|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 21, 2021 12:39:43 GMT -5
I know they have other territories. bad take on being facetious Mervinswerved-why do they want statehood and why should it be granted? They probably want statehood because residents of both places are citizens without representation in federal government. They should be granted statehood because, well, see above. I've never been a resident of Puerto Rico, so I have no idea if I'd want statehood or independence, but I know I wouldn't want to remain a colonial possession. I have, however, lived in DC and like 85% of the current DC citizens, wanted statehood.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jun 21, 2021 12:58:38 GMT -5
Add together the filibuster, DC statehood and PR statehood, and this become a blatant power grab. Regardless of political persuasion, we should want our leaders to always have to earn position/power/sway. I don't want to limit our ability to stop/remove bills/people. If we do then those people will continue to find ways of grabbing even more power. about PR: that is an interesting one. unlike DC they were not set up explicitly to never be a state. does anybody know otherwise? what is the purpose of the statehood? what benefits does the US receive? do we have other territories besides PR? if so, why do we not talk about them? A lot of things are power grabs. The Three-Fifths Compromise was a power grab. As far a PR goes - I guess the one thing would be that they could then tax residents who make income in PR, which isn't currently the case. Also a lot of the subsidies would likely disappear. DC could get out of the issue with the Constitution's Enclave Clause by allowing the federal government to effectively annex land. There's no specific requirement that DC be part of a federal enclave. The federal government could cede land not part of federal property to a new state. It's actually kind of weird, because the federal government treats DC as a federal enclave (which the Constitution defines as federal property), but there is actually private property ownership.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 21, 2021 13:12:38 GMT -5
The most simple solution seems to be reducing the "Federal Enclave" to just the Capitol, SCOTUS, White House, Mall, Smithsonian, etc. The core area of the Federal Government. The rest of the District could be come a state, and it wouldn't even be the least populous state. IMO, any argument about whether DC "deserves" to be a state needs to first answer why Wyoming "deserves" to be a state, despite having fewer people living in it than the population of Milwaukee.
If we just changed the Senate to be one-person, one-vote equal population districts rather than state-by-state, would anyone object to DC becoming a new state?
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jun 21, 2021 14:41:15 GMT -5
The most simple solution seems to be reducing the "Federal Enclave" to just the Capitol, SCOTUS, White House, Mall, Smithsonian, etc. The core area of the Federal Government. The rest of the District could be come a state, and it wouldn't even be the least populous state. IMO, any argument about whether DC "deserves" to be a state needs to first answer why Wyoming "deserves" to be a state, despite having fewer people living in it than the population of Milwaukee. If we just changed the Senate to be one-person, one-vote equal population districts rather than state-by-state, would anyone object to DC becoming a new state? There was an equal protection argument that eliminated California's Senate distribution scheme of one state Senator per county. The case that killed it was from Alabama, but in California there was one state Senator from Alpine County (about 300 people) and one from Los Angeles County (about 6 million people). www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_reynolds.htmlThere are some oddball legislative schemes, although they're now all population based. Arizona's is the weirdest. They have 30 legislative districts, and each district gets to vote on one Senator and two Representatives. The primaries allow for each party to advance up to two House candidates to the general election, although I've heard of some districts where there's only one Republican or one Democrat. Voters are allowed two votes, so I'm not sure why some districts don't have two candidates from each major party.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 21, 2021 15:04:48 GMT -5
The most simple solution seems to be reducing the "Federal Enclave" to just the Capitol, SCOTUS, White House, Mall, Smithsonian, etc. The core area of the Federal Government. The rest of the District could be come a state, and it wouldn't even be the least populous state. IMO, any argument about whether DC "deserves" to be a state needs to first answer why Wyoming "deserves" to be a state, despite having fewer people living in it than the population of Milwaukee. If we just changed the Senate to be one-person, one-vote equal population districts rather than state-by-state, would anyone object to DC becoming a new state? There was an equal protection argument that eliminated California's Senate distribution scheme of one state Senator per county. The case that killed it was from Alabama, but in California there was one state Senator from Alpine County (about 300 people) and one from Los Angeles County (about 6 million people). www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_reynolds.htmlThere are some oddball legislative schemes, although they're now all population based. Arizona's is the weirdest. They have 30 legislative districts, and each district gets to vote on one Senator and two Representatives. The primaries allow for each party to advance up to two House candidates to the general election, although I've heard of some districts where there's only one Republican or one Democrat. Voters are allowed two votes, so I'm not sure why some districts don't have two candidates from each major party. It's a really strange legacy of our system of government, but constitutionally one-person-one-vote is absolutely required for most things -- except for the US Senate and (by extension) the Electoral College. I mean, I get it, the Constitution specifically grants two Senators per state. But if it weren't explicitly constitutional, it would be unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jun 21, 2021 15:06:09 GMT -5
California has 15 counties each with greater population than Wyoming.
