Well, no. An injustice is only such because of the consequences it causes. A DC resident who wants the sweet benefits of congressional representation has a simple solution available to him. The District is a very cool place to live, but nobody has a crushing need to live there, and unless you’re a DC cop or fireman (and God knows cops and firemen can get more renumerative employment in most of the surrounding localities), there are no demonstrable problems caused by leaving.
Sorry, but an argument that boils down to “You don’t HAVE to live in a particular place, so everyone in that particular place can reasonably be denied representation” defies all logic and reason. It is nothing but sophistry.
Why don’t we apply that argument to whatever place you live in? Let’s say we got the country to pass a constitutional amendment saying that all half a million residents of Hellpop Hovel no longer get to have a voting representative in Congress. Would that be OK? Or is it only OK if the denial of representation is a historical artifact?
The South had racist Jim Crow laws for many years. Rather than repealing the laws, would you have suggested that African Americans simply move somewhere else? Nobody has a “crushing need” to live in a particular state.
If “The South” were as tiny as the District of Columbia and Jim Crow-scale injustices could be avoided by moving less than five miles away, I’d be kind of curious why anybody remained there at all. Clearly, these are not comparable situations.
Washington, DC was designed to be a temporary residence for a transient workforce of public servants. People moved there knowing what they would be giving up (and what opportunities they would be gaining) for the duration of their stay. People who stayed beyond their check-out time simply weren’t accounted for. Should the Occupy protesters in Lafayette Park get a special representative to congress?
Nonsense. It has nothing to do with any consequences. The situation itself is structurally unjust.
Nobody here is advocating “special” representation for anybody. Quite the opposite.
There is nothing structurally unjust with DC not being a state. There is a democratic process to change the laws and the Constitution that govern this nation. Of course one may always get lucky and find a sympathetic judge to overrule the law of the land for one’s special cause.
This question tells us all we need to know about your logic here.
Complete strawman. No one is taking away statehood rights from DC. The scenario is “Do I want to move to Hellpop Hovel even though they don’t have statehood rights?” If the answer is yes then I can’t complain.
I don’t care if YOU can complain or not. The fundamental principle remains the same: the representative rights of citizens should be determined by principle, not the question of what is, or is not, in your opinion, a reasonable level of inconvenience.
So if the 13th Amendment was found not to apply in DC, you wouldn’t have a problem with that?
Cite? And do you know how many slaves lived in DC prior to empancipation in 1862?
As Americans not living in a territory that has decided against statehood, they are deserving of representatives in our national legislature. If they have none, that should be fixed.
But guess what it’s not that any longer. It’s a real urban settlement with a real population who are not all a workforce of transient public servants, and include a large proportion of native-born/raised citizens and multigenerational families. Now, that is *not *the fault of the drafters of the Constitution - someone should have noticed when the demographics began trending that way many, many years later. ISTM at some point Congress said to themselves hey, we need a real capital city to show the world, with all the accoutrements of a worldly capital city – if running that requires a significant resident working class, so what (didn’t hurt that much of that working class were of the class of people that, at the time, mattered even less).
The 13th Amendment does, in fact, apply to the District. So does the Organic Act of 1801 , which applies in DC and nowhere else.
DC is, and since its inception always has been, the US Congress’s playground. Part of it is their dickish sense of entitlement, of course, but another part of it is that prior locations of the capital (notably Philadelphia and Annapolis) were unable to count on the local state to provide adequate security.
DC’s Statehood party talks a good game, but it has less-publicized parts of its platform, including a commuter tax on non-residents, that have given congress ample excuses to marginalize them over the years.
My (Northern Virginia, DC area) high school history teacher’s lectures on the subject are, unfortunately, not archived on the internet.
2,989 at the point of emancipation.
Clearly, you haven’t met any of Lafayette Park’s squatters personally.
And this is one thing that IMO does make *actual statehood per se, or even retrocession of all but the Federal Core, unlikely in a near term. The point of the District is that the polity within which lies the Seat of the Federal State will be a dependency of Congress that it can control, not autonomously sovereign as the federated states are legally supposed to be(). And the level of services and support activities both formal and informal that is required to provide the abode of Congress in a way that befits a capital city is so large and expensive that you do need the resources of, well, a whole capital city to take care of it.
