Our lovely & talented “congresswoman” Elanore Holmes Norton wants DC license plates to say “taxation without representation” as part of the effort to further educate the American public about the city’s lack of full congressional representation. This strikes me a a little whiny, and I wonder if she’s also planning on putting a little frowny face there as well.
I have not really been following the DC statehood thing all that closely, mainly because I don’t think it’ll ever happen. But for the sake of discussion, why the heck not? Doesn’t the fact that I don’t have full representation put me at a disadvantage- somehow? Wouldn’t the residents of Wyoming or Vermont (about the same population as DC) be royally pissed if they woke up one day and found themselves only minimally represented on The Hill? Wouldn’t they want something done about it PDQ?
What, specifically are the arguments against statehood, aside from having to order a whole bunch of new flags? I remember some time ago there was talk- either make DC a state or quit taxing us. The thought of a quarter of my paycheck not going to the gub’mint seems attractive on the surface, but I realize it would come with a big minus, namely a severe lack of federal funding.
What’s the big schmeal? Why not just make DC a state and get over it already?
The way I understand it is that DC was spicifically not put in a state so that the one state could not be “better” by having the national capitol in its borders. Making DC a full–fledged state would be destroying the spirit of its creation, methinks (sorry for using the obsolete word, “methinks”).
Well, there’s the detail that the Constitution set up that the seat of the Federal Government be located in a sort of “neutral” jurisdiction that’s not part of any one State. The idea being that on their “homestead” the Federal Government itself would have full, undivided, undisputed sovereignty. Pretty sure they never expected that seat-o-government would involve a city of 600 thousand souls.
When DC got Electoral Votes in the 60s, it was by Constitutional Amendment. Giving DC full representation would likely require an Amendment as well. And for that you need 3/4 of the States to agree. Notice I said “giving full representation” as opposed to “making it a State”, because Congress may decide the 600K citizens living in DC deserve representation, but they’d never devolve sovereignty to the geopolitical entity called DC since that is an arbitrary construct that exists for the sake of the Federal Government. So it’s essentially a question of power politics.
Of course, there is the alternative of separating a Vatican-like enclave of Capitol Hill, PA Ave., Foggy Bottom, Embassy Row, the Mall, and some spaces in between, calling that the Federal District, and declaring that the rest is to be returned to Maryland. Wouldn’t they love that in Annapolis…
Perhaps the US could borrow Australia’s model. The Capital Territory was given self-governing status back in 1989 and given representation in the upper and lower houses of the Australian Parliament. However, it is still a territory and not a state.
In Mexico, Mexico City is not in a state, but in the Federal District (Distrito Federal). It is not exactly a state either, but it does have representation in Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies and its Senate.
Now in Mexico, it’s pretty hard to deny Mexico City full representation in the government as the city is so important.
However, Canberra has a population of a little over 300,000 and gets full representation.
I was under the impression that Australia’s government was set up fairly closely to the US model, at least regarding federalism, so perhaps someone who knows more about it can clue us in on the details.
To expand on what Markxxx is saying, DC is heavily Democratic .
So the decision is politicly charged. The Democrats would have to control a 2/3 majority in both houses to get it through Congress. The President has no veto over Ammendments ( it was already a 2/3 vote ). Then 2/3 of the state legislatures must approve it ( although the Congress could call for Constitutional Conventions in the states, if they thought this would be easier than ramming the Ammendment through the state legislatures ). In any case we are talking about a large majority.
The other possiblility is a Convocation of the States. If 2/3 of the states call for 1, then the Convocation could propose Ammendments without regard to Congress. These Ammendments would then need to be ratified by 2/3 of the states ( again Congress makes the decision about legislature votes or Conventions ).
The 2nd possibility is even more implausible. The states with large populations are already underrepresented in the Senate. Why would they want to make things worse? Of course, Democratic politicians from big states might support it.
Also, no Convocation of the States has ever been called.
I don’t know whether the Canberra option would be possible in the US. In Australia, representation of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is a separate issue from its “self-government”, or quasi-statehood.
Under the constitution, Parliament may allow the representation of a territory “to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit”.
The ACT was given a representative in the lower house in 1948, but this representative didn’t have a full vote until 1966, when the ACT population reached the size of a normal electorate.
Today it has 3 representatives in the lower house, and 2 senators (the States each have 12 senators).
The ACT was run by a Federal Department until 1989. There was an elected “Advisory Committee” with no power and little influence.
It was offered self-government in (I think) 1986. There was referendum, in which two-thirds voted against self-government, but it was given anyway in 1989.
The effective difference between self-government and statehood in Australia is that a self-governing territory’s constitution is a Federal Act, and the Federal government continues to control it.
For example, in 1997 the Northern Territory, which also has self-government, enacted a law legalising euthanasia in certain circumstances. The ACT was about to enact a similar law. The Federal government changed the constitutions of the two territories to forbid euthanasia laws.
I would have thought that the provision in question makes the existence of a federal district optional.
Article I, Section 8, gives the Congress the power:
“To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of congress, become the seat of government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings…”
The use of the word “may,” the requirement of cession by the states involved, and the requirement that Congress accept the cession all suggest that it was not automatic that there would be federal capital district. It was left to political negotiations.
In fact Congress sat originally in New York and then Philadelphia, didn’t it?
Second nit: under Article V, amendments require two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and three-quarters of the states.
