why are the Democrats/Congress idiots?

[Ramo]

Interests like low crime, good transportation, etc... and one representative will change that?

Interests like single payer health care, ending the war in Iraq, etc. If you haven't noticed, the national gov't has become a lot more prominent in the last century or so. Of course one representative won't change that, but by that logic it doesn't matter if we take away Wyoming's House seat.

If the people of DC don't like that, they can leave.

Where do you expect hundreds of thousands of poor black people to go to?

Or unless they're from Puerto Rico.

PR rejected statehood at their last referendum. Whenever they accept, I welcome them.

[DinoDoc]

DC isn't a state Ramo.

[Ramo]

Originally posted by Ramo
I'd like to see DC's representation folded into VA or MD.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ramo

Where do you expect hundreds of thousands of poor black people to go to?

For most, Maryland is just a mile or two away with no perceptible change in demographics.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
DC receives more federal funding per capita than any state.

That's because the Federal government is there, and that's where they get their pay.

Federal funding, not federal monies from paychecks.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
Interests like single payer health care, ending the war in Iraq, etc. If you haven't noticed, the national gov't has become a lot more prominent in the last century or so. Of course one representative won't change that, but by that logic it doesn't matter if we take away Wyoming's House seat.

Wyoming's seat is guaranteed by the Consitution. Thus, it does matter

The reasons the founders gave 200 years ago for denying the District representation are equally valid now.

Where do you expect hundreds of thousands of poor black people to go to?

Baltimore? But seriously, Ramo, "omg teh poore people" is weak. I could, again, say the same about PR. When PR becomes a state they'll get representation. DC cannot become a state, for very good reasons, so they don't get it.

PR rejected statehood at their last referendum. Whenever they accept, I welcome them.

And when they're a state I'll be happy to give them representation

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
I'd like to see DC's representation folded into VA or MD.

If you have to, give them to MD. We don't want 'em.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
DC receives more federal funding per capita than any state.

That's because the Federal government is there, and that's where they get their pay.

Federal funding, not federal monies from paychecks.

That is Federal funding. Anything the Feds spend is Federal funding. D.C. gets the most money cuz that's where most of the governments buildings and employees are. All the money the Feds spend there counts against Federal funding. Otherwise you'd have to believe that every resident of D.C. gets more money than they know what to do with, and considering its one of the poorest cities in the country, that ain't the case.

[Ramo]

Baltimore? But seriously, Ramo, "omg teh poore people" is weak. I could, again, say the same about PR. When PR becomes a state they'll get representation. DC cannot become a state, for very good reasons, so they don't get it.

More to the point, PR doesn't pay federal income taxes (unless their income doesn't come from commerce with the US proper or something like that). DC residents do. It's that whole no taxation without representation thing that may have had a tiny to do with the founding of this country.

I don't want DC to become a state for the same reason that I don't think Wyoming should have two Senators. Also, it'd be a lot easier politically to fold DC into VA.

Wyoming's seat is guaranteed by the Consitution. Thus, it does matter

Non-sequitur. We were discussing the moral imperative to give DC Congressional representation. I agreed that the current proposal is probably unconstitutional.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
More to the point, PR doesn't pay federal income taxes (unless their income doesn't come from commerce with the US proper or something like that).

They do pay FICA tax. I don't know if they get social security, though.

DC residents do. It's that whole no taxation without representation thing that may have had a tiny to do with the founding of this country.

Don't be silly. And DC residents get far more back from the federal government than they pay in taxes.

Also, it'd be a lot easier politically to fold DC into VA.

Why? I'm curious why you think this.

Non-sequitur. We were discussing the moral imperative to give DC Congressional representation.

The moral imperative to give Wyoming representation comes in part from the Constitutional guarantee (respect of the Constitution being a fairly significant value). Were Wyoming a territory, I would feel no strong compulsion to give it statehood.

[Ramo]

They do pay FICA tax. I don't know if they get social security, though.

They do. And that's why they'd pay FICA. FICA doesn't go towards funding the national gov't, but is retirement insurance (at least that's the intent).

Don't be silly. And DC residents get far more back from the federal government than they pay in taxes.

Not in terms of dictating national policy. That's part of the compact as well. Representation is more than pork.

Why? I'm curious why you think this.

Because giving DC statehood insures two more Democratic Senators in perpetuity. There's no way Republicans'll go with that.

The moral imperative to give Wyoming representation comes in part from the Constitutional guarantee (respect of the Constitution being a fairly significant value). Were Wyoming a territory, I would feel no strong compulsion to give it statehood.

So legislative representation shouldn't be based on popular will, but some archaic idea about a compact between states? Why? You realize the Union won in the Civil War, right?

[Kuciwalker]

Because giving DC statehood doesn't insure two more Democratic Senators in perpetuity. There's no way Republicans'll go with that.

I mean why is VA preferable to MD.

So legislative representation shouldn't be based on popular will, but some archaic idea about a compact between states? Why? You realize the Union won in the Civil War, right?

You misread my post. Respecting the Constitution is its own moral imperative (not the only one, but there is a value in complying with the Constitution independent of the particular value of the clause we're complying with).

Not in terms of dictating national policy. That's part of the compact as well. Representation is more than pork.

When it comes to national policy there are so few people in DC that it's meaningless. DC is about .15% of our population.

[Kuciwalker]

btw, PR pays FICA for SS despite having even less say in the national government than DC.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You misread my post. Respecting the Constitution is its own moral imperative (not the only one, but there is a value in complying with the Constitution independent of the particular value of the clause we're complying with).

If the only good that can be said of a position is that it adheres to the constitution, then that position is stupid. The whole point of allowing amendments is the recognition that the Constitution does not hold final precedence over the common will of the people.

As to the matter at hand, have DC join Maryland (its on that side of the river), and make it a Congressional district. Its absurd that not one of DC's supposed 535 representatives is in any way responsible to DC.

[Kuciwalker]

If the only good that can be said of a position is that it adheres to the constitution, then that position is stupid.

We already know you are an idiot. Don't dig yourself deeper.

The whole point of allowing amendments is the recognition that the Constitution does not hold final precedence over the common will of the people.

Then propose an amendment. Don't excuse legislation that's blatantly unconstitutional because it conforms with your sentimentalism on an ultimately inconsequential policy question.