I am hoping to God she is out of a job come June...what she has done to the system here is deplorable

I like her. :eek:We don't agree about something!!!!!!!! Okay. Let's not fight! I don't have kids, so I don't really care!!

Okay, I'll try to bring it back to topic by asking a question of the DC residents:

Is statehood as such important to you, or is it voting rights that are important? In other words, would it be an acceptable outcome for you if voting rights did not include statehood?

I'll show my hand a little in asking the question: I'm 100% all for voting rights, congressional representation, a voice in constitutional amendment ratification, etc. for residents of the district. At the same time, I think there is some real wisdom in the way the founders set up (constitutionally) a district for the seat of government that is seperate from any state. So while in general I wouldn't have any problem with a proposal that in essence treats DC as though it were a state, I think I might have some pause over actually making DC a state (the State of Columbia?).

But I don't live in DC, so I'd really like to know what those of you who do live in DC think.

No fighting here! :)


Well...firing a bunch of teachers that you just hired the year before because you say you don't have money when you actually did...or didn't...depending on who you are willing to believe, is a problem.

What do you feel is the wisdom? Not that it matters, as the seat would still exist, it would just be slightly larger than the Vatican.

I want Statehood. Voting rights are not enough.

Yeah, I heard all of that. I just don't believe all the demonization of the woman.

I think you are right. Voting rights aren't enough because so little is accomplished with JUST the vote. How much is done by congressional action, having the ability to pass your own state laws without congressional approval, votes in the electoral college, etc?

I think that we can make it work without putting the federal government under the jurisdiction of the State of Columbia, which before the Civil War (when our Forefathers set this all up and when states had much more power) may not have been so easy.

Well, I have 3 teachers you can talk to. *wink*!

I see wisdom for a country fundamentally composed of a federation of states in having the capital not be located in any of those states -- in being outside the jurisdiction of any state and solely under federal jurisdiction.

Now, I'll readily grant that things have changed a great deal in 200+ years -- Washington is much more of a "permanent" city than it once was. So I'd be open to arguments that what was wise in the late 1700s no longer works. But I do see the wisdom of it.

Why? What do you see as the difference? What would statehood add that voting rights wouldn't provide. And would it matter to you if it appeared that a constitutional amendment for voting rights (like the DC Voting Rights Amendment) could be ratified but a contitutional amendment for statehood couldn't?

I'm not trying to challenge you; I want to understand your perspective better.

AOII Angel pretty much summed up my feelings, as does this website.

Not trying to be non-responsive, I just don't know what more I could say.

Then why not move to a state? It's only a few blocks away;)

No problem. AOII Angel posted her response while I was composing mine, so I didn't see it. And thanks for the link.

Well, the DC Voting Rights Amendment back in the 70s would, as I understand it, have done all these things except for the congressional oversight of the District. And to be clear, I didn't mean that the federal government would be under the jurisdiction of a state; I meant that the seat of federal government (the city) would be under the jurisdiction of a state.

Maybe I should rephrase my question a little bit this way: If DC funtioned, for all material intents and purposes, as a state, does the actual status of "state" matter to you? (And I know that may mean more than my initial "voting rights" scenario.)

For example, as I understand, the Australian Capital Territory (home to Canberra) is similarly situated to DC in some ways. It has internal self-government through a Legislative Assembly, but the decisions of that Legislative Assembly can be overruled by the Australian Governor-General (the Queen's represenative in Australia, so effectively this means the national government.) But it has full representation in the Australian Parliament.

I think the Bazilian Federal District and the Mexican Federal District function similarly to the Australian (though I'm not sure how much if any federal oversight there is for them).

I guess that means I'm asking if DC had full congressional (and electoral college) representation, self-government without congressional oversight and other powers of a state, would it matter to you that it was still the District of Columbia instead of the State of Columbia?

I think DC should secede from the Union

Like Long Island and Frederick, MD? Ha! I laughed at both of those!

If ALLLLLL of those things happened, maybe.