Bill would give D.C. a vote in the House

[Balta1701]

This would, IMO, be a very nice thing to see.

 

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) is teaming up with U.S. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) to introduce a bill that would for the first time give the District a full vote in Congress, a sign of bipartisan cooperation that advocates of D.C. voting rights hailed as a breakthrough.

 

The legislation, set to be unveiled at a news conference today, would expand the House from 435 to 437 seats, giving a vote to the District as well as a fourth seat to Utah, the state next in line to enlarge its congressional delegation based on the 2000 Census.

 

Davis first introduced a version of the bill two years ago, but he struggled to persuade Norton and House Democrats to support it. Through a spokeswoman, Norton declined yesterday to discuss her change of heart, promising to explain all at today's news conference.

 

"We have an agreement in principle with our Democrats, and that's a significant development," said Davis spokesman David Marin. "It's no secret that legislation to give the District a vote wasn't going to go too far without Eleanor Holmes Norton on board."

[WilliamTell]

Chances are it'd be 1 Republican and 1 Democrat, not much of a difference but I guess I'm for it.

[Balta1701]

Chances are it'd be 1 Republican and 1 Democrat, not much of a difference but I guess I'm for it.

Which is why they're adding one to Utah...you can't add a certain Dem seat without the Repubs being pissed, so they'll add one to both spots, and that way D.C. finally gets some sort of voice.

[southsider2k5]

I guess the whole history of having the capital of the country in a nuetral area is getting tossed aside then?

[WilliamTell]

Well considering Utah is next inline, that's why. I suppose they could have an even number (436) but might aswell not. It'd be the same way for the democrats too if the republicans got one extra, the democrats would be pissed too. This is the best way to do it.

 

I guess the whole history of having the capital of the country in a nuetral area is getting tossed aside then?

 

lol it is isn't it.

[Balta1701]

I guess the whole history of having the capital of the country in a nuetral area is getting tossed aside then?

I don't think that's worth having the district's residents having no voice in matters that directly concern them, or having no ability to have a Congressperson bring back money to the district, or work on its behalf, etc.

[southsider2k5]

I don't think that's worth having the district's residents having no voice in matters that directly concern them, or having no ability to have a Congressperson bring back money to the district, or work on its behalf, etc.

 

And historically it has always been known to be that way. It prevents one group of people from receiving potential favor simply because they were lucky enough to have the capital in their backyard. If we are going to takeaway that, we might as well move the capital to somewhere more militarily sound in the middle of the country.

[jasonxctf]

funny story, for the longest time DC residents had license plates that read "No taxation without represenation"

 

any car registered in DC had this on there, including politicians personal cars.

[Balta1701]

And historically it has always been known to be that way. It prevents one group of people from receiving potential favor simply because they were lucky enough to have the capital in their backyard. If we are going to takeaway that, we might as well move the capital to somewhere more militarily sound in the middle of the country.

I understand that's why the Capitol was originally put where it currently sits, but can you give me an example of how that's actually a major concern today?

[Rex Kickass]

Clinton had it on the Presidential limo.

 

I think there's a big difference between when D.C. was created and today in terms of the influence that it would receive when it comes to federal government. The main argument against D.C. statehood these days, is that it would create two new Senate seats for the Dems in perpetuity.

[southsider2k5]

I understand that's why the Capitol was originally put where it currently sits, but can you give me an example of how that's actually a major concern today?

 

Seriously? With lobbies and bribery running rampant all of the government why would anyone ask a question about this? Heck I would say the chances of this happening today are probably better than they were 230 years ago.

[Balta1701]

Seriously? With lobbies and bribery running rampant all of the government why would anyone ask a question about this? Heck I would say the chances of this happening today are probably better than they were 230 years ago.

I still can't see how there's the connection between D.C. having an actual representative and lobbying and bribing running around? D.C. not having one hasn't exactly stopped bribery from running rampant. As far as I see, this just creates 2 more representatives to suck up lobbyist dollars, one of which covers citizens who were unrepresented beforehand?

[NorthSideSox72]

Seriously? With lobbies and bribery running rampant all of the government why would anyone ask a question about this? Heck I would say the chances of this happening today are probably better than they were 230 years ago.

While agree that the CAPITOL should be on neutral ground, DC is not just the capitol. Its hundreds of thousands of citizens without congressional voices, and that isn't right. The ideal solution, to me, is to retrench the DC boundaries to only include the government, and not residents. But since that will never happen, I think this is a decent compromise.

Edited May 11, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[southsider2k5]

While agree that the CAPITOL should be on neutral ground, DC is not just the capitol. Its hundreds of thousands of citizens without congressional voices, and that isn't right. The ideal solution, to me, is to retrench the DC boundaries to only include the government, and not residents. But since that will never happen, I think this is a decent compromise.

