Should Washington DC be a state?

[Brian]

While reading up on it, I saw this:

Opponents of D.C. voting rights propose that the Founding Fathers never intended for District residents to have a vote in Congress since the Constitution makes clear that representation must come from the states. Those opposed to making D.C. a state claim that such a move would destroy the notion of a separate national capital and that statehood would unfairly grant Senate representation to a single city.

That's a good point. So no, DC should not be a state. Absorbed into another state? Perhaps.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

While reading up on it, I saw this:

Opponents of D.C. voting rights propose that the Founding Fathers never intended for District residents to have a vote in Congress since the Constitution makes clear that representation must come from the states. Those opposed to making D.C. a state claim that such a move would destroy the notion of a separate national capital and that statehood would unfairly grant Senate representation to a single city.

That's a good point. So no, DC should not be a state. Absorbed into another state? Perhaps.

Or take Alidar's suggestion and give it some representation but not make it a state. While I think two Senators would be overkill, maybe give them one. This would pretty much eliminate the Vice President's only real responsibility, too.

 

[DarthTom]

The District of Colombia meets all the requirements to be a state, then have proper representation and give the residents the right to vote.

What do you think and why?

The Constitution is very clear about this. So Virginia and Delaware would have to consent to begin with. I just don't see a big movement outside of D.C. to do this. Is there one?

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

 

[Scout101]

Or why not just let DC residents vote in Maryland for any Federal issues (or vote in DC, but count towards Maryland)? Can't be part of local Maryland votes, but DC would get their own ballot issues for that. Just for the Federal questions, they'd get lumped in with Maryland's numbers...

 

[Finn]

If you look at the BLS figures, the DC labor force is 334,700 workers, and 246,700 of them work in government--almost 74%.

Does those numbers include contractor workers (I used to work at National Institutes of Health in nearby Bethesda, MD and a lot of employees there were contractors including myself), teachers, library employees and on-call workers (for a variety of specialities) and other workers like that?

Those people usually don't see themselves as working for the government, especially if they don't work in areas that are directly connected to the main government agencies/offices. I most certainly didn't.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

If you look at the BLS figures, the DC labor force is 334,700 workers, and 246,700 of them work in government--almost 74%.

Does those numbers include contractor workers (I used to work at National Institutes of Health in nearby Bethesda, MD and a lot of employees there were contractors including myself), teachers, library employees and on-call workers (for a variety of specialities) and other workers like that?

Those people usually don't see themselves as working for the government, especially if they don't work in areas that are directly connected to the main government agencies/offices. I most certainly didn't.

Education is a separate category, so I don't think it would include teachers. As for whether it includes contractors, I would think so, as long as they are working full-time hours within the survey period.

 

[suarezguy]

Absorbing it, or most of it, into Maryland would seem better. Such a small area having both a governor and mayor, or both city government and state government would be overly redundant and having a state without different cities would make it too different from other states.

 

[DarthTom]

Absorbing it, or most of it, into Maryland would seem better. Such a small area having both a governor and mayor, or both city government and state government would be overly redundant and having a state without different cities would make it too different from other states.

D.C. should be careful what it wishes for with regard to statehood regardless. They get virtually a blank check from the Federal Government [all us taxpayers]. I doubt the good people of Maryland would be as generous.

Also, all of the traditional things that states are responsible for financially e.g. roads, police, fire protection etc. is problem some in their unique position.

It seems to me that D.C. wants to eat it's proverbial cake and have it too.

 

[captcalhoun]

Britain has 4

BZZT! wrong. Britain is made up of THREE countries possessing 101 counties which are the closest analogues to US states. northern ireland is part of the UK, not Britain and has another 6 counties, but they're historical remnants.

 

[Myasishchev]

make it a state. and Puerto Rico. and Jefferson, Superior and Cascadia. you've had 50 for too long, you need more states.

This is actually sort of a dumb question that merits little real concern, but I wonder if the U.S. is the country with the greatest number of territorial subunits? Britain has 4, India has 35 (counting union territories, which I don't fully understand the function of*), China 22. France has 101 departments, but as I (vaguely) grasp French political structure, the regions are more analogous to American states, if anything is.

