What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

DC as 51st state (1 Viewer)

Rich Conway said:
Can you give me one good reason other than "naked power grab"?

Here are a bunch of other reasons.

Stop giving me reasons!  It's just a naked power grab!
Click to expand...
I was expecting and hoping for an objective and honest response.  Leaving out the obvious and primary reason is disingenuous at best.  I hope you can see that.  

 
stlrams said:
I was expecting and hoping for an objective and honest response.  Leaving out the obvious and primary reason is disingenuous at best.  I hope you can see that.  
Click to expand...
It's your opinion that it's "obvious and primary".  That said, you specifically asked for "reasons other than X" then complained when the reasons offered weren't X.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
stlrams said:
Then we can just leave status quo.
Click to expand...
One of the founding principles of this country was "no taxation without representation".  We've all been taught since elementary school about the Boston Tea Party and the revolution because of taxation without representation.  We now have hundreds of thousands of citizens experiencing exactly that.  Your solution is "hope some other state wants them, and if not, too bad".  I'm sure you can see how that might rankle those being taxed?

 
kwille said:
Right, like Georgia. Sorry, couldn't resist. Put me down for shrinking the DC footprint and including as many people as possible into neighboring states. Those blue votes would still add up and the people would participate in true representative democracy more than they do now. 
Click to expand...
I'm on board with that as a MD resident.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
This is one of the silliest arguments I’ve ever read on this board. The Founder’s intention to have a federal district became a ridiculous anachronism the  second they let people live and hold property in the Districtv 
Click to expand...
Your argument is with the Founders, not me.  Their written intentions were made clear in the Constitution.  Lawmakers later modified the Constitution with the 23rd amendment.  Perhaps they were the silly ones for not just making it a state?

So, there you go, two other targets to rail against.

 
Rich Conway said:
One of the founding principles of this country was "no taxation without representation".  We've all been taught since elementary school about the Boston Tea Party and the revolution because of taxation without representation.  We now have hundreds of thousands of citizens experiencing exactly that.  Your solution is "hope some other state wants them, and if not, too bad".  I'm sure you can see how that might rankle those being taxed?
Click to expand...
That’s not part of the curriculum anymore.  It’s been canceled.  

 
supermike80 said:
This one, to me comes down to the "Sorry you lost" situation.

There are winners and losers in politics.  Trump was able to get his SC justices confirmed because the GOP Held the power.

Well now the dems hold the power and that means they get to push agendas they feel are important to their needs.  It's just the way politics work.---to me anyway.

I completely and totally agree that if DC was a GOP strong area this wouldn't be a topic at all with todays administration, but that's kinda obvious isn't it?
Click to expand...
I don't agree. Policy should be implemented for the right reasons; not convenient reasons. This is why I have turned my back on republicans.

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
Sand said:
Your argument is with the Founders, not me.  Their written intentions were made clear in the Constitution.  Lawmakers later modified the Constitution with the 23rd amendment.  Perhaps they were the silly ones for not just making it a state?

So, there you go, two other targets to rail against.
Click to expand...
Except the District clause in no way prevents Congress from granting DC statehood. All that it provides for is that Congress may exercise exclusive jurisdiction over a federal district. Nothing requires Congress to do so or says that Congress can’t abrogate it’s jurisdiction ( as it did with retrocession to Virginia).. 
 

But more fundamentally, that’s a phenomenal backpedal. You said that there was “a good reason” that is just as apt today for the Federal District. When challenged on that statement, you don’t even address that supposedly “good reason” much less explain how it is equally apt today. 

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Except the District clause in no way prevents Congress from granting DC statehood. All that it provides for is that Congress may exercise exclusive jurisdiction over a federal district. Nothing requires Congress to do so or says that Congress can’t abrogate it’s jurisdiction ( as it did with retrocession to Virginia).. 
Click to expand...
Great - get a constitutional amendment going.  The precedent for adjusting the status of DC was set with the 23rd and that is what it will take to get DC into statehood.  The solution is to give most of DC away to Virginia or Maryland.  

Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
But more fundamentally, that’s a phenomenal backpedal. You said that there was “a good reason” that is just as apt today for the Federal District. When challenged on that statement, you don’t even address that supposedly “good reason” much less explain how it is equally apt today. 
Click to expand...
Don't need to - it's obvious.  The federal seat of power already has a huge power and sway over our lives and the Constitution was setup such that this federal district didn't have overwhelming power.  This is as true today as it was back then.

 
Rich Conway said:
stlrams said:
Please just stop.  It’s nothing more than a permanent power grab so let’s stop kidding.  
Click to expand...
Can you give me one good reason other than "naked power grab"?

Here are a bunch of other reasons.

Stop giving me reasons!  It's just a naked power grab!
Click to expand...
One argument against is that it would create the possibility of conflict between the federal government and the state in which it resides.

