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

[Pogo]

That's all irrelevant. The constitution provides for its creation, and nowhere does it mention that it should have representation in Congress. That right was reserved solely to the states.

Are you actually denying that you posted this, six posts up, visible on this page right now:

The creation of Washington DC is mentioned in the Constitution, so you are wrong, and the Founders didn't see fit to give it representation in Congress. That's how the they wanted it.

?

Are you actually denying that you posted back in #10:

Perhaps you're unclear on the Constitution which specifically exempts Washington D.C from having representation in the House and the Senate. the Founding Fathers did that for a reason: they didn't want a bunch of ticks on the ass of society from having the ability to vote themselves more swag from the public treasury.

?

Because somebody using your name posted those. I see them right now. And as I just proved to you, it's completely wrong. When the Constitution was written, and ratified, and put into effect, Washington DC Did. Not. Exist. Therefore it could not be mentioned, and as I already posted, it wasn't. I word-searched the whole thing. The only related thing mentioned was a section giving Congress the power to create such a district in the future. (Linear time: it's not just a good idea; it's the law).

I posted links and quotes. What you got??

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The feds didn't want D.C. to be a state. They wanted it to be a separate body housing the capitol, hence the reason they took land from Maryland and Virginia to form it.

 

[bayoubill]

I doubt Maryland wants them.

that was my first thought...

but then it occurred to me that Maryland's political leaders might figure it to be worth their while to add those 600,000 voters to their rolls, since the bump in numbers might very well mean Maryland gets an additional seat in Congress...

plus, I imagine the state's Democratic Party might welcome all those reliably-Democrat voters, the addition of which would water down the GOP's strength in the state...

 

[bripat9643]

Because somebody using your name posted those. I see them right now. And as I just proved to you, it's completely wrong. When the Constitution was written, and ratified, and put into effect, Washington DC Did. Not. Exist. Therefore it could not be mentioned, and as I already posted, it wasn't. I word-searched the whole thing. The only related thing mentioned was a section giving Congress the power to create such a district in the future. (Linear time: it's not just a good idea; it's the law).

I posted links and quotes. What you got??

So you believe that because the Constitution doesn't give a name to the sight of the capital that it hasn't mentioned it?

That's moronic.

Here is the language that refers to the creation of "the seat of government of the United States." That means the capital i.e., Washington DC, in case you're too stupid to figure it out.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States

 

[bayoubill]

Because somebody using your name posted those. I see them right now. And as I just proved to you, it's completely wrong. When the Constitution was written, and ratified, and put into effect, Washington DC Did. Not. Exist. Therefore it could not be mentioned, and as I already posted, it wasn't. I word-searched the whole thing. The only related thing mentioned was a section giving Congress the power to create such a district in the future. (Linear time: it's not just a good idea; it's the law).

I posted links and quotes. What you got??

So you believe that because the Constitution doesn't give a name to the sight of the capital that it hasn't mentioned it?

That's moronic.

Here is the language that refers to the creation of "the seat of government of the United States." That means the capital i.e., Washington DC, in case you're too stupid to figure it out.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States

I don't understand why you two guys are arguing about when things were and when things weren't... it's not salient to the discussion of the issue at hand...

 

[bripat9643]

Because somebody using your name posted those. I see them right now. And as I just proved to you, it's completely wrong. When the Constitution was written, and ratified, and put into effect, Washington DC Did. Not. Exist. Therefore it could not be mentioned, and as I already posted, it wasn't. I word-searched the whole thing. The only related thing mentioned was a section giving Congress the power to create such a district in the future. (Linear time: it's not just a good idea; it's the law).

I posted links and quotes. What you got??

So you believe that because the Constitution doesn't give a name to the sight of the capital that it hasn't mentioned it?

That's moronic.

Here is the language that refers to the creation of "the seat of government of the United States." That means the capital i.e., Washington DC, in case you're too stupid to figure it out.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States

I don't understand why you two guys are arguing about when things were and when things weren't... it's not salient to the discussion of the issue at hand...

Somehow this turd thinks the site of the capital isn't mentioned in the Constitution, which means the residents are entitled to have senators and congressman.

 

[francoHFW]

Taxation without Representation. Now Pubs are for that, the racist greedy a-holes and silly dupes/haters. LOL What a disgrace.

 

[bayoubill]

So you believe that because the Constitution doesn't give a name to the sight of the capital that it hasn't mentioned it?

That's moronic.

Here is the language that refers to the creation of "the seat of government of the United States." That means the capital i.e., Washington DC, in case you're too stupid to figure it out.

