May 21st, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Life in the Colonies
Members of congress moving to write a bill preventing DC from recognizing same-sex marriages. Nothing beats taxation without representation.
22 Responses to “Life in the Colonies”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
Environment
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 21st, 2009 at 5:47 pm
DC has it even worse than that. They are municipality that is largely directly controlled by the federal government and yet they have now Congressional representation. Imagine if Wyoming didn’t have 2 senators and a congressman AND the feds stepped in to rewrite Wyoming’s laws on a regular basis.
Taxation without representation doesn’t cover it. It would make little difference if Congress allowed DC’s lonely congressional rep to actually vote. Congress needs to get out of DC’s business and the only way to guarantee that is statehood.
May 21st, 2009 at 6:22 pm
It is outrageous how Republicans generally complain about the Federal government infringing on the legislative rights of state and local governments, and yet are willing to do just that when it suits their needs.
May 21st, 2009 at 6:33 pm
@Rob Mac: Amen. If I had a nickel every time Congress imposed its will against the wishes of DC residents I could buy my own Congressman.
“Voting rights” is insufficient. Part of me wants Congrss to succeed in overturning a high profile law so it can highlight our lack of legislative and budget autonomy.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:20 pm
The larger problem of DC having its policies subject to the whims of Congress is valid, but fortunately this one doesn’t look to have a snowball’s chance of passing.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:23 pm
DC residents last voted in favor of statehood. Thats why they elect 2 shadow senators and one shadow representative, who are supposed to lobby for statehood. There is already a state constitution that has been drafted that shrinks the control of the federal government to the area around the National Mall. Mere voting rights, which in its current form gives no representation in the Senate (taxation with 1/3 representation), doesn’t cut it and will be found unconstitutional. There are more people in this fine District than Wyoming, so why not make it America’s 51st state?
May 21st, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Because compared to Wyoming, it’s really, really dark there.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:43 pm
It would be trivial to give DC residents representation, except that Democrats are fixated on getting 2 new senators, and also like having a bat to beat Republicans with. If they actually cared about the issue, solving it would be easy: just cede the northern half back to Maryland, just like the southern half was ceded back to Virginia. Presto: the residents get a new representative in the House (voting), and get a say in electing Maryland’s 2 senators. Sure, it would require some kind of political payoff to Maryland’s govt, but since they’re all Democrats, that wouldn’t be that hard.
Granting DC functional statehood, on the other hand, would require a Constitutional amendment. Like that will happen…
May 21st, 2009 at 11:11 pm
I’ll never support it sorry. You can go up to a member of Congress and heckle them personally. You have to pay some price for that.
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:35 am
James Robertson, you clearly don’t know Maryland if you think they’d take DC because “they’re all Democrats”. But if you find a way to get the Baltimore politicians to accept a huge new center of political power in the state, I’ll certainly accept the solution.
And making DC (minus the federal enclave) a state would not require a constitutional amendment, any more than it required a constitutional amendment to give Arlington back to Virginia. It’s true that the 23rd Amendment should be repealed after DC became a state, but that would be a trivial matter since no one would be opposing the repeal.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:23 am
KCinDC: Also, as a stopgap measure it seems that it would be easy enough for the rump Federal District to pass legislation that effectively renders the 23rd Amendment moot by having their delegates vote for Lizard People or something.
And on the Senate issue, maybe some compromise could be made by chopping Texas in half or something. (Just like Massachusetts/Maine back in 1820)
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:03 am
“You can go up to a member of Congress and heckle them personally.”
So can you, you fatuous ass, through something called “e-mail.” How about this: no one who has e-mail capabilities gets to vote for Congress. Same goes for anyone who sends postal mail.
“You have to pay some price for that.”
Do you honestly think that “heckling” a congressman has any effect, when you’re not their constituent? And what about people who live right across the Potomac? They can go right up and heckle too, and they get a congressman.
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:19 am
KC – I live in MD, and I’m quite familiar with the problems. However, it’s way easier to deal with those issues than to pass a Constitutional amendment.
