NYTimes columnist charges GOP w/ racism for no rep in DC.

Changing the "seat of government" at this time would certainly be a problem, if not all but impossible.

You have valid points, but I'll stick with my statement than a Constitutional Amendment would be necessary at this time.

 

To achieve your goal of "making representation equal in the legislative process" would still require a Constitutional Amendment. That requires a 2/3 rds majority in both houses to send it to the states for ratification. 38 states have to ratify it.

A simple piece of legislation won't do the trick.

I believe the Times writer has built himself a huge strawman

 

Several things are simply wrong, here. First, the District of Columbia has representation, albeit perhaps not as much as if it had a Congressman. It does have a voice, and many times, a vote in the House, as I previously stated.

Second, representation has never been equal in the legislative process. What is "equal" about every state having exactly two Senators? What is "equal" about two Senators for California with a current population of >37 Million; two Senators for Kentucky, near the population median at 4.3 Million+; and two Senators for Wyoming with a "busting out at the seams" population of 525,000+. Surely there is nothing remotely close to "equal" about that.

When our country was founded, "Indians not taxed" did not count toward any representation (not to mention, they had no vote), and a person "not free" was worth only 3/5 of a person. All women could not vote anywhere in this country before Wyoming Territory, in 1869, in the state of Wyoming in 1890, although some women (but not all) had first been permitted to vote in New Jersey, from 1790 to 1807, when they were barred from voting. What is "equal" about any of that?

Third, is not representation without taxation not also a "reverse tyranny" to those already 'taxed', as well?

Fourth, would not these "mailed ballots", although perhaps fine in one theory, serve to diffuse the voting rights of some others, by giving additional representation to the other districts they were assigned to? Or do you suggest the logistical nightmare of dividing all these voters (and population) equally among the 435 Congressional districts, at say 1200 population each, in order to avoid this? The Senate would still be unequal representation, in this scenario, you understand. Or are DCers not allowed to vote for a Senator in your proposal? That hardly seems fair, either.

Fifth, to my knowledge, not one adult is "forced" to live in Washington, D.C., to my knowledge, unless he or she is incarcerated in that jurisdiction. It may well be advantageous, to the individual, but it is not required. If one wants to be able to 'vote' for a Senator and/or Representative, all they have to do is relocate to someplace else, assuming that is some all-consuming desire of the individual.

Finally, I suggested an Amendment or Amendments to address all of this, in my post #5. Outta' curiosity, why am I the only one to include all citizens including those in the rest of the US Territories and Commonwealths in my proposal, and argue for full citizenship for the American Samoans? Why not cover the other 4.5 million Americans living in PR, VI, GU, MP, and AS, as well as the 550K in DC? Does that sound like a fair proposal? Do I see this happening anytime in the near future? Probably not really, but one can work for it. And I certainly find that preferable to what the NY Times Columnist is saying.

carpro well hit it describing the piece as the erection of a "straw-man". He is absolutely right in this, and this is part of what I referred to as the "pandering".

Gotta' run.

Ed

 

I was not tryng to make any reference to any sort of "colloquial" wording. The point was and is, that they do have some representation in Congress, as I stated. They do not have a Congressman, and I said as much earlier. And that is because of the Constitution, as it currently stands, and not for any other reason, as the District of Columbia, just as the Territory of, say, Guam, is not a state. The only difference is that DC is the "Seat of the Government", and is located in the 48 contiguous-state mainland of the United States.

I do not consider the disproportinate representation in the Senate to be an "undesirable", per se. I do not consider what happened in our history to be a current "undesireable" either. They are simply historical facts, in the case of the latter, and a Constitutional provision, in case of the former.

And I am "complaining" about neither. I am not the one making any sort of "emotional appeal" to some sense of "fair", as in some supposedly ideal democracy, either. In fact, I have argued against that very thing, as I am strongly in favor of the "Electoral College".

You (assuming you are a US citizen, for I have no way of knowing, but I do suspect this to be true) and I have no "Constitutional right" to vote for the President of the United States. The 538 electors have the only right to vote for the President. These electors are appointed in such manner as the legislatures of the several states may direct. And they are not all appointed in the same way, nor are their duties all defined, in the same way. All the states currently 'Direct' the electors to be determined by a popular vote of WE, the People for the President and Vice-President of the US.

But this 'uniformity' stops there. Maine and Nebraska award two electors to the 'winner' of the entire state. The remaining electors are awarded by Congressional District, one for each district. Thus one can have a number of 'splits' in the results of these two states. California is currently considering a proposal that would do the same thing, BTW. (With 53 electoral votes, that could lead to any of 51 possible outcomes for CA, as opposed to the current one of "winner-take-all", there.) The remaining states, including CA currently, award the electors on a "winner-take-all" basis, and a plurality is all that is necessary, for there is no provision for any "run-off" in a national election, as far as I know, in any state.

Some states "direct" that the electors must vote for the presumptive winner of the election. Some do not have this provision, hence the occasional odd-ball vote by a "faithless" elector, in a Presidential race. (Actually, there have been 158 instances of this, although 63 of these were the result of the death of one candidate, Horace Greely.) Such appeared as early as 1796 and late as the elections of 2000 & 2004.

And as late as 1960, and 1964, some electors were "unpledged" to a candidate, in at least some states, with a slate of these electors on the ballot in Alabama in both these years, and also in LA and MS in 1960. The 'choosing' of some of these electors resulted in 15 electoral votes for Senator Harry F. Byrd in 1960.

Neither is the case, here.

Huh??

Are you really making the claim of someone being law-abiding here? Consider this, while so doing:

Any question on this??

