I should be clear that interest in one’s own political power is probably not the major reason why Maryland politicians oppose retrocession. I think most of them truly believe some kind of statehood is the right thing to do, and have this additional concern.
I don’t see how statehood can be taken off the table more forcibly than is the case today. One party is pretty much united in opposition to the idea.
:dubious: Nonsense. Government is economic activity. Government is not some non-productive parasitic growth on the private sector, government is a productive sector in its own right and its relationship to the private sector is not parasitic but symbiotic.
Also, there is a lot of economic activity in DC that is non-governmental. It exists because the government is there, yes, in exactly the same way the service and retail sectors in an industrial city exist because factories are there. There is no essential difference.
Not required, but allowed. If their own residents and citizens want to become a state, then they should be permitted to do so.
One of the fundamental principles of the territorial ordinances of the 1780s was the idea that the new nation, the United States, would not become a colonial power whereby new territories would remain permanently subordinate and inferior to the original states. The genius of Jefferson and the others who created the mechanism for territorial expansion was that new territories, once they fulfilled certain conditions regarding population and organization, would be able to apply for and receive full and equal membership of the union, as states.
I admit that i don’t actually know whether the residents of DC would, in a referendum or plebiscite, choose to become a state, but the number of “Taxation Without Representation” license plates i see when i visit Washington suggests that quite a few would support the idea. If they don’t want statehood, they should not be required to have it, but if they do want it, then it should be available to them, either by turning DC as it stands into a state, or by retrocession of the majority of the District to Maryland, as suggested by the OP.
But “balance of power” as laid out in the Constitution is an effort to separate and balance the three branches of government, and to have each branch check and balanced the other two. There is no requirement for “balance of power” between the two major political parties, either at federal or state level. The framers of the Constitution never even envisioned our party system, and even if they had, there’s no requirement that political boundaries and entities respect the balance between the two currently-existing dominant parties.
I am not arguing from convenience; i am arguing from principle. The fact that it is relatively easy to move from Adams Morgan to Silver Spring or Clarendon is irrelevant to my argument.
But, how would “I live in Washington, MD” be any less cool? You’re still living in the nation’s capital.
Not acceptable. According to Ravenman I should have Federal representation even if I move to Guam, Northern Mariana Islands or even a guano island. Therefore it has to be required to make them states.
Huh? This makes absolutely no sense, except as a sort of self-interested rationalization of your own preferences.
The fact that something is allowed under particular circumstances does not mean that it is required under all circumstances. The admission of states to the union was never designed to be automatic. As i said in my previous post, there were particular requirements and particular mechanisms put in place for territories to become states. Once the requirements were met, the residents of a territory could hold a constitutional convention and apply to become a state.
Also, the fact that Ravenman asserts something does not mean that my own argument rests on his assertions. You understand the principles of different people making different arguments, right?
[hijack]
This should be done anyway, and not in Washington Metro alone. It makes no sense for a metro area to be politically divided between two or more states. It makes no sense for Arlington County and Prince George’s County to be in different states. It makes no sense for there to be a Kansas City, MO, and a Kansas City, KS.
For that matter, rivers (such as the Mississippi or the Ohio – or the Potomac) make no sense as political borders. They make obvious choices for borders because they are natural and definite – but people live clustered thick on both sides of a river and often cross it; both sides form one economic and social community. A lot of state boundaries drawn by men who were sitting in Washington looking at maps make no sense any more if ever they did.
[/hijack]
I’m just trying to figure out that when a person chooses to live somewhere, why is there is an expectation for my city/state/district/commonwealth to change for me. If you choose to live in DC (and the assumption is that after high school an 18 year old can choose to move) then why is it unfair that you chose to live somewhere that does not have congressional representation? If I choose to live in Colorado, how can I complain that I have to pay state income tax. I didn’t when I lived in Washington.
Ravenman’s counter was that the right to representation was so important that it shouldn’t depend where you live. I used your example to show that that thinking means all or none so I contend that unless every part of the US is a state that it is in fact not unfair that some people get representation and some don’t.
