Okay, I know a lot of you probably don't know about this unless you've watched the Colbert Report, which is sort of why I'm posting. Stephen Colbert has done a series of interviews with members of the House of Representatives for his show's segment "Better Know a District." He did a segment on Washington, DC - the federal district. And during this segment, he happened to mention that Washington, DC doesn't have any voting rights in Congress. Surely a joke, you say? Sorry. He's dead serious about that. Washington, DC is the only city in the United States that isn't represented in Congress. It has a delegate who can vote on bills in committee, but not on the House floor. If you've seen their license plates - the ones that say "Taxation Without Representation" - now you know why they say that.
Why doesn't DC have representation? There are many arguments against it, all of them coming from Republicans.
Most people who are against giving DC voting rights point to Article 1 of the Constitution, which says that representatives can only come from states. And since DC is not a state, that condemns DC residents to not having representation ever - unless they become a state. The trouble with this argument is, there's another part of the Constitution which says federal income taxes can only come from residents of states. Yet DC residents paid the highest per capita amount of income taxes in the entire country last year - higher than any other state's average. There is also another part of the Constitution called the District Clause, which gives Congress great power over the District, such as the power to reject any law their City Council passes and final say on their budget.
Still others worry that, since DC is overwhelmingly Democratic (90% for Kerry in 2024), giving them a seat in Congress will harm the Republican party. So proponents recently put forth a bill called the DC Voting Rights Act which would have given DC a seat, and also given Republican-leaning Utah (which missed out on another seat in 2024 by less than a thousand people due to an alleged error in the Census) another seat to balance it out. Despite passing the House, a Senate vote on cloture only received 57 votes for it, three less than required, which meant the bill was killed due to filibuster. All except for one vote against the bill came from Republicans.
And still others undoubtedly do not want to give DC a seat because its population is a majority African-American. (No one has said this publicly, but I believe it plays a part in some people's decision.)
There are 570,000 people who don't have a voice in their government. It's wrong. It needs to be fixed.
For more info, go to dcvote.org.
I have to agree. I was trying to disagree, but couldn't come up with anything about why they shouldn't have a voice.
It is true that DC residents do not elect Congressman and Senators to Congress. But what city does? DC voters have been able to vote for President and Vice-President since 1961 - See Link. The people of this city are represented by all of Congress and have a representative in Congress that can vote in subcommittee but not in full House sessions. Representation is limited but is there. But, again, it is city, not a state.
All the money and power already resides in this city. You are asking me to go along with the idea that they should gain additional power to seek accomodation over the people in my home state?
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
"It is true that DC residents do not elect Congressman and Senators to Congress. But what city does?"
How about every city except DC? When it comes to Senators, the combined votes of everyone in the state elect them. As for House members, a district can have more than one city in it, but that doesn't change the fact that every other city in the country is represented by three voices in Congress - a Representative and two Senators - who can vote on bills in committee and on the floor of the House/Senate. DC has a delegate whose voice counts up until the bill is put up for a final vote on the House floor.
"DC voters have been able to vote for President and Vice-President since 1961."
Your point being what, exactly?
"The people of this city are represented by all of Congress and have a representative in Congress that can vote in subcommittee but not in full House sessions. Representation is limited but is there."
Okay, first of all, we're not represented by all of Congress. Members of the House and Senate represent their own constituencies, not us. The only thing Congress does with regard to us is okay our own budget, reject our laws when a Senator has a problem with it, and so on.
Second of all, limited representation isn't okay. The whole point of Congress is that people have a voice in their government. The fact that DC's voice is limited compared to everyone else's isn't okay. If Congress took away your Representative's right to vote on the House floor, you would say that was unfair, wouldn't you?
"But, again, it is city, not a state."
You know, you're right. And Article 1 of the Constitution does say that Representatives can only come from states. But then there's Amendment 16:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
So federal income taxes can only come from states. Yet DC residents paid the highest per capita income tax last year. Does that seem right to you?
"All the money and power already resides in this city. You are asking me to go along with the idea that they should gain additional power to seek accomodation over the people in my home state?"
You seem to be under the misapprehension that DC and the federal government are one and the same. Just because the President and Congress and the rest of the federal government resides in DC, that doesn't mean we're the most powerful city in the country. Quite the opposite, really.
In actuality, the reason I'm asking you to go along with this is so DC can get the rights you take for granted. I'm not asking for it so we can have a louder voice than you. That wouldn't be fair. I'm asking for it so DC's voice can be as loud as yours. That seems fair to me.
Amendment XVI: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
You said:
So federal income taxes can only come from states.
The Sixteenth Amendment does not say that federal income taxes can only come from the states. Quite the contrary. It merely eliminates apportionment among the several States as a binding element affecting the authority to tax. The controlling authority for taxation is the phrase "from whatever source derived."
Having said that, I do concede and question why it wouldn't make better sense to allow people in the TERRITORY of D.C. representatives in Congress. What I have learned seems to indicate that there are better ways to achieve this goal than to ask for legislation that in the end, could turn out to be unconstitutional.
It seems it would be better that D.C. pursue these paths for the right to be truly represented (not the limited non-voting representation it currently has): (1) granting full statehood to Washington D.C., or (2) retroceding territory of Washington D.C. back to the State of Maryland, or (3) adopting a constitutional amendment granting Washington D.C. a vote in the House of Representatives. The current move to simply push legislation to give people the representation they deserve is not the best approach.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
Actually, it does say that federal income taxes can only come from states. That's what "among the several States" is all about.
You didn't respond to the alternatives. It would seem that D.C. doesn't want the representation bad enough to pursue what the people in every state of the union have had to do --- become a state or part of a state.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
Okay, fine. I think the alternatives aren't bad. Statehood is a good possibility, as is a constitutional amendment giving DC voting representation. I'm not sure I'd like retrocession, personally, and there's been a lot of negative reaction to that from a lot of people.
