Senate Bill By Lieberman Would Make 'New Columbia' 51st State...

[Politico]

Not gonna happen. We'd have to change the textbooks. And all those flags would have to be fixed.

 

[AmyNation]

Nice trick to get themselves more power in the Senate.

They would have to get 2/3 of the Senate to approve it and 3/4 of the state legislatures. Given that there are 48 Republicans in the Senate and over 30 state legislatures with Republican majorities, I don't see how it's ever going to happen.

The obvious flaw in this simplistic backward reasoning is that the right to representation is not dependent on which party or policy you think a given region is likely to vote for. It's their right as American citizens to be represented, period. That right is not dependent on them saying the right things. Never has been, never will be. Only an idiot would base their vote on whether said citizens were likely or unlikely to support their party.

Unfortunately as noted there are enough idiots in those seats to do just that. But that doesn't make it defensible.

Except that, as stated by another poster, DC not being a state is not an accident or an oversight, it was intentional, by the founders that the capital would never be a state.

 

[bayoubill]

They would have to get 2/3 of the Senate to approve it and 3/4 of the state legislatures. Given that there are 48 Republicans in the Senate and over 30 state legislatures with Republican majorities, I don't see how it's ever going to happen.

The obvious flaw in this simplistic backward reasoning is that the right to representation is not dependent on which party or policy you think a given region is likely to vote for. It's their right as American citizens to be represented, period. That right is not dependent on them saying the right things. Never has been, never will be. Only an idiot would base their vote on whether said citizens were likely or unlikely to support their party.

Unfortunately as noted there are enough idiots in those seats to do just that. But that doesn't make it defensible.

Except that, as stated by another poster, DC not being a state is not an accident or an oversight, it was intentional, by the founders that the capital would never be a state.

I pretty much agree with all of you...

the solution I put forth a few posts ago:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ke-new-columbia-51st-state-2.html#post6529603

 

[Pogo]

They would have to get 2/3 of the Senate to approve it and 3/4 of the state legislatures. Given that there are 48 Republicans in the Senate and over 30 state legislatures with Republican majorities, I don't see how it's ever going to happen.

The obvious flaw in this simplistic backward reasoning is that the right to representation is not dependent on which party or policy you think a given region is likely to vote for. It's their right as American citizens to be represented, period. That right is not dependent on them saying the right things. Never has been, never will be. Only an idiot would base their vote on whether said citizens were likely or unlikely to support their party.

Unfortunately as noted there are enough idiots in those seats to do just that. But that doesn't make it defensible.

Except that, as stated by another poster, DC not being a state is not an accident or an oversight, it was intentional, by the founders that the capital would never be a state.

That was the kid with the finger. I skipped over that point because I couldn't make any sense out of it, plus I could not find where in the Constitution the concept of "ticks on the ass" was articulated...

The creators of the District (who are not the "Founders" -- when this was done we were already founded) may have had the idea that the capital would not be a state, but they never said the citizens thereof should be disenfranchised from representation in Congress. And that's the whole point.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The obvious flaw in this simplistic backward reasoning is that the right to representation is not dependent on which party or policy you think a given region is likely to vote for. It's their right as American citizens to be represented, period. That right is not dependent on them saying the right things. Never has been, never will be. Only an idiot would base their vote on whether said citizens were likely or unlikely to support their party.

Unfortunately as noted there are enough idiots in those seats to do just that. But that doesn't make it defensible.

Except that, as stated by another poster, DC not being a state is not an accident or an oversight, it was intentional, by the founders that the capital would never be a state.

That was the kid with the finger. I skipped over that point because I couldn't make any sense out of it, plus I could not find where in the Constitution the concept of "ticks on the ass" was articulated...

The creators of the District (who are not the "Founders" -- when this was done we were already founded) may have had the idea that the capital would not be a state, but they never said the citizens thereof should be disenfranchised from representation in Congress. And that's the whole point.

History is clearly not your strong suit...

In 1783, Congress decided that the nation's capital would move from Philadelphia in 1800. After much debate, members passed the Residence Act, which outlined a ten-miles-square site on the Potomac River along the Virginia– Maryland border, an area that President George Washington had selected.