I don't understand why you two guys are arguing about when things were and when things weren't... it's not salient to the discussion of the issue at hand...

Somehow this turd thinks the site of the capital isn't mentioned in the Constitution, which means the residents are entitled to have senators and congressman.

ah... well, that is a stretch, to say the least...

 

[Pogo]

So you believe that because the Constitution doesn't give a name to the sight [sic] of the capital that it hasn't mentioned it?

That's moronic.

Here is the language that refers to the creation of "the seat of government of the United States." That means the capital i.e., Washington DC, in case you're too stupid to figure it out.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States

I don't understand why you two guys are arguing about when things were and when things weren't... it's not salient to the discussion of the issue at hand...

It may seem odd, but it's salient because it's homing in on the reasons DC residents have no representation, which is after all the whole rationale behind making it into a state (or applying that pressure toward that goal). It became a debate because Finger-boy laid out the claim (that he's now trying to dance away from) that the "Founders" specifically nixed representation rights for the residents of DC, in the Constitution, which he sez "specifically exempts Washington D.C from having representation in the House and the Senate. the Founding Fathers did that for a reason: they didn't want a bunch of ticks on the ass of society from having the ability to vote themselves more swag from the public treasury". All of which is complete pig dung.

There are a lot of things wrong with that myth, first that DC did not even exist at the time of the Constitution, and the people that lived there were, until at least 1801, citizens of Maryland and Virginia, with representation like everybody else. Second, that right of representation was never specifically taken away, by the Founders or by anyone else, within the Constitution or outside of it. I've challenged Finger-boy to come up with any citation and he's given me crickets. At the most, it's an indirect effect of the Organic Act passed by the Sixth Congress in 1801, which never actually addressed the issue at all. (Documentation of the Organic Act follows)

In fact the only basis for the infamous Taxation Without Representation status appears to be a later court ruling on the Organic Act: "By the separation of the District of Columbia from the state of Maryland, the residents in that part of Maryland which became a part of the district ceased to be citizens of the state (Reilly, appellant v. Lamar et al, 2 Cranch 344; 1 Cond. Rep. 419, year unknown, seen in the footnotes to the Organic Act here, page 105). And even that doesn't address rights of representation; it just says "ceased to be citizens of the state". Loss of rights to representation is merely our assumption as a consequence of loss of a state citizenship -- not something specifically rescinded.

Interestingly, the same footnotes to the same Record cited also note (related to property claims) that "A mere change of sovereignty produces no change in the state of rights existing in the soil". It further states (sec. 16) that "nothing in this act contained shall in any wise alter, impeach or impair the rights, granted by or derived from the acts of incorporation of Alexandria and Georgetown, or of any other body corporate or politic, within the said district, except so far as relates to the judicial powers of the corporations of Georgetown and Alexandria" (the two cities that previously occupied the square, Alexandria having been retroceded back to Virginia in 1846).

So even the Organic Act doesn't strip anybody of representation. It just failed to address the issue or how it would work. It fails to mention it at all.

Which is a far cry from "Founders" in the Constitution yanking rights away from residents of a place that didn't even exist yet. Based on the footnotes, the court rulings and the language of the Organic Act (which nowhere contains the phrase "ticks on the ass"), there's a strong case that DC citizens have been deprived without just cause simply through an errant omission.

By the way Finger-boy, I bolded some key words in your own quote above that show the imaginary district lies in the future in the language. I already told you the same thing with the same quote from the same Constitution, and you still missed it. The site of the capital isn't mentioned in the Constitution -- because it wasn't selected yet. In 1789, after the Constitution kicked in, the House and Senate came up with separate proposals, neither of which were near where Washington now is. Both were in Pennsylvania.

Maybe you should put your energies into something where accuracy is not involved. Like meteorology.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't understand why you two guys are arguing about when things were and when things weren't... it's not salient to the discussion of the issue at hand...

It may seem odd, but it's salient because it's homing in on the reasons DC residents have no representation, which is after all the whole rationale behind making it into a state (or applying that pressure toward that goal). It became a debate because Finger-boy laid out the claim (that he's now trying to dance away from) that the "Founders" specifically nixed representation rights for the residents of DC, in the Constitution.

There are a lot of things wrong with that myth, first that DC did not even exist at the time of the Constitution, and the people that lived there were, until at least 1801, citizens of Maryland and Virginia, (with representation) like everybody else. Second, that right of representation was never specifically taken away, by the Founders or by anyone else, in the Constitution or outside it, except at the most indirectly by the Organic Act passed by the Sixth Congress in 1801, which never addressed the issue at all. I've challenged Finger-boy to come up with any citation and he's given me crickets.