Your vision of this is very, very Anglo, if you don’t mind my saying: the individual trumps everything. For some people, living near family is so important that upping stakes and changing communities is well-nigh unthinkable. Indeed, for poorer people, unplugging from the social network / emergency safety net is pretty near impossible. Likewise divorced people with shared custody. Many people speak English, but are more comfortable in another language, which limits their choice of communities. Sure, an Arabic speaker can move to Wyoming, but it’s a greater task for him to do so than for an Evangelical Christian from West Virginia.
Also, if you’ve ever met an 18-year-old, their major life choices aren’t always the most well-informed. Mine certainly weren’t.
Because that’s democracy: The individual must obey the community, but the policies of the community must reflect the wills and interests of its members, however and whenever they arrived there. Is it unjust that the Irish have played such a great and influential role in the governments and civil services of Boston and New York, even though there were hardly any Irish in those cities from their founding to the early 19th Century?
Yes I do mind. Considering I work with a lot of 17, 18 and 19 year old and most are minorities I think this is very insulting. My students are transitioning into independent lives and are continually weighing pros and cons and most of them choose to stay in the neighborhood rather than going to a 4 year university precisely because they value friends/family/familiarity over leaving the area. And I was stuck in a state I didn’t want to be in because my stepson was under 18 so I don’t need you to tell me how custody affects moving options. And believe it or not, it is not more difficult for someone in Washington DC to move to a state than everyone else who moves every day. I moved to Seattle, had an apartment close to the school, new car and paid cash for my education with no savings and on $10/hr (early 1990’s). It’s not impossible.
Yes and no. It is not reasonable to move somewhere and then act like conditions are unfair. Hey you knew what you were getting into when you moved there.
As for whether statehood really reflects the view of Columbians
Of course it’s not impossible. As initially phrased, you didn’t seem to value the amount of sacrifice that leaving family can entail. I didn’t mean to insult you or your coworkers.
This is all irrelevant.
Everyone recognizes that there are both incentives and impediments to mobility, particularly when it comes to individual circumstances. I have a job in California because my wife and i were both in grad school, and she finished her PhD and got a job in California, so i moved with her.
But the personal circumstances of education and family and friends and familiarity and jobs and child custody are, in the context of a discussion about statehood, fundamentally different from the question of whether or not citizens of the United States should enjoy equal rights and privileges of citizenship, especially with respect to being represented in their national government.
Yes, there are areas of life where the states have priority, and moving from one state to another affects your legal and civic situation. For example, if you move from one state to another, you overall tax burden might change, because some states have higher income taxes than others, while some have higher sales taxes than others. Similarly, because voting procedures are, in considerable measure, left up to the states, a person with a felony conviction might have to think about voting rights when making a decision to relocate, because some states allow people with criminal records to vote, while other do not.
But the basic fact of having actual, voting representatives in the United States government should not be something that you are faced with losing just because you happen to live in a particular city.
I have argued no such thing and I ask for an apology for putting made-up words in my mouth.
Oh fuck you’re right and I do apologize. It was mhendo that said that. Sorry. How 'bout I buy you a beer when you’re in Colorado to make up for it.
I would be happy to discuss this in another thread. To respond very briefly, there are three points to make:
*This is a statement of fact, not a values judgement, nor a judgement of the value of government.
*At no point did I say it wasn’t economic activity, but that isn’t saying much. All government economic activity is borrowed from other sources in some fashion.
*You actually agreed with my point when you stated that it was “symbiotic.” (I would argue that’s its yes/no but that’s a topic to fill a small library.) Symbiosis requires that the organisms do different tasks. Government doesn’t do the productive part.
However, my point is not, and was not, anything about Washington’s economy specifically. It was a point about how it’s viewed, and how and especially why some firms locate offices there. True or not, there’s a strong perception that this isn’t remotely positive in a wide swath of the country.
Yes, but barring the specific location, it would simply move elsewhere. The same number of people would presumably be consuming roughly the same amount of housing, clothing, food and so forth. They would just do it some other place.
After reconsidering, I don’t want to deal with this in another thread, so let me walk that back. It is a big issue. The point here is that perceptions matter. In the case of Washington, that affected bids for statehood or representation in the past and may again in the future.
It’s a deal!
Remember, you said “beer,” not “Coors.”