Should Washington DC be a state?
- Thread starter Tom Hendricks
- Start date
^^ Jefferson began his political career trying to abolish slavery. His legal career was spent defending runaway slaves.
They may (or may not ) have been surprised, but I wouldn't say they wouldn't like it. I think most of the Founders would be happy with the advances in Civil Rights that we've made.
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?
The purpose was to keep it independent so Congressmen, who would naturally spend a good portion of their days in the capital, would not become loyal to a different state instead of their own. By having it as a District, they wouldn't have this conflict of interest. Even the Federalists accepted that it's good to have representatives from their districts who would be still connected enough to know of their issues and attempt to resolve them. So, you're right, they did not intend DC to be a State.
Now explain the purpose of Article V of the US Constitution. I know the answer, do you?
I'm not a scholar, but I'd say it's to keep the President from making changes that would allow him to consolidate power in the executive branch.
It's the entire mechanism for changing the Constitution. It's how we have suffrage for women, income tax, electors for people in DC, and why slavery is illegal.
It has nothing to do with Congress' power vs. the President's power (it's indirectly there, but really a minor part). It's how the Constitution has changed over the years - even when it goes against the founders' intent.
It has nothing to do with Congress' power vs. the President's power (it's indirectly there, but really a minor part). It's how the Constitution has changed over the years - even when it goes against the founders' intent.
I said nothing of it being Congress versus the President.
I thought you were aiming more towards the philosophical than the mechanics of it. After all, these were all men who came from a system where power pretty much ran through one person.
As I recall the Founding Fathers expected slavery to end at some point while also understanding they were currently a "necessary evil" for their particular world to work. They had to appease people in order to get support for the new government and country they were founding and if the slaves were freed over night that'd likely have quite the impact on crop production. So, yeah, they owned slaves (and I can make no claims on how those slaves were treated) but it was just the time they were in it wasn't practical to not have slaves, so it was expected -in my understanding- that down the road slavery would come to a natural end when the citizens demanded it and forced it to happen.
This. You can't change the world overnight.
Not every founder expected it to end, but the overwhelming majority did think it was something embarrassing that would probably end. This included all the important ones (including Southerners like Madison). But there were no die hard abolitionists at the Convention either, so most didn't think it was worth preventing a deal over.
The Philosophy behind it was a realization that they were all fallible men who were not making a perfect document. They expected it to change and didn't want future generations to be tied to their document if it didn't suit their needs. I hate giving away my answer, since I'm talking to someone opposite DC statehood for the very reason of Founder intent, but there you go.
If you look at the debates at the Philadelphia Convention, the issues aren't about the scope of executive authority. It's about how easy it should be to change and how to prevent populous states from imposing changes that would destroy the rights of other states (the two biggest issues were banning the Slave Trade, which they compromised by allowing after 1808, and essentially abolishing one state-one vote in the Senate, which is never allowed by amendment).
I thought you were aiming more towards the philosophical than the mechanics of it. After all, these were all men who came from a system where power pretty much ran through one person.
The Philosophy behind it was a realization that they were all fallible men who were not making a perfect document. They expected it to change and didn't want future generations to be tied to their document if it didn't suit their needs. I hate giving away my answer, since I'm talking to someone opposite DC statehood for the very reason of Founder intent, but there you go.
If you look at the debates at the Philadelphia Convention, the issues aren't about the scope of executive authority. It's about how easy it should be to change and how to prevent populous states from imposing changes that would destroy the rights of other states (the two biggest issues were banning the Slave Trade, which they compromised by allowing after 1808, and essentially abolishing one state-one vote in the Senate, which is never allowed by amendment).
It's no fun if everyone is on the same side of a given issue.
Though I never mentioned Founder intent as being a reason against DC statehood.
I'm not sure what Delaware has to say about it.
I mean, that's an idea, but it would be purely symbolic if you look at it from a practical political perspective. Because they would likely be absorbed into Prince George's and Montgomery Counties, VanHollen and Edwards would be their Reps, and their Senators would be Mikulski and Cardin, until one of them retires, and then whatever Democrat runs will replace them. It would only matter in terms of being able to have any actual influence at all if MD got an eighth Rep as the result of the population increase. Or if we decided to fuck with the Republicans and absorb them into the Eastern Shore and Northwest counties to screw over Bartlett and that excretable moron Andy Harris.
Your assertion regarding DC's carte blanche is untrue. Besides, DC residents pay a high "state" income tax rate, a mind-boggling property tax rate, and a sales tax as well, which pays for a lot of the city infrastructure and governance. DC residents pay taxes too, both Federal and and all the same local taxes as anyone else, they just have no say over how they're spent, given that their budget is subject to Congressional approval, where they have no official voice.
Again, purely symbolic from a balance of power standpoint.
Similar threads
