How about this one. The Founding Fathers didn't intend future generations to be bound by their intent.
Should Washington DC be a state?
- Thread starter Tom Hendricks
- Start date
How about this one. The Founding Fathers didn't intend future generations to be bound by their intent.
So then, should every city at least DC's size get representation in the Senate equal to a state?
If they're not already represented by a Senator, has a republican form of government, and wants it...then yes.
As of now that only applies to the District of Columbia.
The hell you say! It's amazing how many people miss this. Want to know the Founders' intent? They intended for us not to give a shit about their intent!
That's not entirely true. They intended us to be bound by their intent as outlined in the Preamble-- but not by the details outlined in the rest of the Document.
So it's ok to leave people disenfranchised because the Constitution says so?
So it's ok to leave people disenfranchised because the Constitution says so?
No. It's just that in order for D.C. to get statehood it's going to be a tough paddle up river IMO. And as someone said up thread, an easier work around to the problem is to incorporate the voting population of the city into Maryland where they would be represented.
You live in a country where a country is inside a country [The Vatican] so I'm sure you're well aware of some of the challenges this unique situation involves.
You are correct in that the Preamble is meant to be used as a lens for interpreting the rest of the text. People just shouldn't worry about any intent of the Founders not found in the text. If they didn't put it in there, they didn't want us to be bound by it, so let's grow up and take some responsibility for ourselves and stop worrying about whether a bunch of guys who have been dead for 200 years would be upset with us.
Why not? New Jersey is a state.
What does the area's crime rate have to do with anything?! Is there a law or rule somewhere that says a "state" has to have a certain crime-rate? Should we disenfranchise Detroit?
I wanted to act all offended but really, it's true.i think we'll take that under advisement...
(that means 'we'll ignore you politely')
(that means 'we'll ignore you politely')
That's all confined to a small corner of the city, though. Most of it is pretty safe.
The obvious solution is to give statehood to the good part of the city, and sink the bad part into the sea. As a bonus, some new waterfront property would open up. Anyone got Lex Luthor's number?
DC was intended to be the seat of the federal government, not a state. It was intended to be run by the Congress which resides there. DC does not meet the requirements for statehood because it is a district of the federal government.
And yes, the founders intended for their intent to be respected, and for the Constitution to be obeyed--or changed by Constitutional means.
Didn't they teach you people this stuff in grade school?
And yes, the founders intended for their intent to be respected, and for the Constitution to be obeyed--or changed by Constitutional means.
Didn't they teach you people this stuff in grade school?
Making it the only part of the US where the residents have zero control over the choice of their leaders?
Indeed. The Founders were smart but hardly perfect. I think this was an unintentional oversight on their part. I find it hard to believe they would purposely leave a portion of the nation's citizens completely unrepresented in Congress yet subject to the direct whims of said Congress.
Similar threads
