Way back when DC was denied voting status it was specifically because DC residents had direct access to the country's representatives prior to cars, trains and air travel. Who claims that DC residents have that kind of access to the government in these modern times? (Technically, I concede John Q. Public CAN meet and greet most of them at one time or another at Camelot on M Street, but that's not the point.)
For the purposes of voting alone, I strongly endorse granting DC voters their former Maryland status (since Virginia already took their geographical portion of the District of Columbia back). There does need to be an even number of votes in the Senate (with the VP as the deciding vote in the case of a true tie), but I am NOT such a big proponent of allowing Utah to have additional votes as "an appeasement" to the Republicans. What kind of outright and blatant bribery monkey-feces is THAT? Why in the WORLD must this include any "appeasement"?!? If DC voting rights is to be done properly, give DC full voting rights and status and truly induct Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands as a new "state" to be the balancing representative vote. Hell, bring in Iraq and/or Afghanistan since "we" now appear to believe we are the only ones allowed to govern over there anyway.
The argument about DC not being "a state" is moronic, infantile and short-sighted. Virginia, Massachusetts, Kentucky and Pennsylvania should likewise be denied "state" status because they are commonwealths. If George W. Bush declares DC's eligibility as unconstitutional, I defy him to prove to me he's actually read (or has had read to him) the Constitution. That would be the FIRST time he's actually paid attention to the document outlining the governances of his job description! At least the buffoon can therefore extend the logic to residents of DC not having to pay Federal taxes? Or be considered excluded from any sort of a future military draft? No, of course not....
Grrr... I'm with you on your sentiment to exiting Senator Warner, although I admit that I am no longer a Virginia resident. I have yet to see who else voted which way on today's hearing. Hopefully tonight's news will feature it so that others may likewise be critical of their ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.
I was thinking something similar. Give them a voting house person as a district in "MD" that is soley made up of DC (or redo MD so that DC makes up most of a district itself). They get to vote on the MD senators (just as they would if they were still part of MD). They wouldn't get MD legislative votes (because they don't need them). There presidential votes would be mixed in with the rest of MD.
Heck, give DC back the portion that VA took back and have that section (south of the Potomac) have the same concessions as the MD one.
The constitution does not recognize "commonwealths" at all. By the terms of the constitution, those 4 states ratified the constitution and joined AS STATES and are recognized as such. That they call themselves something different, to themselves, is irrelevant. Commonwealth only had any meaning with regard to how their original laws were derived from English Common Law, nothing more.
DC is not a state because it is not recognized as a State by the terms for which the Constitution recognizes states. Same with Puerto Rico. BTW, the majority of PR's residents DON'T want statehood.
PR would not, in any instance, be a "balancing vote" to a Democratic Party DC. Do you think, for one second, that the overwhelming hispanic population of the island would give the current Republican party the time of day, much less a vote against their own interests?
If you don't think GWB was reading from a script written by an "adviser", well...
I do agree that the Utah piece was 1) a blatant handout that makes the Missouri Compromise seem like a cake-walk, and 2) just as unconstitutional as everything else in this proposal.
Respectfully, I differ on a few of the points you made. Massachusetts and Kentucky have defined themselves as Commonwealths by constitution. Pennsylvania defines itself only by title. Virginia, on the other hand, has always been a Commonwealth since prior to joining the United "States". Technically, the term "Commonwealth" is the relationship the United States has with the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
My reference to "balancing vote" was not to balance the liberal and conservative votes, but to balance the odd versus even numbers of Senate votes (with the VP's vote always being the "decider" *cough*hack*gag* in the event of a tie-breaker). The fact that the DC has always been without representation in the Senate has nothing to do with giving more representation to an area with existing representation. That is why I suggested the balance would be to include another area without existing representation by including them as our 51st (or technically 52nd) State. (As to Hispanics voting only for the Democrats? Try Miami's Cuban population for a litmus test.) I also was not suggesting that Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands (or Iraq or Afghanistan -- or hell, even all of Canada except Quebec) WANT statehood, but I was speaking hypothetically of a more logical attempt to have an even number of Senators without artificially over-representing existing states.
In terms of the equality of conservatives and liberals handed out in new representative inclusions in the Senate, I daresay that my interpretation of the former Missouri Compromise was an issue over the votes on slavery, not specifically two opposing parties (even though that's the way it ultimately played out). The compromise was made not over political party, but AN ISSUE over which the parties fundamentally disagreed. I could just as easily extend the logic to stands on gay marriage, or gun laws, or legalizing pot. We DO still have a "war on drugs", don't we? Isn't that issue somewhat more similar to the pro/anti slavery issues? DC is apparently (on the surface, anyway) against legalizing marijuana, what say you to California getting an additional representative? >snicker< (I am joking, but I still believe it's a valid discussion point.)
Re: "advisors", touché -- and absolutely no argument. I had that thought as I was writing, but the point was made regardless of who penned Dubya's pre-veto response. Does the fact that he didn't write it himself make it any better?
I do disclose that I appear to be on the Democrat side of this issue and my nose would be more out of joint if I were of the Republican (or Neo-Con) party, but I thought I might try to amend your corrections for the first factual distinction about Commonwealths and the second one over what I intended "balance" to represent. It's all good -- I just wish that more discussions could be heard, and that it could be understood for what it is, and not the bogus "it's unconstitutional" duck-cover-run response.
Re: Commonwealth - irrelevant. my statement about those four STATES stands. With respect to the U.S. Constitution, they ratified it and joined is as STATES by the Constition's terms.
While the LAW recognizes the existence of the commonwealths, technically the constitution does not. Constitutionally, those two are merely territories exactly as much of the U.S. West was in the late 19th century.