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:50 am
Perhaps, but since no constitutional amendment is required for statehood, that’s not a relevant consideration.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:48 am
You can go up to a member of Congress and heckle them personally. You have to pay some price for that
A fair trade, as long as everyone within a 30 minute drive of DC loses their vote, as well (sorry James!).
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:55 am
KC – I think this Reason article outlines the issue quite well. Becoming a State doesn’t require an amendment, but it requires a nearly equally high hurdle (and one which I very much doubt will be handled). This problem, for instance:
Might (or might not) require Maryland’s permission. I suspect it would end up in the courts.
That’s why I think cession back to Maryland is the most expedient route to giving DC residents representation.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
@15: Why would Maryland oppose DC statehood? The reasons for them opposing reversion are obvious (and it might also require Maryland’s permission because of the same paragraph you quoted), but I don’t see any reason for them to oppose a 51st state.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:49 am
Regarding the bill in question, one hopes that the following from our host applies:
“The American political system provides many, many, many veto points at which change can be blocked—a major bill needs concurrent majorities in several committees along with a majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate. This can be beneficial at times,…..”
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
@16 – DC would replace Baltimore as Maryland’s primary city. Baltimore has always been Maryland’s primary city and would fall further into the shadows in DC would become apart of Maryland.
The truth is that for over 30 years now DC has been a self-sufficient jurisdiction that has the powers of being a state, but is prevented by Congress from being one. Its America’s de-facto city-state, but without representation.
America is the only country in the world that prevents its citizens living in its capital city the right to be represented. Its an ongoing human rights violation that has been documented by the United Nations, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the Organization of American States.
As for contacting members of Congress– if you are a DC resident your e-mails are deferred because you are not their constituent. The internal workings of most congressional web-based contact systems only allow those who live in the jurisdiction and all the rest are not read. Thus there is a second level of tyranny built into the system.
The irony is that on nearly EVERY website where there is a drop down box where you are supposed to select which state you live in, there is the state of the District of Columbia as an option. This gives the impression to millions of Americans that DC is a state.
However, until there are people blockading Congress, getting arrested for civil disobedience, and causing a crisis in democracy, nothing will change. Instead you will get willy-nilly, Democratic Party-funded groups like DC Vote advocating for partial representation that is not constitutional.
When the 23rd amendment was introduced to state legislators, Arkansas rejected the amendment outright, on the ground that 54% of the District’s citizens are Negroes. Today its not because DC residents are majority African America, but because they vote for the Democratic Party. I’m all for another constitutional amendment because America has changed since the last one was introduced and passed in Congress in 1978.
So where is Obama’s leadership on this issue? Where is the change in Washington that people have been struggling for? DC residents are still waiting.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Forget all the politics of DC Statehood for a moment. Somehow I find this bill particularly appalling-it isn’t going to pass right? I can’t imagine it would get majority support though it’s co-sponsored by a Democratic congressman. You know these people… they are not your representatives. It’s tyranny, plain and simple. You could easily imagine a scenario where most of the states around DC recognized the right to marry the person of your choosing, but DC was prevented from doing so against the will of its people.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:14 pm
The bill is going nowhere due to the current partisan makeup in Congress, but Congress does have the authority to override any legislation passed by the DC City Council. They have 30 days to kill any bill, and after the 30 day window of tyrannical Congressional oversight, the bill becomes law. Congress, however, can always go back legislate on behalf of their unelected constituency if it so chooses. So if there is a conservative majority in Congress, sometime in the future, they can always go back and pass legislation defining marriage for DC residents.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
if there is a conservative majority in Congress, sometime in the future, they can always go back and pass legislation defining marriage for DC residents.
DC residents really need to compose a list of Congressmen’s local addresses so that they can tell them, personally and on a daily basis, where they can stick their petty micromanaging of DC. There aren’t nearly enough direct consequences for offending congressmen on this score.
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Couldn’t agree more.
That’s really a good move.