(Agencies of the Executive Branch and autonomous federal programs don’t seem to be too badly tied in to the borders of DC for placing the home office. Defense and the CIA are in Virginia, NSA and NIH in the Maryland suburbs, Social Security is in Baltimore, etc. )
(*Of course, as with the Electoral Vote, Congress and the states could pass a new amendment that would finesse the deal and say no, it’s not a sovereign state, it’s still a subject of Congress’ will, but we will let them have a voting representation. It’s the Senate seats that’s the biggie IMO, if not for that it might be plausible to get the votes nfor an amendment that promotes Eleanor Holmes Norton to full voting rank )
You’re avoiding the question. I said if the 13th Amendment were found not to apply – that’s a context clue for talking about a hypothetical, insisting that it does is not responsive to the hypothetical – would you simply suggest that people more elsewhere, or should the law be fixed?
You can appeal to history all you want, but you’re not actually defending the substance of why DC residents shouldn’t have representation.
How is that any different from states with commuter taxes?
Seems like a lot of people who were not part of a transient political workforce. I guess these Americans didn’t really make a choice in what they were giving up, eh? I note that you still haven’t address the underlying reason of why someone should give up anything in terms of Federal political rights by living in a particular city.
I don’t believe that representation in one’s government is something that has to be earned by holding the proper political viewpoints.
If your life is abject misery (and the lack of senate representation is hardly that) and you can turn it around by putting your stuff in a truck and moving down the road 20 blocks, I think it’s worth considering. Do you really think living in DC under present laws is comparable to slavery? I don’t, not even hypothetically.
When I lived in DC, Marion Barry was the mayor. I sure didn’t want to see him rewarded with the title of “Governor.” When DC has a longer record of not electing blatant jacklegs, I’ll entertain the idea of statehood, but the memory is too fresh for me.
The intended targets of the taxation have some say in the matter. Right now, paying a commuter tax in DC is too much like overtipping a waiter for sub-par service.
I think slaves and former slaves got a bad deal whether they lived in DC or outside of it. What’s your point? If you’re under the impression that DC’s Black community comes largely from the families of the Class of 1862, my understanding is that that’s not the case. Neither do the white families there.
I’m glad I don’t own a restaurant near McPherson Square; mucking out the lavatories can’t be a delight.
By the way: Currently, only Philadelphia has a commuter tax. New York state has something similar, a “mobility tax” for New York City and its metropolitan area, but bars NYC from levying one on its own. I’m not sure Philly is a fiscal model to emulate.
John Kasich opposes DC statehood because “that’s just more votes in the Democratic Party.”
Asked if he would support statehood if the District had a Republican majority, he declined to answer.
Your posts are starting to read like a primer in logical fallacies. Nobody ever said that DC residents live in “abject misery” because they are second-class citizens. If you can’t make a coherent argument without resorting to straw men like this, as well as your appeals to various fallacies, perhaps that should be a clue that you should re-examine your stance on the issue. After all, if you can only defend a position using fallacies, the position needs another look.
I’ve also explained why I asked this question, which apparently you do not wish to respond to. I’ll post the question again: is there any limit to the loss of civil rights for people living in a particular locality in which you would not respond, “Just move if it is a problem?”
So this idea seems to be, “If a particular level of government is too corrupt, then the people of that constituency do not deserve sovereignty or political representation.” Is that the argument you’re putting forward? Because I’m curious how this applies to areas like Bell, California, Detroit, certain counties of West Virginia that have been under FBI investigation for years, Chicago, New York City under David Dinkins, etc.
Not sure if this is a clueless statement or genius irony, but surely you’re not talking about how DC residents are subject to Federal taxation without having any say in the matter…
That your high school teacher’s uncited lesson that DC was simply a city of the privileged overclass is not historically accurate.
Most middle class families here, whether white or black, are here because of Federal jobs (though that’s changing in recent years). The logic of why people move to DC for a job, and thereby lose Federal representation, has yet to be explained as to why it makes a lick of sense.
So you do think that certain Americans should be denied representation in their government if you find them distasteful? Serious question, do you think homeless people in any state should be allowed to vote?
Um, that’s quite an indictment from someone who immediately compared unrepresented DC to antebellum slavery and demanded to know what I’d do in an imaginary world where the 13th Amendment was never passed. Yeah, parallel Earth is your moral stance and mine is, I lived in DC.
We don’t have enough of a common referent to discuss this further.
I’m not sure how much of a debate it was: you never attempted to answer the hypothetical question at all. ::shug::