Should Washington DC be a state?

[Trekker4747]

No, but we should concentrate on those already hotspots before adding a state that will just have the same problems.

You realize that states are responsible for their own crimes and if D.C. were made its own state pretty much nothing would change on the front of crime rates.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

My lack of knowledge of geopolitics being what it is, I must ask: does any other nation on Earth have a setup like D.C.? Meaning, their capital city is set apart from the rest of the country?

And I must confess, if this isn't necessary for the individual states in the US - meaning, a state's capitol is still part of that state, and not separate from it - then why do it for DC?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

My lack of knowledge of geopolitics being what it is, I must ask: does any other nation on Earth have a setup like D.C.? Meaning, their capital city is set apart from the rest of the country?

And I must confess, if this isn't necessary for the individual states in the US - meaning, a state's capitol is still part of that state, and not separate from it - then why do it for DC?

Australia's capital is a territory and is constitutionally forbidden from being a state.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Is there any debate down there to change that status, as there is for DC statehood here? Do Aussies who live in that territory suffer from the same disenfranchisement as DC natives do?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Read up, bro.

The short answer is: yes, there is a push for it, but not to the same extent as here.

 

[KJbushway]

It was intended to be run by the Congress which resides there.

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.

Yeah, who would guess that we the people elect these congress men and woman, would get screwed in the end because we have to follow their own whims, not their campaign promises.

 

[Lindley]

That's not the point.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

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.

Yeah, who would guess that we the people elect these congress men and woman, would get screwed in the end because we have to follow their own whims, not their campaign promises.

Lindley is right, and also:

 

[KJbushway]

I know Lindley was right, that was a side note.

 

[sojourner]

No, that was a non sequitur.

 

[KJbushway]

Ah now I get the comic's title in my newspaper.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Ah now I get the comic's title in my newspaper.

 

[KJbushway]

What?

 

[RJDiogenes]

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.

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.

Well, that was their intent. That's why they gave us the ability to update the document they created. However, the Founding Fathers were an amazing group of people who we were lucky to have-- I don't think they should be dismissed so lightly.

It was intended to be run by the Congress which resides there.

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.

Not really an oversight; they just didn't foresee what Washington would become. The Federal government was of less importance in those days and I think they saw it as more of a home-away-from-home for people. But the country has changed dramatically and it's now appropriate for the permanent residents to have the same rights and representation as everyone else.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

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?

Sorry, I actually learned history at a more advanced level than grade school, so I know this isn't true. They intended the Constitution to not be blatantly ignored (although they did blatantly ignore the Articles of Confederation, so they recognized the right of revolution could trump the Constitution), but they did not intend an unthinking devotion to their intent. Jefferson called it an almost religious devotion that he thought was ridiculous. They anticipated the Constitution would be amended every few years with periodic conventions as well. They'd actually be shocked at how little the document has changed, rather than how much.

 

[KJbushway]

True, but they would they would be pissed in how much religion is in government. Things like our pledge, they would not like.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

True, but they would they would be pissed in how much religion is in government. Things like our pledge, they would not like.

They also wouldn't like women, blacks, and non-landowners being able to vote.

 

[KJbushway]

Yeah. I think that people like Washington and Jefferson would be more open to the black thing though. They really loved their slaves^.

 

[Admiral Shran]

The way I see it, if that's what the people of D.C. want, more power to them. I mean, hell, there's more people in Washington D.C. than in Wyoming.

 

[marksound]

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?

Sorry, I actually learned history at a more advanced level than grade school, so I know this isn't true. They intended the Constitution to not be blatantly ignored (although they did blatantly ignore the Articles of Confederation, so they recognized the right of revolution could trump the Constitution), but they did not intend an unthinking devotion to their intent. Jefferson called it an almost religious devotion that he thought was ridiculous. They anticipated the Constitution would be amended every few years with periodic conventions as well. They'd actually be shocked at how little the document has changed, rather than how much.

Ooh, an advanced level.

So, explain the purpose of having DC as a separate district, rather than a state or part of another state.

I know the answer. Do you, Mr. Smarty Pants?