With respect to the Senate. Two votes per state == always a need for a tie-breaker. If DC gains statehood, the senate count is 102 and the VP remains the tie-breaker. Any proposal to give DC one senate vote is, in my opinion, so unlikely as to not be worth proposing or considering seriously. The historical and constitutional importance of the Senate was to represent the states themselves and give them a chance to air out differences without having to go do the Federal courts.
The amendment that turned the Senate into a elected house rather than an appointed one was misguided and has led to many of our current problems in that house, but at some level the inherent meaning of the Senate as a place for the States to gather remains. Neither DC nor PR qualify and I believe that should stand unless statehood is requested and granted.
For the purposes of voting alone, I strongly endorse granting DC voters their former Maryland status (since Virginia already took their geographical portion of the District of Columbia back). There does need to be an even number of votes in the Senate (with the VP as the deciding vote in the case of a true tie), but I am NOT such a big proponent of allowing Utah to have additional votes as "an appeasement" to the Republicans. What kind of outright and blatant bribery monkey-feces is THAT? Why in the WORLD must this include any "appeasement"?!? If DC voting rights is to be done properly, give DC full voting rights and status and truly induct Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands as a new "state" to be the balancing representative vote. Hell, bring in Iraq and/or Afghanistan since "we" now appear to believe we are the only ones allowed to govern over there anyway.
The argument about DC not being "a state" is moronic, infantile and short-sighted. Virginia, Massachusetts, Kentucky and Pennsylvania should likewise be denied "state" status because they are commonwealths. If George W. Bush declares DC's eligibility as unconstitutional, I defy him to prove to me he's actually read (or has had read to him) the Constitution. That would be the FIRST time he's actually paid attention to the document outlining the governances of his job description! At least the buffoon can therefore extend the logic to residents of DC not having to pay Federal taxes? Or be considered excluded from any sort of a future military draft? No, of course not....
Grrr... I'm with you on your sentiment to exiting Senator Warner, although I admit that I am no longer a Virginia resident. I have yet to see who else voted which way on today's hearing. Hopefully tonight's news will feature it so that others may likewise be critical of their ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.
Reply
Reply
Heck, give DC back the portion that VA took back and have that section (south of the Potomac) have the same concessions as the MD one.
Reply
DC is not a state because it is not recognized as a State by the terms for which the Constitution recognizes states. Same with Puerto Rico. BTW, the majority of PR's residents DON'T want statehood.
PR would not, in any instance, be a "balancing vote" to a Democratic Party DC. Do you think, for one second, that the overwhelming hispanic population of the island would give the current Republican party the time of day, much less a vote against their own interests?
If you don't think GWB was reading from a script written by an "adviser", well...
I do agree that the Utah piece was 1) a blatant handout that makes the Missouri Compromise seem like a cake-walk, and 2) just as unconstitutional as everything else in this proposal.
Reply
My reference to "balancing vote" was not to balance the liberal and conservative votes, but to balance the odd versus even numbers of Senate votes (with the VP's vote always being the "decider" *cough*hack*gag* in the event of a tie-breaker). The fact that the DC has always been without representation in the Senate has nothing to do with giving more representation to an area with existing representation. That is why I suggested the balance would be to include another area without existing representation by including them as our 51st (or technically 52nd) State. (As to Hispanics voting only for the Democrats? Try Miami's Cuban population for a litmus test.) I also was not suggesting that Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands (or Iraq or Afghanistan -- or hell, even all of Canada except Quebec) WANT statehood, but I was speaking hypothetically of a more logical attempt to have an even number of Senators without artificially over-representing existing states.
In terms of the equality of conservatives and liberals handed out in new representative inclusions in the Senate, I daresay that my interpretation of the former Missouri Compromise was an issue over the votes on slavery, not specifically two opposing parties (even though that's the way it ultimately played out). The compromise was made not over political party, but AN ISSUE over which the parties fundamentally disagreed. I could just as easily extend the logic to stands on gay marriage, or gun laws, or legalizing pot. We DO still have a "war on drugs", don't we? Isn't that issue somewhat more similar to the pro/anti slavery issues? DC is apparently (on the surface, anyway) against legalizing marijuana, what say you to California getting an additional representative? >snicker< (I am joking, but I still believe it's a valid discussion point.)
Re: "advisors", touché -- and absolutely no argument. I had that thought as I was writing, but the point was made regardless of who penned Dubya's pre-veto response. Does the fact that he didn't write it himself make it any better?
I do disclose that I appear to be on the Democrat side of this issue and my nose would be more out of joint if I were of the Republican (or Neo-Con) party, but I thought I might try to amend your corrections for the first factual distinction about Commonwealths and the second one over what I intended "balance" to represent. It's all good -- I just wish that more discussions could be heard, and that it could be understood for what it is, and not the bogus "it's unconstitutional" duck-cover-run response.
Reply
While the LAW recognizes the existence of the commonwealths, technically the constitution does not. Constitutionally, those two are merely territories exactly as much of the U.S. West was in the late 19th century.
With respect to the Senate. Two votes per state == always a need for a tie-breaker. If DC gains statehood, the senate count is 102 and the VP remains the tie-breaker. Any proposal to give DC one senate vote is, in my opinion, so unlikely as to not be worth proposing or considering seriously. The historical and constitutional importance of the Senate was to represent the states themselves and give them a chance to air out differences without having to go do the Federal courts.
The amendment that turned the Senate into a elected house rather than an appointed one was misguided and has led to many of our current problems in that house, but at some level the inherent meaning of the Senate as a place for the States to gather remains. Neither DC nor PR qualify and I believe that should stand unless statehood is requested and granted.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment