What do you think of District of Columbia statehood?

[Flagg]

Fucking Wyoming has a smaller population than Washington DC and gets Congressional representation. Alaska, North Dakota, and Vermont have less than 100,000 more people than DC and get representation.

Alaska, North Dakota, and Vermont are not the capitol of the United States. Thats the key point right there.

And who the fuck cares if they were? You keep saying that as if it fucking means something. How would a tiny state with the capitol located in it have any more fucking power than any other state with 2 Senators and a Representative? The idea is fucking absurd. It might have been a valid argument 200 years ago when states held formidable power, but it's laughable on it's face now.

[Flagg]

It would also take nothing less than a constitutional amendment to modify DC's status in such a way to allow for separate legislative representation (Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution gives the Congress exclusive control over the federal seat of power). Now, I personally have no problem with the Federal District's territory being reduced to only the area containing the White House, US Capital Building and the key federal buildings surrounding it and all remaining territory being ceded back to Maryland or Virginia as appropriate. However, would these states want that territory back?

I doubt it, as it would give minorities in those states more power. Plus I doubt citizens of DC would want to suddenly be subject to Maryland or Virginia laws that they had no say in enacting.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

How the fuck would a DC State have more influence on the Federal Government than fucking California? That's easily the stupidest fucking argument I have ever heard.

They would have what, 2 Senators and 1 Representative? Oh, the power! They would have as much pull as Alaska! The horror!

It's a conflict of interest to have the federal government subjected to state laws. Australia has a Capital Territory, Malaysia does, India does, etc, etc. It's a perfectly normal thing for a modern democratic country to have. Why the big deal over this otherwise?

A constitutional amendment to allow territories to gain representatives in the house makes much more sense than turning our Capitol Slum into a state. It required a constitutional amendment to let them vote for President, and that one passed.

And remember, no-one is debating that they deserve some form of representation. We just disagree on what. And does it really matter? The idea that every subnational entity in the country needs representation in the Senate is hilarious. Canada, for instance, has extremely variable numbers of Senators per Province.

[Flagg]

How the fuck would a DC State have more influence on the Federal Government than fucking California? That's easily the stupidest fucking argument I have ever heard.

They would have what, 2 Senators and 1 Representative? Oh, the power! They would have as much pull as Alaska! The horror!

It's a conflict of interest to have the federal government subjected to state laws. Australia has a Capital Territory, Malaysia does, India does, etc, etc. It's a perfectly normal thing for a modern democratic country to have. Why the big deal over this otherwise?

How would the Federal Government be subject to state laws? There is a shitload of Federal property within various (if not every) state in the union, and the Feds have juristiction when crimes are committed there. The same would apply to all federal property in the DC state. As far as how other countries deal with their capitols, I could give a fuck.

A constitutional amendment to allow territories to gain representatives in the house makes much more sense than turning our Capitol Slum into a state. It required a constitutional amendment to let them vote for President, and that one passed.

Why just the House? Do you agree with second class citizen status depending on geographic location? Or just for people who live in the "Capitol Slum" as you so tellingly put it. Why not just make them a state and give the people who live there all the rights and privilages as every other American living in the constinental US?

And remember, no-one is debating that they deserve some form of representation. We just disagree on what. And does it really matter? The idea that every subnational entity in the country needs representation in the Senate is hilarious. Canada, for instance, has extremely variable numbers of Senators per Province.

Yes, you seem to think that giving them a lesser form of representation is acceptable. 'Seperate but Equal' was gotten rid of decades ago. What's the problem with giving them 2 Senators? If Wyoming deserves representation in the Senate, then why not DC?

I still have yet to see a single valid reason for why DC should not be allowed statehood. So far it seems to be piddling nonsense about making other states question their dick size, just not liking the idea, or what seems to me like quasi-racism.

[Vohu Manah]

Yes, you seem to think that giving them a lesser form of representation is acceptable. 'Seperate but Equal' was gotten rid of decades ago. What's the problem with giving them 2 Senators? If Wyoming deserves representation in the Senate, then why not DC?

I still have yet to see a single valid reason for why DC should not be allowed statehood. So far it seems to be piddling nonsense about making other states question their dick size, just not liking the idea, or what seems to me like quasi-racism.