Another argument against is that our entire system was designed around the concept of "states" -- some larger than others, some more populous than others, but all containing vast amounts of territory and diverse interests, which is why it would require 2 Senators and at least 1 Representative to govern it all. But a "city-state" doesn't come close to fitting that profile, despite the fact that it has a large population. If we were starting from scratch and we decided to design a system of government that included city-state(s), would we give them equal representation in the Senate? I doubt it.

Another argument against is that the "representation" complaint could be easily resolved by simply folding the population into Maryland or Virginia. But there's never been a widespread push for that because Democrats would lose their 3 free electoral votes.

Besides all of that, there are Constitutional hurdles and entanglements which probably turn this entire debate into a pointless thought exercise that does little more than create fear-based anger among conservatives.

 
Sea Duck said:
One argument against is that it would create the possibility of conflict between the federal government and the state in which it resides.
Click to expand...
Thanks for arguments. Having lived in the DC area (but never actually in DC) my whole life, I've never spent too much time thinking about this.

What's an example of a conflict that could exist between the federal government and the state in which it resides? Does that conflict already exist today in the states where our federal government are already present? Does that conflict exist now between the federal government and the city of Washington?

 
Sand said:
Great - get a constitutional amendment going.  The precedent for adjusting the status of DC was set with the 23rd and that is what it will take to get DC into statehood.  The solution is to give most of DC away to Virginia or Maryland.  
Click to expand...
The 23rd Amendment does no such thing. 

 
Sea Duck said:
One argument against is that it would create the possibility of conflict between the federal government and the state in which it resides.

Another argument against is that our entire system was designed around the concept of "states" -- some larger than others, some more populous than others, but all containing vast amounts of territory and diverse interests, which is why it would require 2 Senators and at least 1 Representative to govern it all. But a "city-state" doesn't come close to fitting that profile, despite the fact that it has a large population. If we were starting from scratch and we decided to design a system of government that included city-state(s), would we give them equal representation in the Senate? I doubt it.

Another argument against is that the "representation" complaint could be easily resolved by simply folding the population into Maryland or Virginia. But there's never been a widespread push for that because Democrats would lose their 3 free electoral votes.

Besides all of that, there are Constitutional hurdles and entanglements which probably turn this entire debate into a pointless thought exercise that does little more than create fear-based anger among conservatives.
Click to expand...
The vast territory of Rhode Island?

 
No Constitutional amendment is required. Congress can shrink the District to just the Federal buildings and museums along the Mall. The remainder of the District can pass a constitution and enter the Union via legislation like Tennessee and several other states did. 
 

“Vast tracts of land” and “city-states” are silly arguments given the tiny size of some original states and states like Alaska where most of the population lives in 3 cities. 
 

If we were going to redesign Congressional representation from scratch, we would have Senators representing the population, not millions of acres of empty forests and farmland.

 
Sea Duck said:
One argument against is that it would create the possibility of conflict between the federal government and the state in which it resides.

Another argument against is that our entire system was designed around the concept of "states" -- some larger than others, some more populous than others, but all containing vast amounts of territory and diverse interests, which is why it would require 2 Senators and at least 1 Representative to govern it all. But a "city-state" doesn't come close to fitting that profile, despite the fact that it has a large population. If we were starting from scratch and we decided to design a system of government that included city-state(s), would we give them equal representation in the Senate? I doubt it.

Another argument against is that the "representation" complaint could be easily resolved by simply folding the population into Maryland or Virginia. But there's never been a widespread push for that because Democrats would lose their 3 free electoral votes.

Besides all of that, there are Constitutional hurdles and entanglements which probably turn this entire debate into a pointless thought exercise that does little more than create fear-based anger among conservatives.
Click to expand...
I think the fact that DC is 'just' a city is the key factor. Despite its unique creation compared to the other cities around the country, it could open a bigger can of worms than we already have if they get statehood, as that could prompt other cities to pursue statehood as well, which to me would exacerbate the already existing issue of voting disparity between cities (which tend to vote Democrat) and suburban/rural areas (which tend to vote Republican, albeit rural more than suburban areas).

DC is definitely a unique case, but I don't know that statehood should be the first choice in solving their taxation without representation dilemma.

 
squistion said:
No, as that would not accomplish the self governance that they have been asking for. 
Click to expand...
They do need some kind of help as it is a dangerous area.  DC has one of the highest crime rates in the country, and highest violent crime rates.  Do they have a state police force or is there any police there at all?

 
The Z Machine said:
Split MD south of Baltimore plus the Eastern shore to DC.  Baltimore and North / Western MD remain "Maryland".  Eastern Shore and southern Maryland become "Columbia", the 51st state.
Click to expand...
I like this idea solely because it would result in the city of Columbia, MD moving over too, so there would be a Columbia, Columbia.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
There would be two Columbia, Columbias.  Unless we came up with a new name for D.C.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't DC just be Washington. So it would be Washington, Columbia.

