#46 President Joe Biden
Comments
-
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.0 -
Ah yup.mrussel1 said:
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state. The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state. In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats. Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.hippiemom = goodness0 -
I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today. Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them.cincybearcat said:
Ah yup.mrussel1 said:
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state. The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state. In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats. Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.0 -
Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government aremrussel1 said:
I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today. Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them.cincybearcat said:
Ah yup.mrussel1 said:
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state. The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state. In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats. Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
It’s a pretty interesting discussion really. I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas. I’m sure that would be very easy too!
Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?
hippiemom = goodness0 -
Has there ever been a reliable poll or vote on this? I'm not sure if those 700k citizens care that much. Maybe they are happy to be a non-state, I have no idea.mrussel1 said:
I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today. Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them.cincybearcat said:
Ah yup.mrussel1 said:
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state. The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state. In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats. Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
Still, if they want representation, shrinking DC to the size needed for what it was intended, house the Capitol and congress, and absorbing the rest into other states seems more reasonable than making a new state half the size of Rhode Island.
0 -
1. The degree to which they care is irrelevant. Certainly it will run the gamut from "caring a lot" to "not caring".mace1229 said:
Has there ever been a reliable poll or vote on this? I'm not sure if those 700k citizens care that much. Maybe they are happy to be a non-state, I have no idea.mrussel1 said:
I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today. Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them.cincybearcat said:
Ah yup.mrussel1 said:
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state. The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state. In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats. Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
Still, if they want representation, shrinking DC to the size needed for what it was intended, house the Capitol and congress, and absorbing the rest into other states seems more reasonable than making a new state half the size of Rhode Island.
2. What does the area of a state have to do with statehood? There is no law or amendment requiring anything but population size. And DC clears that easily.
3. The whole discussion about the Capitol and Congress is not relevant. DC citizens have not asked to be absorbed in VA or MD. They want statehood. Wyoming didn't get absorbed into Montana.0 -
This is not a Constitutional issue. DC was formed out of a bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson. The only thing you would have to fundamentally do is determine management and oversight of the federally owned parts of the district (Capital Hill, WH, embassies, SCOTUS, Treasury, etc). That's not particularly difficult. Every state has federal buildings within their borders.cincybearcat said:
Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government aremrussel1 said:
I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today. Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them.cincybearcat said:
Ah yup.mrussel1 said:
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state. The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state. In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats. Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
It’s a pretty interesting discussion really. I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas. I’m sure that would be very easy too!
Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?
Absorbing DC back into VA and MD is a non-starter for me. As a VA resident, I don't know that I would support taking on another 700k in population, the road issues and other challenges in the District.0 -
Where in the constitution was it that Wyoming couldn't be a state? Not a relevant comparison.mrussel1 said:
1. The degree to which they care is irrelevant. Certainly it will run the gamut from "caring a lot" to "not caring".mace1229 said:
Has there ever been a reliable poll or vote on this? I'm not sure if those 700k citizens care that much. Maybe they are happy to be a non-state, I have no idea.mrussel1 said:
I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today. Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them.cincybearcat said:
Ah yup.mrussel1 said:
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state. The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state. In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats. Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
Still, if they want representation, shrinking DC to the size needed for what it was intended, house the Capitol and congress, and absorbing the rest into other states seems more reasonable than making a new state half the size of Rhode Island.
2. What does the area of a state have to do with statehood? There is no law or amendment requiring anything but population size. And DC clears that easily.