In fact the only basis for the infamous Taxation Without Representation status appears to be a later court ruling on the Organic Act: "By the separation of the Disctrict of Columbia from the state of Maryland, the residents in that part of Maryland which became a part of the district ceased to be citizens of the state (Reilly, appellant v. Lamar et al, 2 Cranch 344; 1 Cond. Rep. 419, year unknown, seen in the footnotes to the Organic Act here, page 105). And even that doesn't address rights of representation; it just says "ceased to be citizens of the state". Loss of rights to representation is merely assumed -- certainly not specifically rescinded.

In fact the same footnotes to the Record cited also note, related to property claims, that "A mere change of sovereignty produces no change in the state of rights existing in the soil". It further states (sec. 16) that "nothing in this act contained shall in any wise alter, impeach or impair the rights, granted by or derived from the acts of incorporation of Alexandria and Georgetown, or of any other body corporate or politic, within the said district, except so far as relates to the judicial powers of the corporations of Georgetown and Alexandria" (the two cities that previously occupied the square, Alexandria having been retroceded back to Virginia in 1846).

So even the Organic Act doesn't strip anybody of representation. It just failed to address the issue.

Which is a far cry from "Founders" in the Constitution yanking rights away from residents of a place that didn't even exist yet.

By the way Finger-boy, I bolded some key words in your own quote that show the imaginary district lies in the future in the language. I already told you the same thing with the same quote from the same Constitution, and you still missed it. Maybe you should put your energies into something where accuracy is not involved. Like meteorology.

The central point you are trying desperately to ignore is the fact that the Constitution gives states, and only states, the right to representation in Congress. The capital district is not a state, and it was never intended to be a state. Therefore, the Founding Fathers never intended the capital district to have representation in Congress. If they did, they could have easily correct the matter since many were alive long after Washington DC was created.

The fact that it didn't exist at the time the Constitution went into effect is a non sequitur.

 

[bayoubill]

So you believe that because the Constitution doesn't give a name to the sight [sic] of the capital that it hasn't mentioned it?

That's moronic.

Here is the language that refers to the creation of "the seat of government of the United States." That means the capital i.e., Washington DC, in case you're too stupid to figure it out.

I don't understand why you two guys are arguing about when things were and when things weren't... it's not salient to the discussion of the issue at hand...

It may seem odd, but it's salient because it's homing in on the reasons DC residents have no representation, which is after all the whole rationale behind making it into a state (or applying that pressure toward that goal). It became a debate because Finger-boy laid out the claim (that he's now trying to dance away from) that the "Founders" specifically nixed representation rights for the residents of DC, in the Constitution, which he sez "specifically exempts Washington D.C from having representation in the House and the Senate. the Founding Fathers did that for a reason: they didn't want a bunch of ticks on the ass of society from having the ability to vote themselves more swag from the public treasury". All of which is complete pig dung.

There are a lot of things wrong with that myth, first that DC did not even exist at the time of the Constitution, and the people that lived there were, until at least 1801, citizens of Maryland and Virginia, with representation like everybody else. Second, that right of representation was never specifically taken away, by the Founders or by anyone else, within the Constitution or outside of it. I've challenged Finger-boy to come up with any citation and he's given me crickets. At the most, it's an indirect effect of the Organic Act passed by the Sixth Congress in 1801, which never actually addressed the issue at all. (Documentation of the Organic Act follows)

In fact the only basis for the infamous Taxation Without Representation status appears to be a later court ruling on the Organic Act: "By the separation of the District of Columbia from the state of Maryland, the residents in that part of Maryland which became a part of the district ceased to be citizens of the state (Reilly, appellant v. Lamar et al, 2 Cranch 344; 1 Cond. Rep. 419, year unknown, seen in the footnotes to the Organic Act here, page 105). And even that doesn't address rights of representation; it just says "ceased to be citizens of the state". Loss of rights to representation is merely our assumption as a consequence of loss of a state citizenship -- it's certainly not something specifically rescinded.

In fact the same footnotes to the same Record cited also note (related to property claims) that "A mere change of sovereignty produces no change in the state of rights existing in the soil". It further states (sec. 16) that "nothing in this act contained shall in any wise alter, impeach or impair the rights, granted by or derived from the acts of incorporation of Alexandria and Georgetown, or of any other body corporate or politic, within the said district, except so far as relates to the judicial powers of the corporations of Georgetown and Alexandria" (the two cities that previously occupied the square, Alexandria having been retroceded back to Virginia in 1846).