I have stated it, our laws give the Congress, as a whole, supreme authority over federally held land. The District of Columbia is such a territory, and this arrangement isn't unusual when you look at other countries. Note also that I said federally held territory as this includes federal installations of all types within the states. I know you acknowledge the above already.

Assuming you didn't want to amend the constitution to allow DC greater representation without changing its status, since DC is federally-owned land carved from states you would not only need not only Congressional approval for DC to become a state but approval of Maryland or Virginia as appropriate since their territory was ceded for DC (actually, I think it is Maryland only, but still). If neither state will grant approval, your only remaining option to grant DC congressional representation would be to cede control of those territories back to the donor states.

Don't like that option? Amend the constitution. The constitution allows for ultimate authority over DC (or whatever you want to call the US Capital) to reside with the Congress and that territory had to be ceded by a state or several states. However you choose to amend the constitution to achieve your goal you're looking at a long process that requires the bulk of the country to agree that DC absolutely needs congressional representation while retaining its current status.

Why just the House? Do you agree with second class citizen status depending on geographic location? Or just for people who live in the "Capitol Slum" as you so tellingly put it. Why not just make them a state and give the people who live there all the rights and privilages as every other American living in the constinental US?

Talk to the US citizens/nationals living in Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Island, the US Virgin Islands and American Samoa. These are all territories of the US that operate under a different set of rules and have different levels of rights conferred upon them based on geographical location. They may not reside in the continental US but why limit any effort to just the mainland or one federally held territory?

While I'm thinking about it, what makes DC special to begin with? Would the city even exist or even be important enough to bother with if it weren't the US Capital (it would be part of Maryland or Virginia to begin with if it weren't the capital)? Can a resident of DC not leave the city if they desired and still remain citizens? The same can't be said of those living in some of the territories mentioned above.

[Jaepheth]

With today's technology is it really necessary for representatives to be all in the same place anymore? Why not just put DC as a regular city in an existing state, and then move the capitol to cyberspace. Then the representatives can remain at home with their constituency and have a virtual congress on the web open to the public. Like a government YouTube.

Decentralizing like that has other advantages, you don't run the risk of terrorists succeeding in hitting one target and taking out half the federal government.

[Gil Hamilton]

It's a conflict of interest to have the federal government subjected to state laws. Australia has a Capital Territory, Malaysia does, India does, etc, etc. It's a perfectly normal thing for a modern democratic country to have. Why the big deal over this otherwise?

I'm not seeing the conflict here. Subnational entities already have significant influence over the Federal Government. If DC were made a state tomorrow, the state of New York, Texas, California, or hell, Boeing or Halliburton would already have more influence over the goings on of the Federal Government.

Besides, this would give the people leaving there a pair of senators and a congressman. Other than that, I'm not sure what this actually changes for the Federal Government. It just means that the Capitol happens to be in a state, but it doesn't guarantee anything else.

People saying that it shouldn't be a state are being awfully vague on the details here. You claim it would give a state "undue influence" and be "a conflict of interest", but you aren't actually going into what that means. If their actual influence on the government would turn out to be less than your average multinational or any other state or Saudi Arabia, then I'm not seeing the huge earthshattering effects of making them a state.

[Aeolus]

It's a conflict of interest to have the federal government subjected to state laws. Australia has a Capital Territory, Malaysia does, India does, etc, etc. It's a perfectly normal thing for a modern democratic country to have. Why the big deal over this otherwise?

I'm not seeing the conflict here. Subnational entities already have significant influence over the Federal Government. If DC were made a state tomorrow, the state of New York, Texas, California, or hell, Boeing or Halliburton would already have more influence over the goings on of the Federal Government.

Besides, this would give the people leaving there a pair of senators and a congressman. Other than that, I'm not sure what this actually changes for the Federal Government. It just means that the Capitol happens to be in a state, but it doesn't guarantee anything else.

People saying that it shouldn't be a state are being awfully vague on the details here. You claim it would give a state "undue influence" and be "a conflict of interest", but you aren't actually going into what that means. If their actual influence on the government would turn out to be less than your average multinational or any other state or Saudi Arabia, then I'm not seeing the huge earthshattering effects of making them a state.