Russia is made up of 83 federal subjects (46 oblasts, 21 republics, 9 krais, 4 autonomous okrugs, 2 federal cities, 1 autonomous oblast), all of which have two senators each in the Federation Council.

Huh. I thought Russia had tons fewer.

We must close the federal subjects gap! Annex Canada!

 

[RJDiogenes]

Personally, I do think we need to figure out what we're doing with the insular territories as well. The days where we needed random territories for naval bases are over. They should be on a path towards statehood or a path towards independence.

I favor Statehood for all. I worry about how they would fare as independent nations. In reality, Puerto Rico is the only one likely to be a State any time in the near future.

I don't see even something like this being passed any time soon, though.

No, nor Statehood. Too much inertia (and apathy) and it would probably require an Amendment in addition to the blessing of Maryland and Virginia. And there would be opposition from both Republicans and Constitutional purists.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Or take Alidar's suggestion and give it some representation but not make it a state. While I think two Senators would be overkill, maybe give them one. This would pretty much eliminate the Vice President's only real responsibility, too.

The Senate isn't a democratic institution, so I could see fair suffrage for DC residents being possible even if the District isn't given any Senators. The fact that they have no voice over the Senate membership would be a problem, though. With the consent of Maryland, I could see some kind of arrangement where, for purposes of Federal elections, DCers get to vote in Maryland Senate races. It's actually not unprecedented. When the District was created, but before some other point (I can't remember), arrangements were made to allow the newly annexed Georgetown and Alexandria to vote in Maryland and Virginia, respectively, for elections.

This doesn't address the issue of home rule, which I feel is the greater motivation for statehood. Although, I suppose, based on the letter of the Constitution, statehood would not require an amendment either. It would just require lots of formulaic moves. Also, absent an amendment, it would give anyone living within the remaining "District" 3 electoral votes for President (even if there was only one person's house left).

 

[Gaith]

Opponents of D.C. voting rights propose that the Founding Fathers never intended for District residents to have a vote in Congress since the Constitution makes clear that representation must come from the states. Those opposed to making D.C. a state claim that such a move would destroy the notion of a separate national capital and that statehood would unfairly grant Senate representation to a single city.

That's a good point.

Here's another, equally good one: the Founding Fathers never intended for gays to use the Internet, so let's put a special tax on traffic to Lady Gaga's web site. Anything less is pissing on James Madison's grave.

 

[Squiggy]

While reading up on it, I saw this:

Opponents of D.C. voting rights propose that the Founding Fathers never intended for District residents to have a vote in Congress since the Constitution makes clear that representation must come from the states. Those opposed to making D.C. a state claim that such a move would destroy the notion of a separate national capital and that statehood would unfairly grant Senate representation to a single city.

That's a good point. So no, DC should not be a state. Absorbed into another state? Perhaps.

The founding fathers also didn't intend for people to own firearms that fire a round a second or women voting.

They weren't gods. They made the documents they wrote to be amended if...gasp...things changed from how they were in the late 1700s.

Saying we shouldn't do something because the founder didn't intend it is retarded, insulting, and a cop out.

 

[Trekker4747]

The Founding Fathers didn't intend for you to say any of that across an intercontinental network of interconnected computational devices.

 

[bluedana]

The United States is not a democracy. It's a republic.

OMG, I love you.

 

[Myasishchev]

The founding fathers also didn't intend for people to own firearms that fire a round a second or women voting.

Quite the opposite. The founders of the United States intended for the people to possess firepower capable of challenging an organized government in the event of tyranny.

This is why the 2d Amendment, fairly read, gives me the right to own anti-tank missiles.

 

[Finn]

Saying we shouldn't do something because the founder didn't intend it is retarded, insulting, and a cop out.

True, especially since the opinions and desires of the founding fathers varied greatly. I don't get how some people seem to think that all of them were on the same page and wavelength and were happy when they finished the constitution on that hot and muggy day.

 

[Finn]

The founding fathers also didn't intend for people to own firearms that fire a round a second or women voting.

Quite the opposite. The founders of the United States intended for the people to possess firepower capable of challenging an organized government in the event of tyranny.

This is why the 2d Amendment, fairly read, gives me the right to own anti-tank missiles.

I think you are missing his point.

 

[Myasishchev]

I like my anti-tank missile joke.