 

The other thing you could do is just move DC back into VA or MD, and that would solve both problems if we are going to disregard the historical backround of this.

[YASNY]

The other thing you could do is just move DC back into VA or MD, and that would solve both problems if we are going to disregard the historical backround of this.

 

Now that's thinking outside the box. Nice.

[NorthSideSox72]

The other thing you could do is just move DC back into VA or MD, and that would solve both problems if we are going to disregard the historical backround of this.

I was not suggesting we disregard the historical background - in fact, I am suggesting we preserve it. The neutral capital should be that alone. Any residential or commercial interest should be outside those boundaries.

[Mplssoxfan]

While agree that the CAPITOL should be on neutral ground, DC is not just the capitol. Its hundreds of thousands of citizens without congressional voices, and that isn't right. The ideal solution, to me, is to retrench the DC boundaries to only include the government, and not residents. But since that will never happen, I think this is a decent compromise.

 

DC, as it is now contrived, should be made a part of Maryland. That won't happen, though, so Northsider is right that this is a decent compromise.

 

In regards to SS2K5's argument, I don't think that the people who planned DC ever expected that there would be a substantial permanent population in the Capital City. They assumed that most of the population would be transient, and citizens of another state, so there was no reason for them to have a vote in DC.

[YASNY]

DC, as it is now contrived, should be made a part of Maryland. That won't happen, though, so Northsider is right that this is a decent compromise.

 

In regards to SS2K5's argument, I don't think that the people who planned DC ever expected that there would be a substantial permanent population in the Capital City. They assumed that most of the population would be transient, and citizens of another state, so there was no reason for them to have a vote in DC.

 

I'm sorry, but our founding fathers were smarter than that. They build a city without expecting permanent residents? C'mon.

[WilliamTell]

DC, as it is now contrived, should be made a part of Maryland. That won't happen, though, so Northsider is right that this is a decent compromise.

 

In regards to SS2K5's argument, I don't think that the people who planned DC ever expected that there would be a substantial permanent population in the Capital City. They assumed that most of the population would be transient, and citizens of another state, so there was no reason for them to have a vote in DC.

 

Yeah I'm sure they didn't plan the mass population Washington, D.C has. James Madison proposed 1 house member for every 30,000 people in the country I believe. That was rejected but everything else was passed eventually if I remember right for the Bill of Rights. Could anyone imagine one representitive for every 30,000 citizens. How many illegal alien representatives would there be, haha.

Edited May 11, 2006 by WilliamTell

[Balta1701]

Yeah I'm sure they didn't plan the mass population Washington, D.C has. James Madison proposed 1 house member for every 30,000 people in the country I believe. That was rejected but everything else was passed eventually if I remember right for the Bill of Rights. Could anyone imagine one representitive for every 30,000 citizens. How many illegal alien representatives would there be, haha.

Since illegal immigrants are by definition not citizens, 0.

[southsider2k5]

I'm sorry, but our founding fathers were smarter than that. They build a city without expecting permanent residents? C'mon.

 

Especially knowing the lengths at which they labored to make Washington DC an imposing city to navigate for people who were visiting it. It was made to have a powerful overwealming aura, so even then it wasn't being build to just be the capital. They knew it would attract people even 200 years ago.

[YASNY]

Since illegal immigrants are by definition not citizens, 0.

 

But the poor bastards have no representation!

[Balta1701]

I'm sorry, but our founding fathers were smarter than that. They build a city without expecting permanent residents? C'mon.

I think what they may not have expected was the decay of urban centers that hit in the latter part of the 20th century as the wealthier landowners migrated to the suburbs.

 

If D.C. had a wealthy population living within its borders such that it could charge those folks a fair tax rate & afford infrastructure like most of the country, this wouldn't be a problem. But as it stands now, most major cities are in fact large costs in terms of government expenditures...the states make their tax money in the suburbs. That is both the problem with D.C. and the reason why no state wants it...MD and VA are happy to get the tax revenues from the suburbs of D.C., but they don't want to spend the money on the city itself, so there's basically just no real revenue source for the city except the federal government.

 

And since the Feds don't pay property taxes on their land, and D.C. has had no person in Congress to lobby on its behalf, D.C. winds up constantly strapped for cash for basic needs. That's the big problem here.

[WilliamTell]

Since illegal immigrants are by definition not citizens, 0.

 

it was a joke man, that's why I had the haha at the end.

[Mplssoxfan]

I'm sorry, but our founding fathers were smarter than that. They build a city without expecting permanent residents? C'mon.

 

Clarification: They didn't think that there would be so many permanent residents. I know they expected a few, but not 500,000.