Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's all anecdotal so there is no more evidence to prove your point over mine or vice versa.
Going back in history, I don't know that the founding fathers envisioned people making a lifetime career out of politics and thus requiring staff there for decades. My hunch is that the general thought was that some people would "live" in Washington D.C. and then return home at the end of their term.
Regardless of people who choose to have children there - they do so fully knowing that they are in a federal district without representation.
I do not feel bad for people who choose to live there.
Get up the yard! Look at the census data, that's not anecdotal.
My reference to federal employees was not that they were too poor to move, but that they live where you say no-one was intended to live. The too poor are generally not federal employees.
Seems like this is just one more thing (like the continuation of slavery) the Founding Fathers got wrong. They didn't anticipate the rise of the bureaucracy. Even with the rise of the bureaucracy the Feds currently occupy just a tiny portion of DC. What was intended for the rest, swampland?
There's probably a case to be made that DC residents now have squatter's rights, and could vote to kick the feds out of the parts of DC they are not using.
I think it'd make sense to give D.C. statehood IF you include Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, Stafford (from VA) PG, Montgomery, Charles and Frederick (from MD) counties in that new state.
It'd be a horse trade, but it would make VA a very winnable state again for the GOP so it'd offset the D.C. delegation. The county allotment would allow for further and predictable growth in the D.C. metro to prevent a repetition of the same situation in the near future.
I think it'd make sense to give D.C. statehood IF you include Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, Stafford (from VA) PG, Montgomery, Charles and Frederick (from MD) counties in that new state.
It'd be a horse trade, but it would make VA a very winnable state again for the GOP so it'd offset the D.C. delegation. The county allotment would allow for further and predictable growth in the D.C. metro to prevent a repetition of the same situation in the near future.
That's unlikely to fly.....
Quote:
The Admission to the Union Clause also forbids the creation of new states from parts of existing states without the consent of all the affected states and Congress.
Plus.......
Quote:
When the people of a territory or a region thereof have grown to a sufficient population and make their desire for statehood known to the federal government, in most cases Congress passed an enabling act authorizing the people of that territory or region to frame a proposed state constitution as a step toward admission to the Union.
DC already has a higher population than Wyoming and Vermont.
Ah jus luuv the way several R's have proposed naked gerrymandering without a hint of a blush....
I don't believe D.C. was ever intended to become a state at any point regardless of how its population size relates to the rest of the country.
It was intended that D.C. would remain neutral to limit the opportunity of the federal bureaucracy and others economically dependent on the federal government to dominate federal politics the same way it had often done in France and England vis a vis the respective capitals there.
Of course, the sprawl of D.C.'s functions and government-related business into Maryland and Virginia has essentially already delivered the electoral votes and Senate votes of two states to the federal bureaucracy.
D.C. in a larger sense basically gets 4 Senators now and of course several House representatives via the D.C. suburbs and some creative district design in Maryland in particular. That's the irony o accusing "Rs" of gerrymandering...the 6th Congressional district in MD is one of the most glaring examples of gerrymandering by a state legislature in the whole country. That lawsuit went up all the way to the Supreme Court only to be dismissed, not because it's not obvious gerrymandering, but because the Supreme Court decided it's not an issue a federal court should hear.
I don't believe D.C. was ever intended to become a state at any point regardless of how its population size relates to the rest of the country.
It was intended that D.C. would remain neutral to limit the opportunity of the federal bureaucracy and others economically dependent on the federal government to dominate federal politics the same way it had often done in France and England vis a vis the respective capitals there.
Of course, the sprawl of D.C.'s functions and government-related business into Maryland and Virginia has essentially already delivered the electoral votes and Senate votes of two states to the federal bureaucracy.
D.C. in a larger sense basically gets 4 Senators now and of course several House representatives via the D.C. suburbs and some creative district design in Maryland in particular. That's the irony o accusing "Rs" of gerrymandering...the 6th Congressional district in MD is one of the most glaring examples of gerrymandering by a state legislature in the whole country. That lawsuit went up all the way to the Supreme Court only to be dismissed, not because it's not obvious gerrymandering, but because the Supreme Court decided it's not an issue a federal court should hear.
Don't disagree with your characterization of Md 6th, but proposing gerrymandering, nakedly, demonstrates you're not interested*in finding substantive solutions to the various issues, just partisan advantage.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the..........
DC's pop is now about 705K.
Why do we need two Dakotas?
We could similarly say that Eastern WA could be its own state, or what about inland CA or downstate IL or upstate NY? Is it fair that areas around Buffalo or Rochester are held hostage by a state government dominated by politicians who all represent the same NYC-based interests?
But in realistic terms statehood for D.C. doesn't have much of a chance without something being offered to Republicans in return. 2 Senators are a big deal in this government system, a very big deal.
We could similarly say that Eastern WA could be its own state, or what about inland CA or downstate IL or upstate NY? Is it fair that areas around Buffalo or Rochester are held hostage by a state government dominated by politicians who all represent the same NYC-based interests?
But in realistic terms statehood for D.C. doesn't have much of a chance without something being offered to Republicans in return. 2 Senators are a big deal in this government system, a very big deal.
Come the January Congress, the Republicans may be irrelevant to the debate, just like the Democrats currently are to the SCOTUS nomination.
Not a hypothetical there currently are two bills in Congress seeking to do exactly that. If either were enacted it would be too late to ask the question.
Because you pointed out the obvious....you need water for flooding. You should have looked at Webster's map.
I would have, if he had posted it before I posted my remarks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
