Hey, easy there. Don’t make me call my representative. And while I have your attention, could you fill those potholes on 14th street please, so I can get to work?
While at it, DC’s flag/seal is a nicely stylish device for the plates.
Elendil’s Heir: You need at least some of the contents of a post to be in “normal” text for all-caps lines to work.
“1600 PENN”
“HAIL 2 ME”
I have to reference this “Kids First” plate as the Best Plate Ever.
4change
ask&tell
(involuntarily changed from upper case)
Yeah, I’ve seen those in, I think it was, Arizona? I was thinking of getting a bumper sticker to put under the plate “…I did - mine”
Oh! Did not know that. Actually, I wasn’t aware anyone actually lived in DC, I thought it was just government buildings where people went to work.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
It’s even more amazing how many Americans believe it. I have one Representative and two Senators, but DC has 535 Representatives and 100 Senators. The Constitution explicitly doesn’t give any representation to DC specifically because it already has plenty of representation in general, and any more would give it too much.
And who do you think sweeps the floors in those government buildings, and runs the cafeterias and fast-food joints where the government workers eat lunch, and does all of the other things that keeps a city functioning? There’s 600,000 people who live there, most of whom have no direct connection to the government at all.
In that case I’m sure you’d have no problem with getting rid of the idea of Montana having three people in Congress for its 975,000 population (avg. 325,000 costituents per member, vs 55 people in Congress for California’s 36.5 million, avg. 662,800 per member); after all, those 535 Representatives and 100 Senators all represent you already; you don’t need to hog three of them. You seriously think Imhofe or Boxer is going to pay the slightest attention to what Washington residents want, if their constituents back home in Oklahoma or California want something else?
The point is that they have no vote for Congresspeople. Those who supposedly “represent” them are chosen from states and districts that may be 3,000 miles away. The Laysan albatross has better representation in Congress than the guy who sweeps the Senate floor each night.
The fact that a large number of those people actually reside in DC does create an anomaly. Having a capital district which is not located in any state has a lot of appeal, but it probably SHOULD operate more like the poster you were answering thought it did. Or like the Vatican. Virtually all of the actual citizens of Vatican City are members of the Catholic clergy or the Swiss Guard. There are about 3000 lay workers who work in various service, tourist trade and clerical jobs within the Vatican. They mostly live in Rome, and are Italian citizens. One could imagine having a capital district containing government buildings, and only residences for elected government officials and perhaps a few other select classes of government employees. They would still be legal residents of their home states, and vote as such. The guy flipping burgers in the Capital Hill McDonald’s would live and be represented in Virgina or Maryland, as somebody pointed out that people working in DC can do already.
In fact, I wouldn’t. If it were politically viable to get a Constitutional amendment eliminating the Senate, or making Senate representation proportional to population like the House is, I’d be behind that. But practically speaking, there are a lot of higher priorities that are a lot more easily accomplished.
DC has 100 representatives? (There are 435 members of the House of Representatives – the 535 number is often used when referring to the total number in Congress, which includes both Representatives and Senators).
I figured they came in from whatever cities/towns surround DC. I wasn’t aware that it was all that big - never been anywhere near there! It doesn’t really make sense to me that people actually live there.
You get to vote for your representative and senators. DC residents don’t.
That doesn’t make any sense, why do you think members of Congress represent DC? They make decisions that impact the lives of Washingtonians, but without Washingtonians having any ability to select who is making those decisions or how those decisions are made, it is more akin to colonial occuptation than representation (hence the slogan on the plates). In fact, the Congresspeople from the surrounding communities that are often in direct economic competition with DC often make decisions that benefit their communities at the expense of DC, how is that representing DC?
Curlcoat have you never heard of Marion Berry? He was the mayor of DC when it was the nation’s murder capital in the 80s and 90s? More recently, DC was in the national news when it legalized gay marriage? We also have the Washington Nationals MLB team, the Washington Caps hockey team, the Redskins (who now play in Maryland), the Wizards in the NBA?
As noted previously, some 500,000 to 600,000 people do, and for fourteen years I was one of them. The land cut out of Maryland and Virginia to form DC back in the 1700s was already well settled (Georgetown was a thriving harbor town) by the time the federal government got around to setting the land aside.
The problem of representation for DC residents is not a new one; it’s been there almost since the start some 220-odd years ago. In fact, DC did not even have a city government until 1973; even now, however, Congress reserves the right to intervene in City Council decisions and overturn them. DC does have non-voting representation in the House, currently Eleanor Holmes Norton, along with two shadow senators (recognized as senators by DC but not by the Senate itself, so they are neither sworn in nor seated) and a shadow representative (again, not recognized as a representative by the House). In short, the elected officials DC does have are really little more than figureheads completely overshadowed by Congress. And yet, DC (unlike other territories with the same level of representation, like Guam and Puerto Rico) are subject to federal income tax; currently DC rates 31st or 32nd (more than 19 states) in federal income taxes collected and has the highest federal income tax rate per capita. All the pontification about Constitutional law and statehood and a separate national capital is moot; the fact is that half a million citizens of the United States are being subjected to the very problem that caused the Founding Fathers to revolt in the first place: taxation without representation. DC residents don’t get to vote for a single one of the 535-person committee that ultimately runs the city’s affairs and the setup smacks a lot more of Stalinist Moscow than a “beacon of democracy for the free world”.
This lack of representation was one of the factors behind the retrocession of what is now Arlington and Alexandria back to Virginia in 1846. I would argue retroceding most of residential DC back to Maryland isn’t a bad idea but the issue unfortunately seems to be dead in the water for now.
I found this thread very interesting, and was inspired to start a comparative thread: Do other countries have federal/capital districts without voting rights?
Representation doesn’t necessarily imply democratic representation. The representation the colonists were clamoring for in the original slogan wouldn’t have been democratic, either.
And obviously 535 was a mistake, I of course meant 435.
Don’t you think we’ve moved on from the time of the colonies? Would people in any “democratic” society today be satisfied with the type of representation the colonists were clamoring for then?
Would your state’s residents accept losing their own representatives and having Congress as a whole “represent” them?
So DC should remain in the 18th century while the rest of the country gets to have the 19th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act apply? Seriously?
If you move in next to a racetrack, what right do you have to complain about the noise? If you move in next to a mall, what right do you have to complain about the traffic? And if you move to Washington, DC, what right do you have to complain about something that is as Constitutionally mandated as the 19th Amendment and (by extension) the Civil Rights Act?
Realistically, you have every right to complain about your situation to someone who might sympathize. As for the rest of us, we think that you knew what you were getting into, so sorry about that.
The status of Washington, DC is not a secret. It’s very well known, in fact. So I’m finding it hard to muster up sympathy for the people that move there.
One could also say, everyone knew you can’t own guns if you live in DC, so you better not sue to change the law. You can live somewhere else if you wanted to own a gun.
Not to turn this into a debate, but proponents of representation for DC believe that citizens who live in the US and pay taxes should have an elected representative in Congress. We think that the Constitutional provison prohibiting this was either a mistake or has been made outdated. We do not accept that Americans are obligated to sit down and shut up when they believe a law is unfair, what with the protection for redress of grievences and all. And we like to point out that the unfairness of DC’s situation was already recognized by the amendment to give DC’s residents 3 electoral votes for the president, but we just don’t see that job as finished with respect to having a vote in Congress.
Other people disagree.