no more Congressional oversight) and b) become their own state since they'd meet constitutional requirements as a territory.

Seems to me, the best thing for folks in DC to do is to become libertarian, so to speak, and tell the Feds to go away.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I would not be opposed to being retroceded to Maryland. However, I have never heard that issue raised within Congress. In addition, it has its own Constitutional hurdles; ones far more clear-cut than the voting rights issue.

.

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocession_(District_of_Columbia)

Almost immediately after the "Federal City" was laid out north of the Potomac, some residents south of the Potomac in Alexandria County, D.C. began petitioning to be returned to Virginia's jurisdiction. Over time, a larger movement grew to separate Alexandria from the District for several reasons:
....
After a referendum, Alexandria County's citizens petitioned Congress and Virginia to return the area to Virginia. By an act of Congress on July 9, 1846, and with the approval of the Virginia General Assembly, the area south of the Potomac (39 square miles; 101 km²) was returned, or "retroceded," to Virginia effective in 1847.^{[29]
......
It has been proposed that the remainder of the District be given back to Maryland. Retrocession would take a simple act of Congress, though it is generally accepted that Congress would not take such a step without the approval of Marylanders and Washingtonians by referenda. Currently, there is little support for retrocession, though some see it as a solution to the twin problems of D.C. voting rights and D.C. home rule.
........
On April 16, 2007, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) introduced H.R. 1858, the "District of Columbia-Maryland Reunion Act," which would transfer the bulk of Washington to Maryland if Maryland will have it.[2]}

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by maxwarrior

No one is forced to live in DC. No one has to stay in DC if they want representation. We all choose where to live based on the things we prefer. The constitutional rule on DC has always been in place. No one should complain when the rule was there before them

Seriously, give up this tired argument. Just because it has always been, that does not mean it is right. The United States has never felt that inequality should stand merely because the Constitution states that it exists, or because people have the option to move somewhere else.

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

I think, while intended as humor, this is not far from the truth. I think one of the things stopping any sort of retrocession to Maryland is the fact that Maryland doesn't want the city of Washington because they'd then be on the hook for a lot more state government services while not really expanding the tax base that much (most of the valuable property in DC belongs to Federal or foreign governments and they're probably not going to get taxed by the state of Maryland in any fashion).

Yes, clearly.

Washington, D.C. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Washington, D.C. has a growing, diversified economy with an increasing percentage of professional and business service jobs.[79] The gross state product of the District in 2007 was $93.8 billion, which would rank it No. 35 compared to the 50 U.S. states

Who would want such a worthless city as part of their state?

To BishopMVP (There was nothing to actually quote except your quotes ):

Thanks for that. I was not aware that a bill was proposed in 2007. I will have to look into it more, but I believe in this thread I have stated that I would accept retrocession as a way to receive voting rights. I cannot speak for the rest of the District or Congress, however. I am not exactly sure how they would handle the Constitutional mandate that such a District exist, but my assumption is that not ALL of DC would be retroceded.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Yes, clearly.

Washington, D.C. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Who would want such a worthless city as part of their state?

Of course, 27% of all the jobs, according to that source, is with the federal government.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Seriously, give up this tired argument. Just because it has always been, that does not mean it is right. The United States has never felt that inequality should stand merely because the Constitution states that it exists, or because people have the option to move somewhere else.

You act like this has never been addressed before, when that is simply not the case. An amendment to the constitution was introduced to grant statehood to the District, but it did not pass. It is clear that at this time, the rest of the country does not see this as a issue worthy of amending the Constitution to override the original clause.

As a side note, there have only been a handful of amendments that have been submitted to the states for approval that have not passed. So if it were such an egregious situation, it should have had no problems getting passed.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Of course, 27% of all the jobs, according to that source, is with the federal government.

That does not change the fact that it is not a blight.

Originally Posted by cartman

You act like this has never been addressed before, when that is simply not the case. An amendment to the constitution was introduced to grant statehood to the District, but it did not pass. It is clear that at this time, the rest of the country does not see this as a issue worthy of amending the Constitution to override the original clause.

As a side note, there have only been a handful of amendments that have been submitted to the states for approval that have not passed. So if it were such an egregious situation, it should have had no problems getting passed.

I actually don't act like this, if you read what I've wrote. I have addressed the fact that an amendment was accepted by Congress but not ratified by the states.

You seem to think just because the 50 states not affected by lack of representation don't feel it is important enough for the residents of the District to have representation, that it is not egregious. Minorities have had trouble getting equal footing throughout history. As I have said, the District is a far larger minority than any other group that has fought for equal rights in the history of the United States. There is no incentive for states around the country to ratify the amendment, because they gain nothing from it. In fact, "Red States" have incentive to NOT ratify it, because the representatives elected in the District would most likely be Democrats.

And, by the way, the amendment was for voting rights, not statehood.