Why? What logical, efficient purpose does that serve?
And don't tell me "because the Constitution says so", since I don't give a frog's fat ass WHAT the fucking Constitution says. Give a real, practical reason, which applies today.
DC statehood referendum passes
- Thread starter B.J.
- Start date
Why? What logical, efficient purpose does that serve?
And don't tell me "because the Constitution says so", since I don't give a frog's fat ass WHAT the fucking Constitution says. Give a real, practical reason, which applies today.
Because I'd like it that way. It'd be interesting. It is good for things to be interesting. Sometimes. But this would be one of the good ones. Trust me.
Okay. Because *I* say so.
You should - you wouldn't be alive if it had never been written.
No, and you can't make me.
A little more involved than that: while New York said that Vermont was part of it, New Hampshire claimed that Vermont was part of it. And the way the people of Vermont resolved the controversy was by declaring independence from both. That's why it didn't join the union until 2 years after the rest of the original colonies, because it had been declaring its own independent sovereignty as a result of that disagreement between New York and New Hampshire from 1777 up until 1791.
Okay, but, question: why not? I lived in DC for three years, and I still have no idea why Maryland and Virginia wouldn't want to take their parts of the district. Granted, historically, DC residents were mostly black and poor, so I can understand why their racist (or at the very least unenlightened) neighbors wouldn't want them at the time. But the city is now fairly robust economically (well, most of it, at least) and increasingly diverse, and if the concern is still "we don't want the social burden of all those poor blacks", surely they could be pressured into taking them anyway, as that sort of argument can't be publicly made even in the age Biff Trumpen.
I would happily vote for DC statehood, but I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future, due mainly to the Senate question. Seems to me that Washingtonians can either continue decrying the status quo to no effect, or make a far more plausible effort to join their VA and MD neighbors.
No, actually, they can't.
"Hey Maryland and Virginia, y'all want to take your respective portions of DC back?"
"Nah."
"So much for that idea. Might as well become a state."
"Nah."
"So much for that idea. Might as well become a state."
Forcibly giving another state territory? Interesting. I wonder how would this work for countries, too.
Put a bow on it and leave it under the tree.
For the record, I'm in favor of DC statehood.
Virginia took back its portion of the District -- Alexandria -- in the 1840s. So there's nothing for Virginia to take back now. Virginia didn't really want Alexandria back, but the District also didn't really want it, and Alexandria was actually in a weird political limbo for a few years.
The problem with retrocission to Maryland now is that it would increase the Democrats power in the state. Republicans already feel like they don't have a lot of sway in Annapolis now due to the heavily Democratic populations of Montgomery, Prince George, Anne Arundel, and Baltimore City. Add the population of the District (which is overwhelmingly Democratic) to that, and the Eastern Shore and Carroll west to Garrett -- which are overwhelmingly Republican but not as populous as the I-95 core -- will be effectively disenfranchised for at least a generation.
Retrocission may be the easiest way for the District to have a representative voice at the federal level, but it's as much of a political non-starter as statehood will be, imho.
Virginia took back its portion of the District -- Alexandria -- in the 1840s. So there's nothing for Virginia to take back now. Virginia didn't really want Alexandria back, but the District also didn't really want it, and Alexandria was actually in a weird political limbo for a few years.
The problem with retrocission to Maryland now is that it would increase the Democrats power in the state. Republicans already feel like they don't have a lot of sway in Annapolis now due to the heavily Democratic populations of Montgomery, Prince George, Anne Arundel, and Baltimore City. Add the population of the District (which is overwhelmingly Democratic) to that, and the Eastern Shore and Carroll west to Garrett -- which are overwhelmingly Republican but not as populous as the I-95 core -- will be effectively disenfranchised for at least a generation.
Retrocission may be the easiest way for the District to have a representative voice at the federal level, but it's as much of a political non-starter as statehood will be, imho.
I have no doubt you didn't mean it this way, but granting a lot of black Americans an equal vote ≠ disenfranchising suburban white Republicans.
Anyhow, thanks for your honest and informed answer. Though I still think retrocession to Maryland is far more likely than statehood, because the political stakes are so much lower, nationally speaking. (And if Maryland's legislature is solidly Democratic already, all the more so.)
I certainly didn't mean that the Eastern Shore and the panhandle will have their vote taken away, no. Reading it again, I can see how it reads that way. In the event of retrocession, Republicans will certainly continue to have the vote. But the Republicans would feel as though their votes no longer matter because of the influx of Democratic voters that adding DC to Maryland would bring about. Right now, Republicans have an outside shot at statewide races; the current governor, Larry Hogan, is a Republican. But it's an uphill climb for them because the numbers don't favor them. Adding DC's population to the mix puts statewide races out of reach for them. Though I'm sure some Republicans would scream in that scenario, "We're being disenfranchised and oppressed by Washington!"
I agree, retrocession is likelier as it's the scenario that Republicans on the national stage would be likelier to allow happen. I personally favor statehood for DC (and Puerto Rico if they want it) because I think that's the right thing to do, but I recognize that this is something where "right" doesn't mean a thing.
Virginia: "We did take back our portion, on March 13, 1847, it was in all the newspapers."
Given that the District of Columbia has a median household income at around $75,600, which is $6,300 above Maryland and nearly $20,000 above the US average, I wonder why they don't want it? Especially if the non-residential sections of DC aren't part of the deal.