Saying that DC doesn't want the representation bad enough, meanwhile, makes me speculate that you don't know this issue very well. Because DC's more than slightly miffed about it.
It really is irrelevant whether I'm new to this issue. Our discussion caused me to read up on both the pro, con, and the relation to the constitution. If nothing else, I think U08 has provided the opportunity for us to get civics lessons. I guess my comment points to a bewilderment on my part as to why the current legislation is pursued while ignoring more promising solutions. I just don't understand why D.C. people have not pursued these paths. I can appreciate not wanting to be part of an existing state.
I raise this point about the legislation for the simple reason it then becomes political. From the perspective of the two parties. The Republican party is naturally not going to want more representatives of the opposition party in Congress. I say take that power out of the hands of the politcians and keep the authority in the hands of the people in D.C. Form a state!
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
As a long-time DC resident (32 years) you are both somewhat right. A lot of people have pushed for Statehood and constitutional amendment but the numbers are just not there. not having a Rep vote in congress is not ideal for sure in a representative democracy as we purport to be. Although DC has more population than several states, i do think giving it full statehood stayus is a stretch constitutionally and realistically political-wise. I favor some sort of retrocession middle ground like Arlington and Alexandria sections did to Virginia way back when. But trouble is Maryland does not want us.
If there was some middle ground to get us into Maryland (big annual stipend of some sort, etc) I would be happy as a Clam. But statehood is a stretch and the status quo is sad commentary. A middle doable ground must be found that is both constitutional and politically implementable. In the meantime i'll keep my license tag - No Taxation without representation" as I bite the bullet and pay my taxes! Oh well! They never said democracy would be perfect those founding fathers but we can do what we can to change for an implementable doable solution.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Okay, you make some fair points. But your argument that the Republican party doesn't want DC to get a vote because it will be Democratic, while undoubtedly true, fails to take into account that the previous legislation gave Republican-leaning Utah another vote. Now, I know you're probably going to say that that bill was unconstitutional - I don't believe it is, but for the purposes of this question, let's assume it is. Has the Republican party been standing up for the Constitution a lot recently?
Mrhammer, I don't know if I am representative of most people about the DC voting issue but, I do feel empathy for you all. Why shouldn't you feel the same frustration as the rest of us when it comes to the inability of our elected Congressional Representatives being locked up in gridlock?
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
Okay, this is going to be my last post on the issue, because I want other people to put their views out there.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but regardless, whether or not they're in gridlock isn't the issue. The issue is fairness. When there's one city in the entire country that doesn't have the same rights as the other 16,000-plus, you give them those rights. It's just fair.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
DC was set up as a federal city to be free from local parochial interests. That one quarter of this city opted out and remained a part of VA is conveniently ignored.
The solutions are simple - residents should move to a neighboring state and receive instant representation OR unite the city with its original home in MD. I do not understand why MD would not welcome DC, as another posted opined.
Statehood will never happen. To have two US Senators representing a single city is silly. The district has a delegate who represents its interests in the congress. That they don't have a vote amongst 435 in the House is also silly.
DC is unique - our federal capitol. They get plenty of benefits from the federal government. All the high paying civil servant jobs, lobbyist activities, and other political action are special to the DC kingdom.
I am oppoosed to DC Statehood. I think it foolish to allow a city full representation as if it were a state. Then every city would want the same representation as DC. Also, residents knew or should have known they would be giving up their right to representation when they moved to DC. And if they truly want representation, they can move out of DC.
I feel that retroceding some territory of Washington D.C. back to the State of Maryland is the best alternative. I would suggest that SE, NW, and NE sections of DC that are mostly residential be ceded back to Maryland. If portions of the Zoo were given back to Maryland, I would have it remain federal government land just as many areas throughout Virginia are federal government land. At one time I worked at NASA/Langley Air Force Base where the federal government had jurisdiction over part of the property, Virginia had jurisdiction over part of the land, and there was dual jurisdiction over other parts of the property.
If DC could be whittled down to an area with just a few residences left in DC, perhaps the Government could buy a remainder interest in those properties (the owners retaining a life interest) and convert them to part of the Mall or the National Zoo when the current owners died.
Okay, I know I said I wasn't going to post anymore, but I just have to respond to this, because this previous post is just so arrogant it practically begs a response.
First off, you talk about DC statehood being a bad idea. The thing is, statehood is, according to some Republicans who voted against the DC Voting Rights Act, the only legal way to give DC voting representation. Some scholars have disputed that, but the fact remains that some people are proposing it - John Warner, the Republican Senator from Virginia, is actually drawing up a proposal. So even people who were against the DC VRA are proposing what you don't like.
Of course, the DC VRA wasn't guaranteeing full statehood. Its purpose was to give DC one Representative, not two Senators. Two Senators is a discussion for another day - right now, the focus is on getting DC any representation.
You continue with a "shoulda known better" argument. I was born in DC. So you can't exactly say I gave up my right to representation of my own free will. And even if I had...so what? Does that make it okay for DC not to be represented?
You also suggest that, if we don't like it, we can leave. Of course, some of us would prefer it to stay in DC and have the same rights every other American has. It's just fair. Some of us actually like it there. Try not to gasp.
Retrocession is an idea which has been shot down by many DC and Maryland legislators. So I don't think that's going to work out. Ditto for Virginia, before you ask.
Finally, you put forth a proposal which seems to call for the government running every DC resident out of DC. Which, quite frankly, is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, and that's IF the government could actually convince everybody to give up the rights to the land.
You seem to be under the impression that DC residents are not American citizens - at least, that's what your post suggests - and thus don't deserve the same rights everyone else does. Like I said, that's so arrogant.