So even the Organic Act doesn't strip anybody of representation. It just failed to address the issue and how it should work.

Which is a far cry from "Founders" in the Constitution yanking rights away from residents of a place that didn't even exist yet.

By the way Finger-boy, I bolded some key words in your own quote that show the imaginary district lies in the future in the language. I already told you the same thing with the same quote from the same Constitution, and you still missed it. Maybe you should put your energies into something where accuracy is not involved. Like meteorology.

Back in 1846, when the D.C. folks on the southern side of the Potomac complained about lack of congressional representation, D.C. gave that portion back to Virginia...

why not do the same with current-day D.C... giving most of it back to Maryland...?

 

[bripat9643]

I don't understand why you two guys are arguing about when things were and when things weren't... it's not salient to the discussion of the issue at hand...

It may seem odd, but it's salient because it's homing in on the reasons DC residents have no representation, which is after all the whole rationale behind making it into a state (or applying that pressure toward that goal). It became a debate because Finger-boy laid out the claim (that he's now trying to dance away from) that the "Founders" specifically nixed representation rights for the residents of DC, in the Constitution, which he sez "specifically exempts Washington D.C from having representation in the House and the Senate. the Founding Fathers did that for a reason: they didn't want a bunch of ticks on the ass of society from having the ability to vote themselves more swag from the public treasury". All of which is complete pig dung.

There are a lot of things wrong with that myth, first that DC did not even exist at the time of the Constitution, and the people that lived there were, until at least 1801, citizens of Maryland and Virginia, with representation like everybody else. Second, that right of representation was never specifically taken away, by the Founders or by anyone else, within the Constitution or outside of it. I've challenged Finger-boy to come up with any citation and he's given me crickets. At the most, it's an indirect effect of the Organic Act passed by the Sixth Congress in 1801, which never actually addressed the issue at all. (Documentation of the Organic Act follows)

In fact the only basis for the infamous Taxation Without Representation status appears to be a later court ruling on the Organic Act: "By the separation of the District of Columbia from the state of Maryland, the residents in that part of Maryland which became a part of the district ceased to be citizens of the state (Reilly, appellant v. Lamar et al, 2 Cranch 344; 1 Cond. Rep. 419, year unknown, seen in the footnotes to the Organic Act here, page 105). And even that doesn't address rights of representation; it just says "ceased to be citizens of the state". Loss of rights to representation is merely our assumption as a consequence of loss of a state citizenship -- it's certainly not something specifically rescinded.

In fact the same footnotes to the same Record cited also note (related to property claims) that "A mere change of sovereignty produces no change in the state of rights existing in the soil". It further states (sec. 16) that "nothing in this act contained shall in any wise alter, impeach or impair the rights, granted by or derived from the acts of incorporation of Alexandria and Georgetown, or of any other body corporate or politic, within the said district, except so far as relates to the judicial powers of the corporations of Georgetown and Alexandria" (the two cities that previously occupied the square, Alexandria having been retroceded back to Virginia in 1846).

So even the Organic Act doesn't strip anybody of representation. It just failed to address the issue and how it should work.

Which is a far cry from "Founders" in the Constitution yanking rights away from residents of a place that didn't even exist yet.

By the way Finger-boy, I bolded some key words in your own quote that show the imaginary district lies in the future in the language. I already told you the same thing with the same quote from the same Constitution, and you still missed it. Maybe you should put your energies into something where accuracy is not involved. Like meteorology.

Back in 1846, when the D.C. folks on the southern side of the Potomac complained about lack of congressional representation, D.C. gave that portion back to Virginia...

why not do the same with current-day D.C... giving most of it back to Maryland...?

I have no objection to that.

 

[Pogo]

The central point you are trying desperately to ignore is the fact that the Constitution gives states, and only states, the right to representation in Congress. The capital district is not a state, and it was never intended to be a state. Therefore, the Founding Fathers never intended the capital district to have representation in Congress. If they did, they could have easily correct the matter since many were alive long after Washington DC was created.

The fact that it didn't exist at the time the Constitution went into effect is a non sequitur.

No, actually that's the central point you're trying to migrate to, having fallen on your face with the whole disenfranchisement of a city that didn't exist jazz. But even there your point collapses, because here's something else the Constitution doesn't say: "States, and only States". At the time of the Constitution, States were all there were. There was no federal district, that being, all together now, in the future.