This reminds me there was a Trivial Pursuit question: What's the capital of the District of Columbia? I was so confused by the question, but apparently the answer was Washington. Is that somehow technically true?

 
MAC_32 said:
I don't agree. Policy should be implemented for the right reasons; not convenient reasons. This is why I have turned my back on republicans.
Click to expand...
Yeah cause they are the only ones doing that.  Said too many times how saddened I get to see people think ONLY one side does these things(and always the opposite side they are on)  Shame but hey it is what it is.

 
Rich Conway said:
One of the founding principles of this country was "no taxation without representation".  We've all been taught since elementary school about the Boston Tea Party and the revolution because of taxation without representation.  We now have hundreds of thousands of citizens experiencing exactly that.  Your solution is "hope some other state wants them, and if not, too bad".  I'm sure you can see how that might rankle those being taxed?
Click to expand...
I live in a state where I am taxed and I really don’t have any representation.

Im not wealthy. No one really represents my interests 

 
supermike80 said:
Yeah cause they are the only ones doing that.  Said too many times how saddened I get to see people think ONLY one side does these things(and always the opposite side they are on)  Shame but hey it is what it is.
Click to expand...
I'm a figuratively homeless fiscal conservative - I don't have a side.

 
Cowboysfan8 said:
Rich Conway said:
One of the founding principles of this country was "no taxation without representation".  We've all been taught since elementary school about the Boston Tea Party and the revolution because of taxation without representation.  We now have hundreds of thousands of citizens experiencing exactly that.  Your solution is "hope some other state wants them, and if not, too bad".  I'm sure you can see how that might rankle those being taxed?
Click to expand...
I live in a state where I am taxed and I really don’t have any representation.

Im not wealthy. No one really represents my interests 
Click to expand...
When the Colonists said "No taxation without representation!", they weren't complaining about their local rep being in the opposing political party. They were complaining about the fact that they didn't have a local rep in Parliament at all.

 
This thread is a really good example of the stark difference between unvetted talking points and philosophical debate on the Founding Fathers' intentions.

We can start with "not having representation" <> "not having representation that I approve of or voted for".

ETA:  And before people get their panties in a bunch, I'm not for new reps in Congress or the Senate, but I AM for reducing the scope of what constitutes DC allowing the bordering states to then become reps of those who land outside the new boundary.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes said:
Not sure I agree with this.
Click to expand...
How so?

DC does not have actual representation.  People living there...have no votes towards house and senate (other than a delegate in the house who can only vote on procedural issues).  Yet...congress has jurisdiction over the district.

I live in TN...I have a vote...I have representation...I disagree politically with many of them.  But I have the ability to contact them and voice opinions and vote them out.

There is a major difference between the two things.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Not sure I agree with this.
Click to expand...
ok....want to go any further on this or not?  I have the same representation in Washington as you do (literally....we are in the same state)....they don't mesh with my beliefs all that well but they ARE my representatives whether I agree with them or not.

I can go to any of them in hopes to get attention on some issue.  The people of DC don't have that kind of representation.  There is an undeniable significant difference between the two.  It's about as objective a thing as we can get in our politics today.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
ok....want to go any further on this or not?  I have the same representation in Washington as you do (literally....we are in the same state)....they don't mesh with my beliefs all that well but they ARE my representatives whether I agree with them or not.

I can go to any of them in hopes to get attention on some issue.  The people of DC don't have that kind of representation.  There is an undeniable significant difference between the two.  It's about as objective a thing as we can get in our politics today.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But if the situation were, say, designated from another state as "your representative" regardless of your opportunity to vote for, or even petition them, then you could reasonably reject that they represent you.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Agreed. But if the situation were, say, designated from another state as "your representative" regardless of your opportunity to vote for, or even petition them, then you could reasonably reject that they represent you.
Click to expand...
Under which context does this even exist today or where was it mentioned in this thread?  The comment I made was with respect to comments of this thread and our general situation is it stands in this country today.  

 
squistion said:
:pickle:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1373650608616468483 (link to WaPo article)

D.C. statehood has moved from the political fringe to the center of the national Democratic agenda.

The House Oversight Committee on Monday will convene a hearing on a statehood bill, and Leader Hoyer expects the bill will pass the House before summer.
Click to expand...
At least they're honest about it  :thumbup:  

Although I'm sure some in here will still insist it's not a move to help the Dem party.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

knowledge dropper
*** Official Commitment to America Plan Thread ***
2 3
Replies
143
Views
2K
The General
The General
jm192
Bernie Sanders calls for Refunds for delayed flights
Replies
46
Views
600
waiver wire
W
The Z Machine
Abortion - Where do we go from here? (Policy and politics, not law)
2 3
Replies
113
Views
2K
supermike80
supermike80

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top