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?
What do you think and why?
Should Washington DC be a state?
- Thread starter Tom Hendricks
- Start date
Yes, they should be a state. Their lack of representation in Congress gives DC natives virtually no say in how our government is run, and that goes against the very nature of democracy.
Yea, because, well, it's pretty obvious even for a furriner like me. Make it a state, or incorporate it into Maryland, what is better. Having more than 500,000 people without proper representation in Congress is pretty bad if you ask me.
The DC made sense when the US were the "united States", a federal collection of more-or-less sovereign colony-states, so that Maryland would not bully New York or Georgia around, but nowadays it's pretty silly.
If it's important for some reason, keep the WH, Capitol, and other federal buildings as extraterritorial entities in a new, severely reduced D.C. without actual residents.
The DC made sense when the US were the "united States", a federal collection of more-or-less sovereign colony-states, so that Maryland would not bully New York or Georgia around, but nowadays it's pretty silly.
If it's important for some reason, keep the WH, Capitol, and other federal buildings as extraterritorial entities in a new, severely reduced D.C. without actual residents.
I can see the arguments for it not being a state, or for it not being a city in another state, but its citizens should have proper representation in the government being, you know, American citizens and everything. I'd also say that chunk out of it's corner should be put back.
I know DCers themselves don't like my compromise position, which is essentially that it shouldn't be a state, but should have representation. In addition, home rule should be codified to include most powers of a state. The only difference is a recognition that it's the seat of government so Congressional ensuring effective government operation in DC (and limited only to that purpose) would still be allowed. Bullshit like adding riders to the DC budget to prevent abortion funding should not be allowed to happen.
Unfortunately, I don't think even that concession is enough to gain the support for a Constitutional amendment, which is a shame. The fact that so many American citizens are disenfranchised is a crying shame.
Unfortunately, I don't think even that concession is enough to gain the support for a Constitutional amendment, which is a shame. The fact that so many American citizens are disenfranchised is a crying shame.
Why *shouldn't* DC be a state?
Then perhaps the US Virgin Islands should also be a state.
The least crappy argument I've heard is that statehood carries with it a certain legal sovereignty that could theoretically allow it to harm the effectiveness of the national government if their interests contrasted. Things like toll roads that lead to the nation's capital would be one. There's also the idea that, since DC is essentially the face of the nation, Congressmen will always take an interest in ensuring its face is one they want presented. This creates an almost dual interest where a Congressman would favor their home state and an entirely different state (while, if they favored their home state and our nation's capital, that would be symbolically different).
Most of this is abstract and probably wouldn't have practical significance. Most of the other ideas are even more abstract and strike me as being completely without merit. 9/10 of all reasons are cover for "we don't want to give democrats more votes," which is an unacceptable reason, of course, but is still practical roadblock to a Constitutional amendment.
Probably the easiest alternative would be shrinking DC to contain only the land on which the actual apparatus of government is located - and give the rest to Maryland.
Why does DC have permanent residents, anyway? That seems to run counter to the reason it exists in the first place...
Why does DC have permanent residents, anyway? That seems to run counter to the reason it exists in the first place...
^ There is already a 51-star flag ready for use in case DC ever achieves statehood.
Maryland has no interest in absorbing such a large metropolitan area into its state.
Keeping the capital limited to the mall, museums, and major government buildings would not actually address the issues I mentioned. Granted, they are minor issues, but still.
DC has permanent residents because of two reasons.
1. Congress took advantage of claiming the entire territory it was allowed to take for the District just in case (although they gave half back).
2. The government allows for significant economic opportunity that encourages people to settle in the area (if DC were a state, it would be the most dependent on the government of any state).
I suspect that'd be a bit more complex process and that there's reason why the Virgin Islands aren't states probably the same ones on why Puerto Rico isn't a state yet.
As I said I can understand the arguments against not making DC a state, namely that it's not another piece of the Union it is the union. We're "supposed to be" a nation of independently operating countries (or "states") that work together for a collective goal and under the vague guidelines of one government, that government being in Washington D.C.
D.C. isn't a state because if it was one then it's also be another one of these "independent countries" that also has the power to rule over all of the others so it being a state wouldn't make a lot of sense as it'd be a state with power over all of the other states, which goes against the "idea" behind what's supposed to happen in this country.
Now, again, I understand the frustration Washington D.C.-ians have over not having proper representation in the national government which includes -IIRC- them being taxed without proper representation (which goes against the very thing that started this country in the first place.) So while I don't think Washington D.C. should be a state and should rather remain this vague district that has power over the entire land while also not technically existing in any one particular place it's citizenry should have proper representation in the House and Senate just as everyone else does.
In an argument against throwing D.C. into an already existing state that'd get rid of the "independence" D.C. has by not being in a state it'd have to fall under the laws and rules of whatever state it goes to which I'm sure would cause any manner of problems. For example, D.C. has pretty much an absolute restriction on guns, one that you could argue violates the Second Amendment, but it gets away with it because it's "not a state" if it was part of another state that little bit of independence it has goes away and it falls into whatever power(s) that state has.
No, IMHO, it's best for DC to stay what it is, whatever that is, but still give its citizens proper representation.
One question I don't think I've ever seen addressed is: does D.C. have enough to support itself as a state, assuming the U.S. government retains the ownership (and revenues thereof) of the monuments in the city? D.C. is less than 75 square miles in area. Does it have a viable economic base, or is it basically a stunted economy, with tourism being its only product? When I was a kid, there was a motion to turn New York City into the 51st state. A lot of the criticism of that idea was that the city simply wasn't big enough to go it on its own. NYC is roughly four times the size of D.C., with over ten times the population. If it, as a city, couldn't make it as its own state, can D.C.?
Similar threads