The citizens of VI, PR, GU, MP, are just as much "our own citizens" as any of the citizens of DC, KY or any of the other 50 states! There is no difference, here! Only American Samoans have no right to citizenship, naturally, which point I already made! And how can you so blithely set aside the legalities of the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, to begin with, by proposing, or even agreeing with this "end run", and make any credible claim about any "lack of justice", let alone stake any claim to 'a moral High Ground'?? That makes absolutely no sense, IMO.

Well, at least we agree on this not being racist and being political.

Ed

 

Sure it is. Capital is now Washington, Maryland.

 

Not so.

What part of this is confusing? I missed it.

Ed

 

Again, what is so difficult. Nothing a little amendment won't fix. And it may not even take that drastic a measure.

After all, it has happened before. Arlington County (formerly Alexandria County) was once part of DC, and given back to the Old Dominion in 1846 by a simple act of Congress.

 

Point is, there was a "District", and 2/3 remained as "the District", in the Alexandria/Arlington instance. Under your proposal, there wouldn't be any District.

Granted, an Amendment can "fix," by supercedure, this, or any provision in the Constitution. And that is whether or not is really needs 'fixing', IMO.

Ed

 

The 'smilie' notwithstanding, I did not even offer to suggest that you, or any other person, should not have freedom of speech. (What the heck is an "inner Craig", anyway? I never heard the term.) I would question whether that 'freedom' is any more important than any other part of the Constituion, however. Last time I checked, the Amendments were exactly on a par with any other provisions of the Constitution. That is found in Article V, which I have previously quoted in its entirety, in post # 5, BTW.

Say what?? Are you really meaning this sentence. "I thought the President was elected by the citizens." ? That sentence, even though erroneous, would make sense. What you actually said does not make any sense, in any way.

Although I'm pleased you find that my "factoids are interesting and all,", my purpose, in this thread, is to enlighten rather than entertain. My "prowess of cut-and-paste", as you put it, in this thread has consisted entirely of parts of the US Constitution. And I seldom offered any 'novel interpretations' on it, letting it speak for itself, not was I attempting to ascertain some supposed "spirit" behind the actual words. I was not around in 1787, and I am not sure, unlike some apparently, as to what this "spirit' would entail. But I could have offered the 'rationale' and arguments for the Constitution as written, by citing from The Federalist Papers, written by pubulis, the collective pseudonym of two of the 'geniuses' of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, but chose not to muddy the waters, unnecessarily. My words in quotation marks are also generally words from the Constitution, although I maydid out some words in quotation marks that one or more posters have said.

I'm sorry you see the words of the Constitution, and the principles and practices therein stated, as "convoluted technicalities", to which George Washington, George Read, George Clymer, Thomas Mifflin, Thomas FitzSimons and company affixed their signatures. And I believe I also made the point in post #5, that I favored an Amendment that would somewhat alter the Constitution, and give the District of Columbia, a full Representative, as well. It is not necessary for an Amendment to take all that long to be ratified, either. The entire constitution, in its 8 Articles was signed and submitted on Sept. 17, 1787, and was ratified on June 21, 1788, a period of 9 mos., 4 days. Amendment XXVi was presented on March 23, 1971, and ratified July 1, 1971. For all the math whizzes, that is 3 mos., 8 days. Of the first twelve Amendments simultaneously presented on Sept. 25, 1789, Article #1 was never ratified (Although it is still 'active', it would take another 27 states to complete ratification of this article, and no state has done so since KY in 1792.); Article 3-12 were ratified effective Dec. 17, 1791 (and became Amendments 1-10, known as the Bill of Rights), in a period of 2 yrs., 2 mos., 22 days, for those who like to see some symbolism in all the numbers; and Article 2 was ratified, as well, on May 7, 1992, in a dizzying, lightening-speed time of 202 yrs., 7 mos., 12 days. Dizzying, that is, to three-toed sloths and snails!

Also, I have offered proposals that go far beyond any of what you are proposing. I suggested that American Samoans (AS) should have the same opportunity to become full citizens, just as those from, PR, VI, DC, GU, and MP, as well as those in any and all of the 50 states. The silence in response to this is deafening. Let me correct that! You said (My emphases!)

Once again, why the distinction between the citizens of DC and the citizens of the rest of the US?? Your response shows that you were either unaware of the fact that all the territories' residents, save AS, have full access to citizenship, and in fact, most are, just as most are citizens in the 50 states and DC. There is no distinction in this citizenship. None at all! Why does the citizen of DC rate, in your response, above the citizen of PR, or the citizen of GU, for example? You are only proposing, or arguing for 1/9 of these that I am arguing for. The Population of DC is ~585K, mostly citizens. The Population of Puerto Rico is ~4M, mostly citizens. The Population of Guam is ~175K, mostly citizens. The Population of Virgin Islands is ~110K, mostly citizens. The population of the Northern Mariana Islands is ~85K, mostly citizens. The Population of American Samoa is ~58K, who are NOT citizens! (FTR, I had already said that the "American National" status was demeaning to those of AS. And here as well, I was met with silence.)

So it looks like I am advocating Representation for about 8 1/2 times as many "of our own citizens", as you are, if my math is correct.

I obviously disagree with some of the contusions, - 'er I mean conclusions, here, but I have to get to bed, without answering in any more detail. 6AM will come long before I am ready for it.

Same to you. G'nite, all.

Ed

 

I always thought Alexandria and Arlington looked like they were once apart of the District, they way they are shaped (almost completing a perfect "diamond"). I didn't know they actually were once apart of it.

I always thoght, what about the District to Columbia only being the Capitol strip (from the Capitol, down the Mall, to all the monuments, the White House, and the rest of the Govt. buildings.) The residential areas only would then be given back to Maryland, or whatever. (And the Capitol district could even cross the river again, and make the Pentagon and any other offices in the area apart of it! Maybe even the airport and the cemetary!)