So you're trying to prove a negative from the absence of something. Kind of like that wag the other day who tried to note that automobiles are not mentioned in the Constitution, therefore we have no right to drive. Doesn't work that way. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And the fact that it didn't exist at the time of the Constitution, which you finally acknowledge, does matter because it was your claim that "the Founders specifically exempt(ed) Washington D.C from having representation in the House and the Senate" and that it was part of the Constitution. Which they in no way did, and which in no way was. Again, where's your citation? Where?

Back in 1846, when the D.C. folks on the southern side of the Potomac complained about lack of congressional representation, D.C. gave that portion back to Virginia...

why not do the same with current-day D.C... giving most of it back to Maryland...?

Just for the record, representation wasn't the basis for that. Alexandria was a big slave market at the time and the city was worried that abolitionists in Congress would outlaw slavery in the District. Plus Congress had let the place go. So they were most concerned about their local economy and petitioned Virginia to take the land back.

The conclusion is sound though, except as far as we need a capital district -- if indeed we do. Madison seemed to think so, but he's not the last word.

To be less complicated, all we'd have to do would be to establish a Congressional district (or districts) for the District for the residents there, and leave the rest as is.

 

[bayoubill]

just now found this... I didn't realize that an organized attempt had previously been made to address this issue...

The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would have given the District of Columbia full representation in the United States Congress, full representation in the Electoral College system, and full participation in the process by which the Constitution is amended.

This proposed amendment was proposed by the Congress on August 22, 1978, but failed to be ratified by 38 states prior to its expiration on August 22, 1985.

District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I was even more surprised to discover that my own state was one of the 16 states (and the only Southern state) to have voted for ratification...

guess I wasn't much paying attention to political stuff at the time...

 

[Glensather]

Should also split up CA and NY while we're at it

Personally, I would love to see California to be split in two state-wise. Between it and NY Democrats basically get a free 100 Electoral Votes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Should also split up CA and NY while we're at it

Personally, I would love to see California to be split in two state-wise. Between it and NY Democrats basically get a free 100 Electoral Votes.

It's only fair that they get split up too

 

[GoneBezerk]

If DC attracted white Mormons like Utah did instead of poor ghetto blacks and it was full of Federal workers that were mostly DoD officials, not the liberal scum found in the Department of Education, HHS, etc.....then liberals would go nuts over trying to make DC a RED STATE.

 

[konradv]

I doubt Maryland wants them.

that was my first thought...

but then it occurred to me that Maryland's political leaders might figure it to be worth their while to add those 600,000 voters to their rolls, since the bump in numbers might very well mean Maryland gets an additional seat in Congress...

plus, I imagine the state's Democratic Party might welcome all those reliably-Democrat voters, the addition of which would water down the GOP's strength in the state...

The Dems don't need much help in MD. Except in unusual circumstances they win the governorship, most of the House seats and the EC votes. MD may not want DC to be a state on principle, i.e. when the government decided it didn't want the VA part anymore it was returned, but I doubt the drag on the already tight budget would be appreciated.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I doubt Maryland wants them.

that was my first thought...

but then it occurred to me that Maryland's political leaders might figure it to be worth their while to add those 600,000 voters to their rolls, since the bump in numbers might very well mean Maryland gets an additional seat in Congress...

plus, I imagine the state's Democratic Party might welcome all those reliably-Democrat voters, the addition of which would water down the GOP's strength in the state...

The Dems don't need much help in MD. Except in unusual circumstances they win the governorship, most of the House seats and the EC votes. MD may not want DC to be a state on principle, i.e. when the government decided it didn't want the VA part anymore it was returned, but I doubt the drag on the already tight budget would be appreciated.

Yeah, cuz those reliably Democrat government employees are NOTORIOUS for 'forgetting' to pay their taxes....

 

[konradv]

that was my first thought...

but then it occurred to me that Maryland's political leaders might figure it to be worth their while to add those 600,000 voters to their rolls, since the bump in numbers might very well mean Maryland gets an additional seat in Congress...

plus, I imagine the state's Democratic Party might welcome all those reliably-Democrat voters, the addition of which would water down the GOP's strength in the state...

The Dems don't need much help in MD. Except in unusual circumstances they win the governorship, most of the House seats and the EC votes. MD may not want DC to be a state on principle, i.e. when the government decided it didn't want the VA part anymore it was returned, but I doubt the drag on the already tight budget would be appreciated.

Yeah, cuz those reliably Democrat government employees are NOTORIOUS for 'forgetting' to pay their taxes....

Government employees don't live in DC, they live in the MD & VA suburbs.