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

[BallsBrunswick]

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?

Marion Barry...

But seriously, DC is located in the south right next to Virginia. I could see DC going either way. I personally don't care either way, I just find it odd that people immediately assume this is some sort of a liberal plot.

 

[GoneBezerk]

51st? You mean 58th?

 

[Pogo]

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...

I usually don't bother taking the dense by the mental hand but since you're in need, consider yourself lucky. What we're talking about is this:

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.

Yes, I'm sure every tick sucking off the taxpayers would like to have the ability to vote himself more swag from the public treasury. The Founding Fathers saw it differently.

Perhaps you can explain how US citizens may be selectively deprived of representation based on your political preferences.

I didn't do it. The Founding Fathers did, and I agree with their decision.

Except they didn't, and it doesn't. Washington DC did not exist when the Constitution went into effect. This is what I corrected, and it stands. This errata is back in Post #10 posted by Fingerboy. Read it and weep...

 

[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?

Marion Barry...

But seriously, DC is located in the south right next to Virginia. I could see DC going either way. I personally don't care either way, I just find it odd that people immediately assume this is some sort of a liberal plot.

Washington, D.C. 2012 vote totals...

Barack Obama 267,070 90.9%

Mitt Romney 21,381 7.3%

Other 5,313 1.8%

 

[GoneBezerk]

DC is a liberal haven of Federal workers and welfare people.....of course liberals want to make it another Democrap state for 2 more Senate seats.

You have to be insane to believe DC being so small should be treated like Montana.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Past voting history of those residents is my guess.

Marion Barry ring a bell for you?

Marion Barry...

But seriously, DC is located in the south right next to Virginia. I could see DC going either way. I personally don't care either way, I just find it odd that people immediately assume this is some sort of a liberal plot.

Washington, D.C. 2012 vote totals...

Barack Obama 267,070 90.9%

Mitt Romney 21,381 7.3%

Other 5,313 1.8%

Ah... I was unaware of those statistics.

 

[Pogo]

DC is a liberal haven of Federal workers and welfare people.....of course liberals want to make it another Democrap state for 2 more Senate seats.

You have to be insane to believe DC being so small should be treated like Montana.

Or Wyoming. Oh wait, Wyoming has fewer people than DC, yet they have two senators and a Rep. How insane is that?

Oh wait, I forgot, citizens get their vote based on how they're likely to vote, right? What color is Wyoming again?

But Montana, yeah good point. Why they have 300 thousand more people up there. That's like the population of Bakersfield. Huge.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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...

I usually don't bother taking the dense by the mental hand but since you're in need, consider yourself lucky. What we're talking about is this:

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.

Yes, I'm sure every tick sucking off the taxpayers would like to have the ability to vote himself more swag from the public treasury. The Founding Fathers saw it differently.

Perhaps you can explain how US citizens may be selectively deprived of representation based on your political preferences.

I didn't do it. The Founding Fathers did, and I agree with their decision.

Except they didn't, and it doesn't. Washington DC did not exist when the Constitution went into effect. This is what I corrected, and it stands. This errata is back in Post #10 posted by Fingerboy. Read it and weep...

And that's how you lost me, by claiming the post was made by the OP when it was actually made by Bripat, who's ONLY mistake was claiming the Residence Act was part of the Constitution when it was not.

It WAS written and enacted BY THE FOUNDERS, however, which was MY point in the thread.

 

[GuyPinestra]

DC is a liberal haven of Federal workers and welfare people.....of course liberals want to make it another Democrap state for 2 more Senate seats.

You have to be insane to believe DC being so small should be treated like Montana.

Or Wyoming. Oh wait, Wyoming has fewer people than DC, yet they have two senators and a Rep. How insane is that?

Oh wait, I forgot, citizens get their vote based on how they're likely to vote, right? What color is Wyoming again?

But Montana, yeah good point. Why they have 300 thousand more people up there. That's like the population of Bakersfield. Huge.

Senate and House seats are done by STATE, which disqualifies DC...

 

[GoneBezerk]

What is the size of WYOming compared to DC????

What about the natural resources of WYOming compared to DC???

WYOming is more critical to the nation's economy than DC. DC is just a meeting place for our national Govt....which could be moved tomorrow to Philly, Miami, Casper WYO.....

DC is a liberal haven of Federal workers and welfare people.....of course liberals want to make it another Democrap state for 2 more Senate seats.

You have to be insane to believe DC being so small should be treated like Montana.

Or Wyoming. Oh wait, Wyoming has fewer people than DC, yet they have two senators and a Rep. How insane is that?

Oh wait, I forgot, citizens get their vote based on how they're likely to vote, right? What color is Wyoming again?

But Montana, yeah good point. Why they have 300 thousand more people up there. That's like the population of Bakersfield. Huge.

 

[Pogo]

And that's how you lost me, by claiming the post was made by the OP when it was actually made by Bripat, who's ONLY mistake was claiming the Residence Act was part of the Constitution when it was not.

It WAS written and enacted BY THE FOUNDERS, however, which was MY point in the thread.

And so your failure to read that thread history is my fault, and for that you neg me. Amazing. Can't make this stuff up. People just take no responsibility any more. Everything's somebody else's fault. Bull. Shit.