President John Adams was the first leader to govern from Federal City, later named Washington, D.C., in honor of our nation's first president. Today, the city of Washington exists as the District of Columbia (D.C.), the federal district of the United States, named after Christopher Columbus.

The Creation of Washington, D.C. - American History

 

[Pogo]

History is clearly not your strong suit...

Perhaps calendar-reading is, because I'm pretty sure in linear time 1790, when the Residence Act was passed, is after both 1787 (when the Constitution was ratified) and after 1789 (when it went into effect). Therefore in everything after those dates, we were already "founded".

All the Constitutional clause did was empower Congress to create such a district. The actual creation and site selection and details, that all came later. Therefore ascribing those details to the "Founders" is disingenuous.

Not a good idea to assume I don't check my facts before I post.

 

[bayoubill]

History is clearly not your strong suit...

Perhaps calendar-reading is, because I'm pretty sure in linear time 1790, when the Residence Act was passed, is after both 1787 (when the Constitution was ratified) and after 1789 (when it went into effect). Therefore in everything after those dates, we were "founded".

All the clause did was empower Congress to create such a district. The actual creation came later.

meh... I can understand the confusion between the two...

but the "Founders of the Nation" were basically the same guys as the "Creators of the Federal District"...


geez... some people havta argue 'bout the least li'l thing...

 

[GuyPinestra]

History is clearly not your strong suit...

Perhaps calendar-reading is, because I'm pretty sure in linear time 1790, when the Residence Act was passed, is after both 1787 (when the Constitution was ratified) and after 1789 (when it went into effect). Therefore in everything after those dates, we were already "founded".

All the Constitutional clause did was empower Congress to create such a district. The actual creation and site selection and details, that all came later. Therefore ascribing those details to the "Founders" is disingenuous.

Not a good idea to assume I don't check my facts before I post.

Negged for stupidity.

Those 'Founders' in 1787 were the SAME GUYS who passed the Residence Act 3 years later...

Idiot.

 

[tjvh]

Nope... If people want better representation, they are more than welcome to move outside of the Beltway.

 

[bayoubill]

Nope... If people want better representation, they are more than welcome to move outside of the Beltway.

actually, unfortunately for the folks we're talkin' about, they pretty much do live outside the Beltway... but not quite all the way to Maryland...

 

[bayoubill]

Nope... If people want better representation, they are more than welcome to move outside of the Beltway.

actually, unfortunately for the folks we're talkin' about, they pretty much do live outside the Beltway... but not quite all the way to Maryland...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi6wNGwd84g]The Opening Theme for The Twilight Zone - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Pogo]

History is clearly not your strong suit...

Perhaps calendar-reading is, because I'm pretty sure in linear time 1790, when the Residence Act was passed, is after both 1787 (when the Constitution was ratified) and after 1789 (when it went into effect). Therefore in everything after those dates, we were already "founded".

All the Constitutional clause did was empower Congress to create such a district. The actual creation and site selection and details, that all came later. Therefore ascribing those details to the "Founders" is disingenuous.

Not a good idea to assume I don't check my facts before I post.

Negged for stupidity.

Those 'Founders' in 1787 were the SAME GUYS who passed the Residence Act 3 years later...

Idiot.

So what? When you try to pass something off as "created by the Founders" you're trying to sell the idea that it came with the Constitution. Well it didn't. The Residence Act didn't even specify where the capital was to be.

Would you say Ben Franklin was one of the Founders? I would. Does that mean the Franklin Stove was "created by the Founders"? Same person, right?

When I see Bullshit, I'm going to raise the - whether anyone salutes or not I really don't care.

 

[bayoubill]

Perhaps calendar-reading is, because I'm pretty sure in linear time 1790, when the Residence Act was passed, is after both 1787 (when the Constitution was ratified) and after 1789 (when it went into effect). Therefore in everything after those dates, we were already "founded".

All the Constitutional clause did was empower Congress to create such a district. The actual creation and site selection and details, that all came later. Therefore ascribing those details to the "Founders" is disingenuous.

Not a good idea to assume I don't check my facts before I post.

Negged for stupidity.

Those 'Founders' in 1787 were the SAME GUYS who passed the Residence Act 3 years later...

Idiot.

So what? When you try to pass something off as "created by the Founders" you're trying to sell the idea that it came with the Constitution. Well it didn't. The Residence Act didn't even specify where the capital was to be.