My primary dispute with the idea of DC as a state is not any actual power or leverage it would get by being both the federal capitol and a state. My issue is that have a state that is the capitol symbolically raises it above the others. I believe that is a major obstacle to it becoming a state. It symbolically turns our union of 50 states into an empire with 1 state better than the others. Yes that would not be true in fact but the appearance alone is completely offensive.
The only politically feasible way to give the people of DC proper representation is to give the land back to Maryland or to amend the constitution to give DC 2 senators. The states will not allow DC to granted statehood not because they would get votes in the senate but because they don't want one state symbolically (tho not in fact) raised above them. The fact that that is not logical is not relevant, in politics symbols matter and complaining that they shouldn't wont change that.

[Flagg]

Yes, you seem to think that giving them a lesser form of representation is acceptable. 'Seperate but Equal' was gotten rid of decades ago. What's the problem with giving them 2 Senators? If Wyoming deserves representation in the Senate, then why not DC?

I still have yet to see a single valid reason for why DC should not be allowed statehood. So far it seems to be piddling nonsense about making other states question their dick size, just not liking the idea, or what seems to me like quasi-racism.

I have stated it, our laws give the Congress, as a whole, supreme authority over federally held land. The District of Columbia is such a territory, and this arrangement isn't unusual when you look at other countries. Note also that I said federally held territory as this includes federal installations of all types within the states. I know you acknowledge the above already.

Assuming you didn't want to amend the constitution to allow DC greater representation without changing its status, since DC is federally-owned land carved from states you would not only need not only Congressional approval for DC to become a state but approval of Maryland or Virginia as appropriate since their territory was ceded for DC (actually, I think it is Maryland only, but still). If neither state will grant approval, your only remaining option to grant DC congressional representation would be to cede control of those territories back to the donor states.

Don't like that option? Amend the constitution. The constitution allows for ultimate authority over DC (or whatever you want to call the US Capital) to reside with the Congress and that territory had to be ceded by a state or several states. However you choose to amend the constitution to achieve your goal you're looking at a long process that requires the bulk of the country to agree that DC absolutely needs congressional representation while retaining its current status.

Why just the House? Do you agree with second class citizen status depending on geographic location? Or just for people who live in the "Capitol Slum" as you so tellingly put it. Why not just make them a state and give the people who live there all the rights and privilages as every other American living in the constinental US?

Talk to the US citizens/nationals living in Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Island, the US Virgin Islands and American Samoa. These are all territories of the US that operate under a different set of rules and have different levels of rights conferred upon them based on geographical location. They may not reside in the continental US but why limit any effort to just the mainland or one federally held territory?

While I'm thinking about it, what makes DC special to begin with? Would the city even exist or even be important enough to bother with if it weren't the US Capital (it would be part of Maryland or Virginia to begin with if it weren't the capital)? Can a resident of DC not leave the city if they desired and still remain citizens? The same can't be said of those living in some of the territories mentioned above.

I said reason's why it shouldn't, not obstacles to making it actually happen. And I've already stated that I think that if our terrirtorial holdings desired statehood then we should give it to them.

[Gil Hamilton]

My primary dispute with the idea of DC as a state is not any actual power or leverage it would get by being both the federal capitol and a state. My issue is that have a state that is the capitol symbolically raises it above the others. I believe that is a major obstacle to it becoming a state. It symbolically turns our union of 50 states into an empire with 1 state better than the others. Yes that would not be true in fact but the appearance alone is completely offensive.

The only politically feasible way to give the people of DC proper. representation is to give the land back to Maryland or to amend the constitution to give DC 2 senators. The states will not allow DC to granted statehood not because they would get votes in the senate but because they don't want one state symbolically (tho not in fact) raised above them. The fact that that is not logical is not relevant, in politics symbols matter and complaining that they shouldn't wont change that.

If it isn't true in fact, then it is in fact irrelevant. So far, the only reason you claim that it will elevate the status of DC is that you assert it to be true. I assert you are wrong. I could stop right there, since I've posted as much real evidence for my side as you have for yours, but that's not much fun. You haven't posted any actual evidence showing that it will give them more status or influence. You've even admitted that I'm right that it won't make much a practical difference.