And FWIW no it was not "written and enacted by the Founders"; it was written and enacted by Congress, since by then they had by then were done founding, and some of the Founders were part of that Congress while others were not, and some of that Congress were not Founders while others were. So Bull. Shit.

What is the size of WYOming compared to DC????

What about the natural resources of WYOming compared to DC???

WYOming is more critical to the nation's economy than DC. DC is just a meeting place for our national Govt....which could be moved tomorrow to Philly, Miami, Casper WYO.....

That wasn't the point; the point was that over 600,000 residents of DC (which is more than the entire state of Wyoming) have no representation, while the Wyomings and Vermonts and Montanas each have at least three reps in Congress.

I agree, DC doesn't qualify as a state and couldn't stand as such, but I don't think anyone's seriously considering that, regardless of this silly bill. It's there to make the point.

 

[GoneBezerk]

DC only has a large population because the Federal govt is there.

Less people live in WY because it is a harsher climate than Florida and a lot of the land is Federal land or owned by rich people with huge acreage.

Just because DC exists because states like WY send their people to work there for them doesn't mean DC should now be the equal or more powerful than WY. States like WY won't ratify such an insane proposition since they realize it puts more power in the hands of morons crammed into pretty much 1 city.

And that's how you lost me, by claiming the post was made by the OP when it was actually made by Bripat, who's ONLY mistake was claiming the Residence Act was part of the Constitution when it was not.

It WAS written and enacted BY THE FOUNDERS, however, which was MY point in the thread.

And so your failure to read that thread history is my fault, and for that you neg me. Amazing. Can't make this stuff up. People just take no responsibility any more. Everything's somebody else's fault. Bull. Shit.

What is the size of WYOming compared to DC????

What about the natural resources of WYOming compared to DC???

WYOming is more critical to the nation's economy than DC. DC is just a meeting place for our national Govt....which could be moved tomorrow to Philly, Miami, Casper WYO.....

That wasn't the point; the point was that over 600,000 residents of DC (which is more than the entire state of Wyoming) have no representation, while the Wyomings and Vermonts and Montanas each have at least three reps in Congress.

I agree, DC doesn't qualify as a state and couldn't stand as such, but I don't think anyone's seriously considering that, regardless of this silly bill. It's there to make the point.

 

[Pogo]

Why people live wherever they do is irrelevant (and is usually the chance of where they were born).

The point again is that United States citizens, whether they're in Wyoming or DC or Alaska, have the right to be represented in Congress. And all of them are -- except those who live in DC. Regardless how any of us think their votes will go. That's just a fact.

 

[bripat9643]

I didn't do it. The Founding Fathers did, and I agree with their decision.

Except they didn't, and it doesn't. Washington DC did not exist when the Constitution went into effect. This is what I corrected, and it stands. This errata is back in Post #10 posted by Fingerboy. Read it and weep...

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.

 

[bripat9643]

Why people live wherever they do is irrelevant (and is usually the chance of where they were born).

The point again is that United States citizens, whether they're in Wyoming or DC or Alaska, have the right to be represented in Congress. And all of them are -- except those who live in DC. Regardless how any of us think their votes will go. That's just a fact.

Nope, that's wrong. Read the Constitution. If they live in Washington DC, they have no such right.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't do it. The Founding Fathers did, and I agree with their decision.

Except they didn't, and it doesn't. Washington DC did not exist when the Constitution went into effect. This is what I corrected, and it stands. This errata is back in Post #10 posted by Fingerboy. Read it and weep...

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.

No, don't think so. ?

Here, I'll copy and paste myself -- this is from Section 8

(The Congress shall have Power): 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, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

-- As I said, giving the power to Congress to create such a district. They can't very well create something if it already exists. The phrase "as may become" is future conditional. Even the Residence Act passed three years after the Constitution became effective did not specify a location for such seat of government. The area we now call DC wasn't even surveyed until 1791. And in the whole Constitution the name "Washington" appears only as George's last name -- not as a place name. Indeed it couldn't, because at the time there was no such place

As for your Constitutional disenfranchisement of the residents of a place that did not yet exist, the burden of proof is on you. Good luck with that.

 

[NoNukes]

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.

Why should ticks on the ass of society be able to vote themselves more swag from the public treasury?

Yeah, the politicians there are pretty bad.

 

[bripat9643]

Except they didn't, and it doesn't. Washington DC did not exist when the Constitution went into effect. This is what I corrected, and it stands. This errata is back in Post #10 posted by Fingerboy. Read it and weep...

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.

No, don't think so. ?

Here, I'll copy and paste myself -- this is from Section 8

(The Congress shall have Power): 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, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

-- As I said, giving the power to Congress to create such a district. They can't very well create something if it already exists. "as may become" is future. Even the Residence Act passed three years after the Constitution became effective did not specify a location. The area wasn't even surveyed until 1791. And the name "Washington" appears only as George's last name -- not a place name.

As for your Constitutional disenfranchisement of the residents of a place that did not yet exist, the burden of proof is on you. Good luck with that.

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.

 

[konradv]

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.

I thought rights were inalienable and not granted by the government. That's the argument we always get from the right, are we seeing a double standard here?

 

[Missourian]

I doubt Maryland wants them.