Would you say Ben Franklin was one of the Founders? I would. Does that mean the Franklin Stove was "created by the Founders"? Same person, right?

When I see Bullshit, I'm going to raise the - whether anyone salutes or not I really don't care.

mebbe I can help sort this out...

there were the "Founders of the Nation"...

alotta these same folks were also, but not necesarily, the "Framers of the Constitution"...

and then, a li'l later, there was a group of folks in Congress, many of whom were in one or both of the other two groups previously mentioned, who were the "Creators of the Federal District"...


hope this helps...

 

[PratchettFan]

so the Senate would, of course, automatically get two more permanently-Democrat senatorial seats...

- So the United States Citizens who live in D.C. would finally actually have representation.

Oh the horror.

That would be easily solved. Simply move the borders of Maryland to encompass the city. DC does not have the tax base to make a viable state. The number one employer there is the government, which is non-taxable. It has no industry and no room for expansion. The tourist attractions are mostly federal property. A significant portion of the real estate is federal and non-taxable. The tax rate DC is going to need to levy on the residents to support itself will be crushing. This is a seriously bad move for the citizens of DC, but it will mean the politicians there will be big fish in a very small pond. Good move for them. Governor Holmes-Norton. Senator Berry.

 

[J.E.D]

Nice trick to get themselves more power in the Senate.

They would have to get 2/3 of the Senate to approve it and 3/4 of the state legislatures. Given that there are 48 Republicans in the Senate and over 30 state legislatures with Republican majorities, I don't see how it's ever going to happen.

Yeah, they didn't have the votes for Obamacare either. It still somehow got passed through deception and legislative gaming.

Except that it got passed with a majority of votes in both chambers and signed into law by the POTUS. Just like all legislation. Anyway. Carry on.

 

[Pogo]

Negged for stupidity.

Those 'Founders' in 1787 were the SAME GUYS who passed the Residence Act 3 years later...

Idiot.

So what? When you try to pass something off as "created by the Founders" you're trying to sell the idea that it came with the Constitution. Well it didn't. The Residence Act didn't even specify where the capital was to be.

Would you say Ben Franklin was one of the Founders? I would. Does that mean the Franklin Stove was "created by the Founders"? Same person, right?

When I see Bullshit, I'm going to raise the - whether anyone salutes or not I really don't care.

mebbe I can help sort this out...

there were the "Founders of the Nation"...

alotta these same folks were also, but not necesarily, the "Framers of the Constitution"...

and then, a li'l later, there was a group of folks in Congress, many of whom were in one or both of the other two groups previously mentioned, who were the "Creators of the Federal District"...


hope this helps...

Oh I get all that. I just saw some kid with nothing more than a finger trying to sell mythinformation -- so I shot it down

 

[Staidhup]

Screw New Columbia, how about splitting off Southern Oregon and Northern California and merging them into a state called Jefferson, or splitting off Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington and merging the two into the State of Columbia.

 

[GuyPinestra]

So what? When you try to pass something off as "created by the Founders" you're trying to sell the idea that it came with the Constitution. Well it didn't. The Residence Act didn't even specify where the capital was to be.

Would you say Ben Franklin was one of the Founders? I would. Does that mean the Franklin Stove was "created by the Founders"? Same person, right?

When I see Bullshit, I'm going to raise the - whether anyone salutes or not I really don't care.

mebbe I can help sort this out...

there were the "Founders of the Nation"...

alotta these same folks were also, but not necesarily, the "Framers of the Constitution"...

and then, a li'l later, there was a group of folks in Congress, many of whom were in one or both of the other two groups previously mentioned, who were the "Creators of the Federal District"...


hope this helps...

Oh I get all that. I just saw some kid with nothing more than a finger trying to sell mythinformation -- so I shot it down

Ummm, that was a big swing and a miss, Turtle Boy.

The 'Founders' remained Founders throughout their lives, they remain Founders to this day. Nothing has changed except the DATE.

Moron...

 

[BallsBrunswick]

I wonder why these people automatically assume those two seats would be Democrats?

 

[GuyPinestra]

I wonder why these people automatically assume those two seats would be Democrats?

Past voting history of those residents is my guess.

Marion Barry ring a bell for you?