Secondly, your claim that people care about it as a symbol is bullshit and it has nothing to do with the two senate seats would be created is complete bullshit. Most people couldn't care less if DC became a state tomorrow and the people who do care are Republicans who don't want two more voting Democratic senators to come into existence, which is the big practical change that would actually happen.

In other words, you've been spouting nonsense. Symbolically, it doesn't make the United States any more of an "empire" than it was before. You might want to look up what an empire is, incidently. Somehow, I don't think that it would "symbolically" (as you keep repeating) would make us any more imperial than we already are. Even if you go to the dictionary and look up "empire", you can't even really quibble that DC's statehood will make us an empire, symbolically or otherwise. Uh, symbolically.

Now in reality, there is a population larger than some states not being represented by votes in congress. That's a wee bit more important than some symbolism that you yourself had made up to try to sound like you've got a point.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Now in reality, there is a population larger than some states not being represented by votes in congress. That's a wee bit more important than some symbolism that you yourself had made up to try to sound like you've got a point.

There is a population larger than ONE state. Wyoming. Every other state has more people. Quit spinning reality.

[Gil Hamilton]

There is a population larger than ONE state. Wyoming. Every other state has more people. Quit spinning reality.

I fail to see how my statement is untrue. Besides, even so, it's population is COMPARABLE to others, such as Alaska, North and South Dakota, Delaware, and Vermont. They are all very much in the same ballpark. If they get representation, why not DC?

[Anguirus]

What I don't understand is why people with essentially no stake in the matter feel so strongly that DC should not be a state. Perhaps this is a significant obstacle...it is however a completely ARBITRARY one.

[RogueIce]

What's so bad about simply merging the rest of it back into Maryland? IIRC, the reason it's no longer a diamond is because Virginia took part of it back. So why not give the rest to Maryland and, as said before, maybe just leave the Capitol, White House, other government buildings and (maybe) the monuments as its own Federal Capital District or whatever?

So far I have heard only one real objection to that (DC residents suddenly finding themselves under Maryland law they never voted for) but at least then they'd have representation and can vote concerning Maryland law anyway. Also, I'm not too sure how the whole city legislature in DC (they have a council?) stacks up against the US Congress, other than that the Congress can pretty much take over anyway. So from my admittedly limited understanding of the situation, it's not like winding up in Maryland will be that different from the current setup, but at least now they can vote about it and have it mean something.

[Anguirus]

^ I don't know if there's anything bad about it, but it's my understanding that DC residents want to be a state, they don't want to get in touch with MD for the first time in 220-odd years.

[Darth Massacrus]

DC should not be a state. It was created as the nations capital specifically to avoid rivalry and tension amongst the various states back in the 1790s. Being home to the seat of government is a greater honor than statehood, at least as far as I'm concerned. This was realized by the founders of this nation over 200 years ago, and there isn't any reason to change it.

You mean other than the people who live there who don't have Congressional votes?

Only 535,000 people live in DC. Out of a country with 300+ million, that is an extremely small amount of people to create a state, senate seat, and congressional vote for.

[Gil Hamilton]

Only 535,000 people live in DC. Out of a country with 300+ million, that is an extremely small amount of people to create a state, senate seat, and congressional vote for.

I listed 5 states that have similar populations. If DC is too small for it, then what about Wyoming, Alaska, or any of the Dakotas?

[Anguirus]

Only 535,000 people live in DC. Out of a country with 300+ million, that is an extremely small amount of people to create a state, senate seat, and congressional vote for.

Easy for you to say, you have representation in Congress.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

How would the Federal Government be subject to state laws? There is a shitload of Federal property within various (if not every) state in the union, and the Feds have juristiction when crimes are committed there. The same would apply to all federal property in the DC state. As far as how other countries deal with their capitols, I could give a fuck.

They still have to deal with state hiring laws and so on.

Why just the House? Do you agree with second class citizen status depending on geographic location? Or just for people who live in the "Capitol Slum" as you so tellingly put it. Why not just make them a state and give the people who live there all the rights and privilages as every other American living in the constinental US?

