Should DC be represented in the Senate?

[Jake]

And opebo claims in this thread there should be a property requirement to vote

[ian]

Sure.  I'll take two more Dem senators.

Lets face it:  The Dems will say yes because they want two more Dem senators, and the reps will say no because they DON'T want 2 more Dem senators.

I say no and I'm a Dem.

[Redefeatbush04]

Although DC would create a Democratic Senate Majority which I would like, I don't think it would be fair to the GOP.

I don't think party affiliation should even be considered when it comes to admitting new states (if it has senate peeps ....it is a state right)

Maryland should just annex the goddam thing.

[Emsworth]

Perhaps not Senators, but DC should definitely have a voting Representative. I see no reason to disenfranchise the taxpaying citizens of the District.

[Emsworth]

Perhaps not Senators, but DC should definitely have a voting Representative. I see no reason to disenfranchise the taxpaying citizens of the District.

How about making it a tax free zone?

That would, unfortunately, lead to the overpopulation of the district, as numerous citizens would move there to avoid taxes.

The main point, however, is not "taxation without representation." (Yes, I know I mentioned taxes.) Rather, the point is that the residents of the District are citizens of the United States, subject to the same federal laws as residents of the other states. They do not have a high degree of autonomy like territories such as Puerto Rico. Hence, it is indefensible to deny them Congressional representation.

[dazzleman]

DC is a dysfunctional hellhole, completely dependent upon federal funding. What they pay in doesn't nearly account for the welfare these 50 states give to the SOBs.

We can exempt them from federal taxes when they're exempt from federal welfare.

What remains of DC was taken from Maryland. Let DC residents vote for federal officials as citizens of Maryland.

I agree.  It's ludicrous to make DC a state.

[Emsworth]

I agree.  It's ludicrous to make DC a state.

It may be ludicrous to make DC a state, but it is also ridiculous to deny them representation.

[dazzleman]

I agree.  It's ludicrous to make DC a state.

It may be ludicrous to make DC a state, but it is also ridiculous to deny them representation.

That's why they should vote as citizens of Maryland in federal elections.

DC is a net drain on the federal government.  It is completely dysfunctional, to the point that without Congress running things (and heavily subsidizing it), it would be about on the level of a third world country.

Sorry, but I don't have a lot of empathy for the citizens of DC.  Nobody forces them to live there in any case.  I agree with you technically, that they should have representation, but I don't lose too much sleep about the fact that they don't.

[A18]

Here's what I support: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.190:

That bill would allow them to vote for two senators, a representative, and presidential electors, all as residents of Maryland.

Might want to email your representative and senators if you ever get the chance, since it has no cosponsors.

[Emsworth]

That's why they should vote as citizens of Maryland in federal elections.

Why shouldn't they form their own congressional district? They have more people than Wyoming, for example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see. So you only care if people who agree with you are denied representation, but not if people who oppose your views suffer the same fate. Why don't we abolish the right to vote for citizens of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and California next?

[Emsworth]

That bill would allow them to vote for two senators, a representative, and presidential electors, all as residents of Maryland.

I'm afraid that this bill would be unconstitutional. The District of Columbia is not a part of the state of Maryland, and so would not be entitled to vote for representatives: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" (Art I, sec ii, cl 1).

[A18]

Read the findings section.

[Emsworth]

Read the findings section.

I have done so; the section, I am afraid, is based on somewhat flawed reasoning.

"The Supreme Court of the United States has found that the cession of legislative authority over the territory that became the District of Columbia by the States of Maryland and Virginia did not remove that territory from the United States, and that the people who live in that territory are entitled to all the rights, guarantees, and immunities of the Constitution that they formerly enjoyed as citizens of those States." This is absolutely correct, in that DC is a part of the U.S., and in that its citizens are entitled to rights such as those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

However, there is no such constitutional right as "the right to participate, equally with other Americans, in a Republican form of government." This phrase is an extremely vague one, and has no constitutional basis at all, especially since the Constitution explicitly provides that only the people of the states may vote for Congressmen. There is no precedent, as far as I am aware, for regarding the District of Columbia as a part of Maryland in any sense at all.

[A18]

Although I agree that isn't a constitutional right, and that you are correct in that regard, the Supreme Court has indeed ruled it to be one.

You skipped over the most important item:

(7) Since the people who lived in the territory that now makes up the District of Columbia once voted in Maryland as citizens of Maryland, and Congress by adoption of the Organic Act of 1801 severed the political connection between Maryland and the District of Columbia by statute, Congress has the power by statute to restore Maryland state citizenship rights, including Federal electoral rights, that it took away by enacting the Organic Act of 1801.

[dazzleman]

I see. So you only care if people who agree with you are denied representation, but not if people who oppose your views suffer the same fate. Why don't we abolish the right to vote for citizens of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and California next?

Sounds like a good idea to me...

In all seriousness, it's not so much related to their political views, but the fact that DC simply doesn't have the attributes of a state.  It has no economy, is nowhere near self-sufficient, and a large percentage of its population is people who can't vote because they're foreigners.

That being said, I think in theory they deserve representation, but not as a state.  I favor the idea of adding them on to Maryland for federal election purposes.

[Emsworth]

Since the people who lived in the territory that now makes up the District of Columbia once voted in Maryland as citizens of Maryland, and Congress by adoption of the Organic Act of 1801 severed the political connection between Maryland and the District of Columbia by statute, Congress has the power by statute to restore Maryland state citizenship rights, including Federal electoral rights, that it took away by enacting the Organic Act of 1801.

I just did a little bit of research, and I am afraid that this item is inapplicable. The District of Columbia was not even formally established until 1801. Therefore, as the territory in question was a part of Maryland until then, its residents naturally held the right to vote in Maryland elections. On February 27, 1801, however, DC ceased to be a part of Maryland, and at the same time ceased to be represented in Congress. It is not as if the citizens of the District of Columbia were voting as citizens of Maryland until Congress suddenly took their rights away in 1801.

[A18]

I believe it was the Residence Act of 1790 that established DC as the permanent site of the capital. It didn't actually become that until 1801, yes, but I am almost certain Maryland had given the territory up. Thus, the cession did not deny them voting rights.