3. The whole discussion about the Capitol and Congress is not relevant. DC citizens have not asked to be absorbed in VA or MD. They want statehood. Wyoming didn't get absorbed into Montana.hippiemom = goodness0 -
The point is that once the Wyoming territory reached the population threshold to be a state, it was able to become a state. I'm not aware of any great debate saying that it should be absorbed by some other state. Why would such a thing happen to the District when it meets the statehood requirement.cincybearcat said:
Where in the constitution was it that Wyoming couldn't be a state? Not a relevant comparison.mrussel1 said:
1. The degree to which they care is irrelevant. Certainly it will run the gamut from "caring a lot" to "not caring".mace1229 said:
Has there ever been a reliable poll or vote on this? I'm not sure if those 700k citizens care that much. Maybe they are happy to be a non-state, I have no idea.mrussel1 said:
I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today. Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them.cincybearcat said:
Ah yup.mrussel1 said:
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state. The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state. In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats. Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
Still, if they want representation, shrinking DC to the size needed for what it was intended, house the Capitol and congress, and absorbing the rest into other states seems more reasonable than making a new state half the size of Rhode Island.
2. What does the area of a state have to do with statehood? There is no law or amendment requiring anything but population size. And DC clears that easily.
3. The whole discussion about the Capitol and Congress is not relevant. DC citizens have not asked to be absorbed in VA or MD. They want statehood. Wyoming didn't get absorbed into Montana.0 -
Oh so you've seen the musical Hamilton too!mrussel1 said:
This is not a Constitutional issue. DC was formed out of a bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson. The only thing you would have to fundamentally do is determine management and oversight of the federally owned parts of the district (Capital Hill, WH, embassies, SCOTUS, Treasury, etc). That's not particularly difficult. Every state has federal buildings within their borders.cincybearcat said:
Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government aremrussel1 said:
I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today. Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them.cincybearcat said:
Ah yup.mrussel1 said:
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state. The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state. In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats. Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
It’s a pretty interesting discussion really. I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas. I’m sure that would be very easy too!
Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?
Absorbing DC back into VA and MD is a non-starter for me. As a VA resident, I don't know that I would support taking on another 700k in population, the road issues and other challenges in the District.
Oh so you don't want it in VA....that makes more sense as to your position now. It's an interesting case study...really a lot of factors in trying to determine the best path forward to get those people respresentation.hippiemom = goodness0 -
I also have an undergrad degree in history, to go with my musical expertise.cincybearcat said:
Oh so you've seen the musical Hamilton too!mrussel1 said:
This is not a Constitutional issue. DC was formed out of a bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson. The only thing you would have to fundamentally do is determine management and oversight of the federally owned parts of the district (Capital Hill, WH, embassies, SCOTUS, Treasury, etc). That's not particularly difficult. Every state has federal buildings within their borders.cincybearcat said:
Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government aremrussel1 said:
I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today. Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them.cincybearcat said:
Ah yup.mrussel1 said:
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state. The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state. In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats. Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
It’s a pretty interesting discussion really. I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas. I’m sure that would be very easy too!
Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?
Absorbing DC back into VA and MD is a non-starter for me. As a VA resident, I don't know that I would support taking on another 700k in population, the road issues and other challenges in the District.
Oh so you don't want it in VA....that makes more sense as to your position now. It's an interesting case study...really a lot of factors in trying to determine the best path forward to get those people respresentation.
There are certainly arguments both ways, but yes I think the unassailable argument is that we have 700k citizens without direct congressional representation.0 -
But can you sing and dance?mrussel1 said:
I also have an undergrad degree in history, to go with my musical expertise.cincybearcat said:
Oh so you've seen the musical Hamilton too!mrussel1 said:
This is not a Constitutional issue. DC was formed out of a bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson. The only thing you would have to fundamentally do is determine management and oversight of the federally owned parts of the district (Capital Hill, WH, embassies, SCOTUS, Treasury, etc). That's not particularly difficult. Every state has federal buildings within their borders.cincybearcat said:
Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government aremrussel1 said:
I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today. Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them.cincybearcat said:
Ah yup.mrussel1 said:
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state. The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state. In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats. Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
It’s a pretty interesting discussion really. I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas. I’m sure that would be very easy too!
Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?
Absorbing DC back into VA and MD is a non-starter for me. As a VA resident, I don't know that I would support taking on another 700k in population, the road issues and other challenges in the District.
Oh so you don't want it in VA....that makes more sense as to your position now. It's an interesting case study...really a lot of factors in trying to determine the best path forward to get those people respresentation.
There are certainly arguments both ways, but yes I think the unassailable argument is that we have 700k citizens without direct congressional representation.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
Like Hugh Jackman and Julie Andrews had a love child.oftenreading said:
But can you sing and dance?mrussel1 said:
I also have an undergrad degree in history, to go with my musical expertise.cincybearcat said:
Oh so you've seen the musical Hamilton too!mrussel1 said:
This is not a Constitutional issue. DC was formed out of a bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson. The only thing you would have to fundamentally do is determine management and oversight of the federally owned parts of the district (Capital Hill, WH, embassies, SCOTUS, Treasury, etc). That's not particularly difficult. Every state has federal buildings within their borders.cincybearcat said:
Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government aremrussel1 said:
I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today. Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them.cincybearcat said:
Ah yup.mrussel1 said:
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state. The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state. In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats. Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
It’s a pretty interesting discussion really. I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas. I’m sure that would be very easy too!
Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?
Absorbing DC back into VA and MD is a non-starter for me. As a VA resident, I don't know that I would support taking on another 700k in population, the road issues and other challenges in the District.
Oh so you don't want it in VA....that makes more sense as to your position now. It's an interesting case study...really a lot of factors in trying to determine the best path forward to get those people respresentation.
There are certainly arguments both ways, but yes I think the unassailable argument is that we have 700k citizens without direct congressional representation.0 -
2 - Fair point. It just seems a little silly to be making smaller states. There is nothing in the constitution about minimum state size. Just seems silly to me to have a state smaller than most counties, that's just my opinion. Also, states do not get equal representation, they favor smaller states. If we just start expanding the US and create tiny states, we should level the playing field.mrussel1 said:
1. The degree to which they care is irrelevant. Certainly it will run the gamut from "caring a lot" to "not caring".mace1229 said:
Has there ever been a reliable poll or vote on this? I'm not sure if those 700k citizens care that much. Maybe they are happy to be a non-state, I have no idea.mrussel1 said:
I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today. Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them.cincybearcat said:
Ah yup.mrussel1 said:
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state. The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state. In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats. Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
Still, if they want representation, shrinking DC to the size needed for what it was intended, house the Capitol and congress, and absorbing the rest into other states seems more reasonable than making a new state half the size of Rhode Island.
2. What does the area of a state have to do with statehood? There is no law or amendment requiring anything but population size. And DC clears that easily.
3. The whole discussion about the Capitol and Congress is not relevant. DC citizens have not asked to be absorbed in VA or MD. They want statehood. Wyoming didn't get absorbed into Montana.
1 and 3- You seem to contradict here. You say the degree in which they care is irrelevant, but then say they have asked for it so it should be a state. So is what they want irrelevant or is that enough reason to make it a state? Which really was my question, have they asked for it? I've heard other people talking about making DC a state, but how much have we heard from those living there? I'm asking because I don't know. It should at least be up to a vote before some politicians sign some papers and make it a state, give them a governor and senators etc just to gain 2 seats. This whole argument of they deserve representation would be completely irrelevant if they are happy the way it is. Maybe they like the idea of being a non-state.
And the discussion of the capitol and congress is relevant if the whole concept of DC was to house congress and federal buildings in a non-state territory. If that was the purpose and intent of DC, then why change it now? I mean, other than to gain 2 seats?
0 -
Wasn't most, or all of DC from Virginia? Thats why it makes sense to me if they want to be a state now, to give it back to VA and not just form a new state. If roads are an issue and not up to the same standards as the rest of the state there could be some federal assistance with that.mrussel1 said:
This is not a Constitutional issue. DC was formed out of a bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson. The only thing you would have to fundamentally do is determine management and oversight of the federally owned parts of the district (Capital Hill, WH, embassies, SCOTUS, Treasury, etc). That's not particularly difficult. Every state has federal buildings within their borders.cincybearcat said:
Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government aremrussel1 said:
I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today. Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them.cincybearcat said:
Ah yup.mrussel1 said:
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state. The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state. In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats. Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
It’s a pretty interesting discussion really. I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas. I’m sure that would be very easy too!
Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?
Absorbing DC back into VA and MD is a non-starter for me. As a VA resident, I don't know that I would support taking on another 700k in population, the road issues and other challenges in the District.
0 -
2 - well I guess that could happen, but that means a city is essentially seceding from its current state. I don't see that happening often.mace1229 said:
2 - Fair point. It just seems a little silly to be making smaller states. There is nothing in the constitution about minimum state size. Just seems silly to me to have a state smaller than most counties, that's just my opinion. Also, states do not get equal representation, they favor smaller states. If we just start expanding the US and create tiny states, we should level the playing field.mrussel1 said:
1. The degree to which they care is irrelevant. Certainly it will run the gamut from "caring a lot" to "not caring".mace1229 said:
Has there ever been a reliable poll or vote on this? I'm not sure if those 700k citizens care that much. Maybe they are happy to be a non-state, I have no idea.mrussel1 said:
I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today. Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them.cincybearcat said:
Ah yup.mrussel1 said:
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state. The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state. In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats. Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
Still, if they want representation, shrinking DC to the size needed for what it was intended, house the Capitol and congress, and absorbing the rest into other states seems more reasonable than making a new state half the size of Rhode Island.
2. What does the area of a state have to do with statehood? There is no law or amendment requiring anything but population size. And DC clears that easily.
3. The whole discussion about the Capitol and Congress is not relevant. DC citizens have not asked to be absorbed in VA or MD. They want statehood. Wyoming didn't get absorbed into Montana.
1 and 3- You seem to contradict here. You say the degree in which they care is irrelevant, but then say they have asked for it so it should be a state. So is what they want irrelevant or is that enough reason to make it a state? Which really was my question, have they asked for it? I've heard other people talking about making DC a state, but how much have we heard from those living there? I'm asking because I don't know. It should at least be up to a vote before some politicians sign some papers and make it a state, give them a governor and senators etc just to gain 2 seats. This whole argument of they deserve representation would be completely irrelevant if they are happy the way it is. Maybe they like the idea of being a non-state.
And the discussion of the capitol and congress is relevant if the whole concept of DC was to house congress and federal buildings in a non-state territory. If that was the purpose and intent of DC, then why change it now? I mean, other than to gain 2 seats?
1/3 - There was a referendum in 2016 for the district and it passed 86%. So my point was that there are probably people who don't care about it, but there are plenty who do. And turnout was 65%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Washington,_D.C._statehood_referendum0 -
Hahahaha I bet not well...either of them!!!oftenreading said:
But can you sing and dance?mrussel1 said:
I also have an undergrad degree in history, to go with my musical expertise.cincybearcat said:
Oh so you've seen the musical Hamilton too!mrussel1 said:
This is not a Constitutional issue. DC was formed out of a bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson. The only thing you would have to fundamentally do is determine management and oversight of the federally owned parts of the district (Capital Hill, WH, embassies, SCOTUS, Treasury, etc). That's not particularly difficult. Every state has federal buildings within their borders.cincybearcat said:
Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government aremrussel1 said:
I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today. Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them.cincybearcat said:
Ah yup.mrussel1 said:
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state. The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state. In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats. Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
It’s a pretty interesting discussion really. I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas. I’m sure that would be very easy too!
Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?
Absorbing DC back into VA and MD is a non-starter for me. As a VA resident, I don't know that I would support taking on another 700k in population, the road issues and other challenges in the District.
Oh so you don't want it in VA....that makes more sense as to your position now. It's an interesting case study...really a lot of factors in trying to determine the best path forward to get those people respresentation.
There are certainly arguments both ways, but yes I think the unassailable argument is that we have 700k citizens without direct congressional representation.hippiemom = goodness0 -
cincybearcat said:
Hahahaha I bet not well...either of them!!!oftenreading said:
But can you sing and dance?mrussel1 said:
I also have an undergrad degree in history, to go with my musical expertise.cincybearcat said:
Oh so you've seen the musical Hamilton too!mrussel1 said:
This is not a Constitutional issue. DC was formed out of a bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson. The only thing you would have to fundamentally do is determine management and oversight of the federally owned parts of the district (Capital Hill, WH, embassies, SCOTUS, Treasury, etc). That's not particularly difficult. Every state has federal buildings within their borders.cincybearcat said:
Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government aremrussel1 said:
I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today. Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them.cincybearcat said:
Ah yup.mrussel1 said:
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state. The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state. In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats. Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
It’s a pretty interesting discussion really. I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas. I’m sure that would be very easy too!
Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?
Absorbing DC back into VA and MD is a non-starter for me. As a VA resident, I don't know that I would support taking on another 700k in population, the road issues and other challenges in the District.
Oh so you don't want it in VA....that makes more sense as to your position now. It's an interesting case study...really a lot of factors in trying to determine the best path forward to get those people respresentation.
There are certainly arguments both ways, but yes I think the unassailable argument is that we have 700k citizens without direct congressional representation.
I am informed otherwise, with a mental image that is now indelibly seared into my brain.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
You know it's a beautiful thing.oftenreading said:cincybearcat said:
Hahahaha I bet not well...either of them!!!oftenreading said:
But can you sing and dance?mrussel1 said:
I also have an undergrad degree in history, to go with my musical expertise.cincybearcat said:
Oh so you've seen the musical Hamilton too!mrussel1 said:
This is not a Constitutional issue. DC was formed out of a bargain between Hamilton and Jefferson. The only thing you would have to fundamentally do is determine management and oversight of the federally owned parts of the district (Capital Hill, WH, embassies, SCOTUS, Treasury, etc). That's not particularly difficult. Every state has federal buildings within their borders.cincybearcat said:
Im not discounting it, the reps and Dems in government aremrussel1 said:
I think you are discounting whether 700k citizens deserve direct representation in Congress. They don't have it today. Wanting or not wanting seats may be the end game for the good Senators of the 50 states, but that doesn't mean those citizens don't deserve their own unique voice, rather than having members from all states control them.cincybearcat said:
Ah yup.mrussel1 said:
Whose reasoning? Jefferson's and co.?cincybearcat said:
Doesn’t change their reasoningmrussel1 said:
Yes, this is exactly the point.Gern Blansten said:
Right but in 1776 the area wasn't home to 700,000 peoplecincybearcat said:I never really understood the DC is a State argument. I mean it was specifically written into the constitution to not have the area be a state. Seemed like a smart move in reality.
That said, I really don't care. If there are no risks to it being a state and the people want it, ok. But the fact that both political parties don't discuss the issues and instead it's all about #'s in the senate is awful.
I don't know why if you shrink the district you would have to add a state. The surrounding portions could just be added to an existing state. In reality I care very little one way or the other except for the fact it's really only about politicians wanting or not wanting senate seats. Not really for any other reason, though they will try and play it up if it helps.
It’s a pretty interesting discussion really. I can certainly see both sides, but I find the side that would shrink the district and want some new state to be a little less reasonable than shrinking the district and having adjacent states absorb the areas. I’m sure that would be very easy too!
Do you not see good reasons to not have the entire DC are made a state? Do you see any reason why we should stick with the constitution on this? Or are you for shrinking the district and making the rest a new state?
Absorbing DC back into VA and MD is a non-starter for me. As a VA resident, I don't know that I would support taking on another 700k in population, the road issues and other challenges in the District.
Oh so you don't want it in VA....that makes more sense as to your position now. It's an interesting case study...really a lot of factors in trying to determine the best path forward to get those people respresentation.
There are certainly arguments both ways, but yes I think the unassailable argument is that we have 700k citizens without direct congressional representation.
I am informed otherwise, with a mental image that is now indelibly seared into my brain.0 -
none of this has anything to do with Biden.start your own goddamn thread_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help