D.C votes overwhelmingly to become the 51st State

[Cow Poke]

Its population is larger than Vermont. It's sensible to make it a state, or to let it join one of the surrounding states. But the people in it want it to be their own state, and in a democracy what they want matters.

Thank you, Dear Lord, that Starlight has absolutely no power over anything we do in the US.
amen

[rogue06]

Thank you, Dear Lord, that Starlight has absolutely no power over anything we do in the US.
amen

I seriously doubt he even has any power in his own household. His mommy won't let him

[mikewhitney]

I think the people in Washington, D.C. should vote to have school and community classes on the real details of the US Constitution.

[Terraceth]

Absorbing it into Maryland does seem more feasible than simply making it its own state.

Then again, I don't think any state in history has ever gotten larger after it was made into a state, so there could be potential difficulties I'm underrating.

[KingsGambit]

The notion of "no taxation without representation" comes into play here. Unless we want to exempt DC citizens from all federal taxes, it would be nice to give them at least one voting Representative (100 is a nice even number for the Senate and no reason to mess with that).

[Starlight]

Absorbing it into Maryland does seem more feasible than simply making it its own state.

Then again, I don't think any state in history has ever gotten larger after it was made into a state, so there could be potential difficulties I'm underrating.

Well they've all gotten larger through population growth.
I don't see why a change in borders would have any effect. And I would have thought there would have been some states in the south and west that got expanded early on through wars / land seizures.

The main reason to be against DC statehood seems to be that it would be a reliably Democratic state, so Republicans don't want those people to have democratic representation because it wouldn't help them politically due to giving the democratic party more senators. A similar reason applies to Puerto Rico, and to splitting California into 4 states.

[rogue06]

I think the people in Washington, D.C. should vote to have school and community classes on the real details of the US Constitution.

That was pretty standard a few decades ago. But then folks much smarter than everyone else figured that since a bunch of dead, old white men wrote it then it obviously wasn't very important. And then politicians of all stripes figured out that they had better chances of pushing through legislation that is blatantly unconstitutional if the public was ignorant of what the Constitution said.

[rogue06]

Well they've all gotten larger through population growth.
I don't see why a change in borders would have any effect. And I would have thought there would have been some states in the south and west that got expanded early on through wars / land seizures.

The main reason to be against DC statehood seems to be that it would be a reliably Democratic state, so Republicans don't want those people to have democratic representation because it wouldn't help them politically due to giving the democratic party more senators. A similar reason applies to Puerto Rico, and to splitting California into 4 states.

I think it would also be fair to say that the real reason that most of those who support DC statehood is that it would be a reliably Democratic state.

[Starlight]

I think it would also be fair to say that the real reason that most of those who support DC statehood is that it would be a reliably Democratic state.

Quite a lot of projection you've got going there.

As usual you're utterly wrong. Lots of us really and honestly believe in democracy, and really believe that every person should be able to vote to control their own affairs, and really believe that there shouldn't be taxation without representation. Obviously the people in D.C. and Puerto Rico have a right to self-governance, to democracy, and to representation. It's that simple.

[Starlight]

And then politicians of all stripes figured out that they had better chances of pushing through legislation that is blatantly unconstitutional if the public was ignorant of what the Constitution said.

That statement seems self-evidently false. It's the Supreme Court that judges what legislation is, and isn't, constitutional, not the public. I doubt there's a single example in US history where the public's belief (as opposed to that of judges) that something was unconstitutional controlled whether a legislature voted for it.

[One Bad Pig]

Quite a lot of projection you've got going there.

As usual you're utterly wrong. Lots of us really and honestly believe in democracy, and really believe that every person should be able to vote to control their own affairs, and really believe that there shouldn't be taxation without representation. Obviously the people in D.C. and Puerto Rico have a right to self-governance, to democracy, and to representation. It's that simple.

I just LOVE foreigners telling us what we "really believe." The states of Maryland and Virginia donated the land that became DC, some of which was subsequently given back. Having those on land originally from Virginia being represented by Virginia (and vice versa for Maryland) may be the least painful solution.

Puerto Rico is entirely different; a significant portion of its population wants to remain a territory, and another significant portion would rather that the island be its own country.

[Sparko]

Its population is larger than Vermont. It's sensible to make it a state, or to let it join one of the surrounding states. But the people in it want it to be their own state, and in a democracy what they want matters.

says someone who doesn't live in the US and has absofreakinglutely no idea what he is talking about.

Do you remember the phrase "no taxation without representation"? Currently the people in D.C. are taxed by the federal government but they have no representation there.

They are represented directly by the Federal Government and the Congress as a whole.

[Sparko]

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/13/22...he-51st-state/

[rogue06]

The main reason to be against DC statehood seems to be that it would be a reliably Democratic state, so Republicans don't want those people to have democratic representation because it wouldn't help them politically due to giving the democratic party more senators.

I think it would also be fair to say that the real reason that most of those who support DC statehood is that it would be a reliably Democratic state.

Quite a lot of projection you've got going there.

Liberals love to mask their motives in good intentions but unless it helps them politically they will resist it tooth and nail.

Look at school choice as just one example. Over and over again we hear them tell us that we need to improve education but by this they mean give more money to their cronies who can then turn around and give larger donations back to Democrat politicians. Over the years we have on average tripled the expenditure per student but not only have things not improved they have gotten worse. We just need to throw even more money at it we are told.

But when a program like school vouchers comes along and/or making schools that are repeatedly disasters responsible for improving then the liberals are all against it. Why? Because such things might weaken the grip that the unions have and that simply cannot be tolerated. Protecting them and giving them even more control is, after all is far, far more important than improving the schools like they claim they want.

[rogue06]

That statement seems self-evidently false. It's the Supreme Court that judges what legislation is, and isn't, constitutional, not the public. I doubt there's a single example in US history where the public's belief (as opposed to that of judges) that something was unconstitutional controlled whether a legislature voted for it.

If you can get justices on there who don't care what the Constitution actually says but what they at any given moment want it to say (turn it into a "living, breathing document"^[1]) then blatantly unconstitutional acts and legislation can be pushed through. We have changed what is in the Constitution multiple times but now some don't want to do that but rather just pretend it says something or doesn't say something and have a public that doesn't know better makes it all too easy.


















1. Could you imagine getting a loan or mortgage only to be told a couple years later that the paperwork you signed doesn't matter -- that they're "living, breathing documents" which change meaning at the whim of those you owe the money to? The same with insurance. Sorry you went to the hospital on Sunday Mr. Starlight but since many of our offices and departments are closed that day we have now decided that you aren't covered then.