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is merely our assumption as a consequence of loss of a state citizenship -- it's certainly not something specifically rescinded.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.