Since DC is not a state, what is the sales tax situation there? Does the District impose an income tax the way states do? Is there a judicial arm belonging to the district that is the equivalent of other states’ or are their cases shunted off to a neighboring state?
We discussed this issue previously at Prior Topic (you have to scroll down a bit to get to the representation discussion).
I see while I was off looking for this, jti has pointed out the incorrect statements about the constitution. Folks, you can read the document at U.S. Constitution Online; I suggest reviewing the text before making comments about what it says.
If the issue of representation without taxation was really important to the inhabitants of D.C., they could simply move to either Virginia or Maryland, leaving the area of the District for the housing of the government, not the housing of people. I always get this kick out of people whining about where they live: MOVE. It’s not like the District is 60 miles square, creating some huge area of unrepresented territory, impractical to work within and live without.
As for the original intent of the District, and whether that remains important, I wonder anyone has to ask this question in today’s climate of political monetary extortion, um, er, excuse me, campaign contributions. Can you imagine what would happen if the seat of the government had someone (or sometwo or somethree) people actually in the Congress, able to be pressured by fellow Congressmen into voting with bribes, er, that is, promises of helpful legislation for the constituents of the District? Remember, the same clause of the Constitution that grants Congress control over D.C. also grants it control over military bases, and we already know how THAT hydra is impossible to slay.
Giving the residents of D.C. a say in who is President made sense; it was an inevitable outcome of the change in how electors are selected for the Electoral College, and long overdue. As for Congress, that is another kettle of fish entirely.
Isn’t it a violation of free speech for the D.C. government to make License Plates that say “Taxation Without Representation”? I mean, isn’t this political advertising being done by the government? If not, doesn’t that mean that Texas can start issuing License Plates stating, “Texas, well-governed by George W. Bush, who deserves to be President”?
I wish I could think of a clever riddle for this, but, what would be the difference between a DC congressperson and an Idaho congressperson doing the above? I believe the status quo (for states) is that it happens all the time. Every state has their representatives in the Capitol armed, if you will, with the power to give or withhold their vote. The merits of that, of course, are debatable in a different thread. So why should a congressperson from the district not be on equal footing with a congressperson from Alaska?
As for getting Federal dollars, should we count on the beneficence of other congresspersons? Should we count on the fact that most of them spend a good portion of their time here? I don’t think so. A beneficent politician? A congressperson from Missouri is going to go out on a limb for the residents of DC? And I don’t believe many of them live here. Maybe in Chevy Chase, maybe in some secluded areas of North West, but more than likely out in suburban Maryland and Virginia. (Any sites out there with this information?) Regardless, they are certainly not in Anacostia. They deal with the traffic and the Mall area, not regular city services. Who represents the people of DC in matters of foreign affairs or domestic policy? The citizens of other states. We have no voice.
Wow… I never new I felt this strongly about statehood.
Anyway, I’d be very interested to know how giving the District an equal voice would be detrimental to the country as a whole. Or, why a congressperson in the district would wield more power than a congressperson from any other state.
I’d also like to recommend Between Justice and Beauty by Howard Gillette. I picked it up because his son is a great friend of mine from school, and I was moving to DC. It’s an excellent book that explains a lot about how DC came to be the city that it is. Think we can count on politicians to act in the best interests of the city? This will surly make you think twice.
That’s all for now. Thanks for listening.
Rhythmdvl
PS… Oh, by the way for many of the posters above, it is Capitol. Don’t feel bad. I had to look it up to be sure.
Because we are living in a society where laws are supposed to be applied fairly and equally to everybody. The gripe is not that we don’t like where we’re living, the gripe is that we don’t think we are being treated equally under the law. The law forbids taxation without representation, and yet we are being taxed without representation. We’re just saying: woah, somebody take a look at this- that’s gotta be a typo! Moving out may hide the injustice, but it won’t correct it.
Ptahlis: DC sales tax is 5¾%, and our “state” income tax rate maxes out at 9½%; the third highest right behind Montana at 11% and North Dakota at 12%. Now before you start feeling sorry for Montanans & Upper Dakotans, realize that their upper tax bracket is a whopping $69K & $50K, respectively; probably not putting too many people at the 11% & 12% rate. On the other foot, DC’s upper tax bracket is a mere $20K, which slaps virtually everybody down to your average Burger King employee with that maximum tax rate of 9½%. Can you say Highest tax rate per capita?
(Pardon my Latin)
Blue mashed potatoes & fudge
greenies go with everything!
I was incorrect, it does take 3/4 of the states to ratify an Ammendment. However 2/3 of the states are needed to call for a Convocation of the States.
:o
Thanks for the info Opus. I feel lucky compared to DC regarding the tax issue. In Illinois the sales tax is 6.25%, but income tax is only 3% for everyone. Does DC have a district legislature and court sstem like the states do?
IIRC, DC has a City Council and local courts. It also has all the other trappings of any municipality like police, fire department, public library, etc.
Since DC and the other territories don’t have voting representation in the House of Representatives or the Senate, how about just booting those tax-paid non-voters they do have in there right now right out! Then, we can discuss statehood.
Article V says that the states may call for a Convention, not a ‘Convocation’, which is generally reserved for representatives of religious or educational institutions (See Merriam-Webster’s Online).
Apparently I have lost the ability to read. I urge everyone reading this to ignore any conclusions I made in my 1st post, or any conclusions they themselves may have reached due to my 1st post. I have not demonstrated any familiarity with the document in question.
I hereby promise not to use the word “constitution” on this board for the rest of the month.