Last edited:
I'm not a constitutional scholar or anything that approaches being the smartest guy in the room, but it seems to me that it would take an amendment to the Constitution before DC could become a state.
DC was designed as a federal district, separate from the states and territories, designed to encompass the capital city. In effect, the entire Congress is the District's representation in the federal government.
The DIstrict does have a representative at large, able to sit on committees, but lacks a vote on the House floor. The only reason I can see for the push for statehood is to add two new seats in the Senate. If that is the case, I have to question the motivation.
Again, I'm no scholar. But when there is a constitutional question I always look for original intent.
DC was designed as a federal district, separate from the states and territories, designed to encompass the capital city. In effect, the entire Congress is the District's representation in the federal government.
The DIstrict does have a representative at large, able to sit on committees, but lacks a vote on the House floor. The only reason I can see for the push for statehood is to add two new seats in the Senate. If that is the case, I have to question the motivation.
Again, I'm no scholar. But when there is a constitutional question I always look for original intent.
Surely the motivation for statehood is so that the residents of DC can have a say in how the country is run. The case against seems to be that it would favour the Democratic party in terms of number of seats, which is a poor argument. Isn't the population of DC as high as some states?
Times change, just because something worked 240 or so years ago when the US constitution was drafted doesn't mean it works today. The US constitution has grown over time to include new ammendments so a mecahnism was put into place to ammend it should the need arise.
But would it require a constitutional amendment? That seems to me to be the big question.
Regardless of political motivation, making a single city into a state, which it was never intended to be, seems like something that needs smarter people than me to decide.
Prohibition seemed like a good idea at the time ...
The Vatician is a city State, so why can DC be a state of the USA. Though if the people of DC want to be their own state why shouldn't they be one. Sure some might argue that it could start similar ovements for cities in other states pr regions of other states to try and become new states but the key difference is that DC residents do not have representives who have voting rights in Congress.
So perhaps the "smart people" should be saying why in 2016, DC residents don't deserve representives with voting rights. I suspect it has little to do with constitutional matters as the US constittuion can be ammended and more to do with it might favour one political party over the other.
So perhaps the "smart people" should be saying why in 2016, DC residents don't deserve representives with voting rights. I suspect it has little to do with constitutional matters as the US constittuion can be ammended and more to do with it might favour one political party over the other.
Don't get all lathered up, sheesh.
Other cities could not petition for statehood because they are part of existing states.
The district was designed to be a separate entity from the rest of the country. DC has a representative, just not a vote on the House floor. That rep is able to participate, and presumably vote, in committees, and lobby the entire House on behalf of DC. The district is represented by the whole of Congress. Adding a voting seat to the House wouldn't make much difference either way. But adding two seats to the Senate might, maybe. But DC already has three electoral votes, so the outcome is negligible.
The cost of seating a governor and legislature would likely necessitate a huge increase in taxes, since the thirteen seat council headed by a mayor would probably no longer be sufficient to govern a new state. Taking the federal government out of the equation would probably mean the creation of new bureaucracies which would also need to be funded. The impact would be hardest on the least able to handle such an increase, as always happens with new and higher taxation. With a population of only about 900K, the demands would soon exceed the ability of the citizenry to pay.
There would be new jobs for professional politicians and bureaucrats, though. A government paycheck and the pension they always seem to build into it would attract those who had worn out their welcome in Congress and public-funded agencies. Most of those types already live in DC anyway, so it's no big adjustment.
I could go on and on, but I'm sure no one really wants to hear about the down side.
I'll end with this opinion and be on my way: If DC were to ever become a state, the citizens would get much more than they bargained for, and not in a good way.
There may well be increased costs, taxes, etc. if DC becomes a state. But all of that is absolutely justified by the simple fact that DC residents deserve a vote in Congress - they deserve a chance to control their own destiny. And the equally simple fact that statehood is the easiest and most efficient way to achieve this.
As it stands, people who live in DC can vote for President (since DC has electors), but not anything else. In all other matters, people who live in DC have no say in anything at all. What little government exists in DC is essentially powerless - they exist purely at the whim of the feds. DC's sole representative in Congress has no power to vote - no power to do anything at all, really. You're not seriously telling us this is a good thing, are you?
There is, in the most literal sense, NO reason why DC should not become a state, and do it fast. Yeah, yeah, I know there's political reasons why it's unlikely to actually happen, but I don't care.
As it stands, people who live in DC can vote for President (since DC has electors), but not anything else. In all other matters, people who live in DC have no say in anything at all. What little government exists in DC is essentially powerless - they exist purely at the whim of the feds. DC's sole representative in Congress has no power to vote - no power to do anything at all, really. You're not seriously telling us this is a good thing, are you?
There is, in the most literal sense, NO reason why DC should not become a state, and do it fast. Yeah, yeah, I know there's political reasons why it's unlikely to actually happen, but I don't care.
Last edited:
Except for that little thing, that Constitutional thing, that would have to be dealt with first.
One thing that people these days forget, or ignore (and maybe in days past--I can't say because I wasn't alive then), is that our legislative process was designed to move slowly. A snail's pace, if said snail was on heavy medication. It's a system designed to move so slowly that changes brought up on a whim would be discussed and argued into oblivion.
The reason for DC's existence as separate from the states needs to be studied and understood, and knee-jerk demands set aside.