Yes, you seem to think that giving them a lesser form of representation is acceptable. 'Seperate but Equal' was gotten rid of decades ago. What's the problem with giving them 2 Senators? If Wyoming deserves representation in the Senate, then why not DC?

I still have yet to see a single valid reason for why DC should not be allowed statehood. So far it seems to be piddling nonsense about making other states question their dick size, just not liking the idea, or what seems to me like quasi-racism.

No, you dumbass, it's about the fact that Senators don't represent people, they explicitly exist to represent the interests of states. People don't deserve to have Senators; that's what the goddamned House of Representatives is for. You simply don't understand the government of the United States and why we have two chambers in the first place.

[Flagg]

Right, that's why state legislatures still elect Senators.

Oh wait, they don't do that anymore, do they?

Newsflash: It's no longer the 19th century, no matter how much you want it to be.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Right, that's why state legislatures still elect Senators.

Oh wait, they don't do that anymore, do they?

Newsflash: It's no longer the 19th century, no matter how much you want it to be.

They're still elected by state, however, which results in major disproportionate representation in the Senate. Unless you think that California and Wyoming both having two Senators is fair? People in Wyoming are, according to your ludicrous assertions "worth more" than people in California, because 250,000 of them have a Senator whereas only every 15 million Californians have a Senator. So it's clear that the Senate, regardless of how Senators are elected, is intentionally designed to provide population-disproportionate representation for the purpose of making the voices of the states be heard as individual, distinct units.

[Gil Hamilton]

They're still elected by state, however, which results in major disproportionate representation in the Senate. Unless you think that California and Wyoming both having two Senators is fair? People in Wyoming are, according to your ludicrous assertions "worth more" than people in California, because 250,000 of them have a Senator whereas only every 15 million Californians have a Senator. So it's clear that the Senate, regardless of how Senators are elected, is intentionally designed to provide population-disproportionate representation for the purpose of making the voices of the states be heard as individual, distinct units.

Actually, I recall the bicameral system was a compromise because when they were originally setting up congress, states which had a small population (er, small free white land owning population) wanted the entire system to be population disproportionate, because they were afraid they'd get less representation under the system that the bigger states population-wise, which was to make representation based on population. So they made two houses. The House, which represents populations within the state (hence congressional districts), and the Senators, which represent the population of the entire state irregardless of the amount of people in it. That way, the entire population of the state has equal representation in the government, while conceding that some states have alot more people in them.

And Flagg is right. It's not the 19th Century anymore. We elect Senators now. I guarantee it. I voted for some recently. The Commonwealth Government of the State of Pennsylvania or any part of the state legislator didn't kick Rick Santorum to the curb and elect Bob Casey, the people of Pennsylvania did.

This is, however, somewhat irrelevant, since if Washington D.C. were to become a state, it would STILL need two senators to represent it (population or the state itself) the Senate.

[Flagg]

Right, that's why state legislatures still elect Senators.

Oh wait, they don't do that anymore, do they?

Newsflash: It's no longer the 19th century, no matter how much you want it to be.

They're still elected by state, however, which results in major disproportionate representation in the Senate. Unless you think that California and Wyoming both having two Senators is fair? People in Wyoming are, according to your ludicrous assertions "worth more" than people in California, because 250,000 of them have a Senator whereas only every 15 million Californians have a Senator. So it's clear that the Senate, regardless of how Senators are elected, is intentionally designed to provide population-disproportionate representation for the purpose of making the voices of the states be heard as individual, distinct units.

No, they are elected by the people of that state. The entire population of the state elects its Senators. They represent the people of their respective states, not the legislatures. You can thank the 17th Amendment for that.

And while Wyoming may have disproportionate respresentation in the Senate, that is balanced by the fact that they only get 1 Representative. Because there are 2 Houses of Congress just for that reason.

Congratulations, you're an idiot.

[CaptainChewbacca]

So then, give DC a voting congressional representative to represent its' people, but no senators because it isn't a state.

[Flagg]

So then, give DC a voting congressional representative to represent its' people, but no senators because it isn't a state.

And why shouldn't it be a state, you stupid cunt? Because you don't like the idea?