I demand 30 Senators!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2021 10:23:15 GMT -5
The most simple solution seems to be reducing the "Federal Enclave" to just the Capitol, SCOTUS, White House, Mall, Smithsonian, etc. The core area of the Federal Government. This part makes perfect sense, and I assume would be done regardless. The rest of the District could be come a state, and it wouldn't even be the least populous state. This is the part that isn't particularly compelling. Not when it's perfectly reasonable that the Maryland side could just do exactly what the Virginia side already did. IMO, any argument about whether DC "deserves" to be a state needs to first answer why Wyoming "deserves" to be a state, despite having fewer people living in it than the population of Milwaukee. Again, not compelling, with respect to the history of how it came to be. That really is all there is (and needs to be) to the answer: Wyoming is a state because it already is, and that's how it came to be. But for making a new state ... why not make Baltimore (city+county) its own (city-)state, while you're at it? It's not a single iota less compelling than your proposal to make DC a city-state. Why not LA, why not Chicago, NYC, etc. etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 22, 2021 10:29:47 GMT -5
Baltimore, Chicago, LA, etc. aren't pushing for statehood because people who live there already have representation. DC residents do not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2021 10:48:49 GMT -5
That is their choice to live in a special district that isn’t a state and thus doesn’t have representation.
So what? Move 10 miles either direct and gain it.
We could make lots of places states. Why should we?
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 22, 2021 10:57:42 GMT -5
Lol @ going through someone else's post and repeatedly saying "that's not very compelling," and then essentially hinging your entire argument on "that's just the way things are."
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 22, 2021 11:01:39 GMT -5
Conservatives sure do love poor slippery slope arguments. If there is another place in the country with 500k+ people, a distinct culture, popular support for statehood, and zero Congressionall representation, then yes, we should make them a state too!
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 22, 2021 11:01:53 GMT -5
That is their choice to live in a special district that isn’t a state and thus doesn’t have representation. So what? Move 10 miles either direct and gain it. yikes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2021 11:19:29 GMT -5
Agree. LA has a distinct culture and millions of people. It indeed should be a city-state.
Same with many others.
Won’t work for a one-off special situation. Not when it’s far easier and more compelling to just give Maryland its land back.
The far corner of DC doesn’t deserve to be its own special state any more than Bethesda or Arlington do.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 22, 2021 11:27:40 GMT -5
LA already has Congressional representation. So again, your slippery slope fails.
It is absolutely not more compelling to give Maryland its land back. For starters, because neither DC or Maryland wants that.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 22, 2021 11:39:07 GMT -5
That is their choice to live in a special district that isn’t a state and thus doesn’t have representation. That's . . . not a reason to deny people their full rights as citizens. Plus, plenty of people didn't "choose" to live there- they were born there. Much less than 10 miles, in fact. You're right! We should make Puerto Rico a state. They've voted in favor of statehood. We should do the same for our other colonies, should they ask it of us (or allow them independence, if that's what they want instead).
|
|