I couldn't find many cartoons on the topic.

[lyndz.livejournal.com]

Just like all Americans, residents of DC
- Pay federal and local taxes
- Serve in the armed forces and make sacrifices in times of war
- Serve on juries to uphold federal laws and policies

Yet, DC residents are denied voting representation in the US Senate andthe US House of Representatives, and do not have complete autonomy overtheir own budget and local laws. Congress has the final say on DC's budget and laws.

In other words, residents of the District of Columbia have all the responsibilities of residents of states, but still cannot be represented in Congress. It is time to end taxation without representation.

Comments

[lyndz.livejournal.com]

If Wyoming is big enough to get three representatives, DC is too. I'm arguing for DC statehood more than simply representation in congress. But getting even one representative would be a baby step in the right direction.

[calysto.livejournal.com]

good point.

[adudeabides.livejournal.com]

The District was established specifically so a single state wouldn't gain more political power by virtue of hosting the capital. I'm for voting rights, but not state-hood, for that reason.

[lyndz.livejournal.com]

I don't see how that's relevant if most people who work for the government do not live in DC and most people who live in DC do not work for the government?

[adudeabides.livejournal.com]

People can always move. Where the people live isn't particularly relevant, though. In the way other states can become cultural or economic centers, a state could easily become a political powerhouse if it hosted the country's capital. That's why so many places use districts for capital cities, instead of states/provinces/territories/whatever.

Consider it a check on potential power, if you will. We have checks on the branches of government so they don't become too powerful and become the government. We have civilian control of the military so the military doesn't become the government. And we place our capital city in a district so no one state has additional leverage politically by virtue of hosting the capital...becoming the capital, instead of a state.

[kmilligan.livejournal.com]

It's interesting that you bring up D.C. Statehood. It would require a constitutional amendment to give DC representation in Congress equivalent to that of a state. That much is pretty clear. But all Congress has to do to admit a state is to pass an act of admission into the union.

But it's hard to say that it would be constitutional to make a state out of DC. The constitution forbids a state to be made from the territory of another state. D.C. was formerly part of Maryland, but Maryland ceded a section of its territory for the purposes of a federal district, which Congress administers according to its constitutional authority. Maryland didn't cede that land for the creation of another state, and I think a reasonable argument could be made that it's unconstitutional to create a state from it.

Interestingly enough, Washington DC residents used to vote for representation in Congress. The parts of DC that were once part of Maryland voted, and were represented by members of Congress who represented those parts Maryland before it was ceded to the federal government to be the capital. Same goes for Virginia. In 1801, Congress passed the "Organic Act" that stripped anyone residing in the district of their right to vote in federal elections. Of course, there were few people living in DC in 1801, so it didn't affect all that many people then.

I would oppose giving DC statehood status, either by directly admitting it, or by giving it voting rights incidental to statehood because I a) suspect it's unconstitutional, and b) don't think enough people live there to warrant giving them two senators. But I don't see why they can't be given representation administered as part of Maryland as they had before 1801. Congress could do this by repealing the Organic Act. It would then be up to Maryland to draw the Congressional district.

[adudeabides.livejournal.com]

I agree on your thoughts on the matter of statehood, in addition to my thoughts (http://community.livejournal.com/politicartoons/864122.html?thread=16656762&format=light#t16656762). I don't mind, so much, representation/voting rights, but state-hood wouldn't be acceptable in my mind.

And as far as representation...we need to dissolve the Senate. Representation should be solely determined by population. The less-populated states might beg to differ, but it's the more (and more properly) democratic solution.

[kmilligan.livejournal.com]

I'm not in favor of abolishing the senate. The states ought to have representation in the national government as states. As a country, we have a federal government that (in theory at least) has limited an enumerated powers. I think it's important for each state to have a say in regards to how the federal government wields its power. The states are the ones who suffer from federal overreaching.

[adudeabides.livejournal.com]

While I can agree with that point in principal, I just tend to disagree with the idea of giving differently-populated states equal authority. The current setup of the Senate was only a compromise, originally...without it, there couldn't have been agreement on the Constitution. Ultimately, I suppose I feel that the US is supposed to be a representative republic. As such, it should truly be fairly representative. States might "suffer" from the overreaching federal government, but the government, and their workers, do not serve the states; they serve the people.

(And I just noticed yoru icon. Funny!)

[kmilligan.livejournal.com]

I think they serve both. We're a federal republic, not a nationalist republic. When power is moved away from the states and to Washington, the people in those states suffer because the power is being moved away from them and toward a centralized governing body.

When I write my federal representative, I typically get a form letter in return. He lives in a community far from mine. When I write to my state representative, I usually get a personal reply from him. I've seen him out in public within the community. He would probably remember meeting me a few times, as he lives in my immediate neighborhood.

The reason we limit the federal government to enumerated powers, and reserve the remaining power to the states, is because the states are closer to the people they serve. State government retains more local knowledge about the issues in their states. It's for this reason that I think it's important for the states to have representation in the federal government as states. It's a check on federal power.

[adudeabides.livejournal.com]

You certainly have a valid point. It gives me pause for thought. I have a lot of ideas on how things should be, but it's much too late to change things. I don't see the current way things are done changing, simply because it's so well-established and in-place. So...while purely population-based representation is ideal, in my mind (and from the start), I suppose the system as it is is good enough, if only for the reasons you gave. And that's assumin' the feelin' of close-ness isn't an illusion. ;)

I can call my representative on his cell phone (though more likely to e-mail). I've met and somewhat know the guy (enough to have gotten a birthday present or two, anyway). Not "friends" with the guy, but am familiar with him. On the other hand, I don't think I could even name my state representatives, and have certainly never contacted them. So, I've never really considered that perspective, I suppose. (I'm no Washington insider or born into a rich or politically-connected family or anything, either.)

[kmilligan.livejournal.com]

My icon used to be the evil monkey, but he seems to have left. I think I forgot to renew my LJ subscription :)

[adudeabides.livejournal.com]

Well, I think this icon's rather fittin' for the conversation. lol

Never let your account lapse. ;p

[kmilligan.livejournal.com]

Hey, if someone wanted to admit Wyoming today, I'd probably vote no :)