No taxation without representation...except for DC

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

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.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

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 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.

I want Statehood. Voting rights are not enough.

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.

[APhiQuetieACE]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

I want Statehood. Voting rights are not enough.

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