Why can’t we just give them a vote in the statehouse in Hawaii?
Why should their 100,ooo people rank the same as millions in D.C.?
Is a little ironic that in a country founded partly on anger that the British Parliment wouldn’t let us have a representitive now has territories whose citizens aren’t given a vote on the federal level.
I think the problem was more that the colonists were being taxed heavily, while having nobody in Parliament to protest it, though I think something would have happened even without taxes.
DC does not have “millions.” It has around 600,000 (and dropping every time the government does a census).
IIRC, Guamanians continue to debate amongst themselves about whether or not they wish to petition for statehood. (It’s not a case of the Evil Empire keeping Guam under it’s thumb.)
Generally, it always turns out “Nah”.
I guess there are benifits to remaining a territory. They may also hold onto some feeling of independence while they do so, I think.
Also, they don’t have to pay federal income taxes.
Isn’t Guam where they have sweatshops full of Chinese people making clothing and labeling it “Made in America?”
I think it’s time to let go of Guam.
If you step back into space, you’ll see that they should be allied with an asian country.
Maybe we could could sell it to China, like Russia sold us Alaska, to the benefit of all concerned.
I think that’s the Northern Marianas.
I’m opposed to the U.S. having colonies on principle. Either you should have a vote and full rights, or you should not be any part of the U.S. There shouldn’t be a middle ground.
Actually, Guam is over 1000 miles from Taiwan and Honshu, much less from any part of the Asian mainland. If it became anything but a U.S. territory, it would fit into the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (who could then drop “Northern”) or the United States of Micronesia.
Its population is almost precisely that of Prince Edward Island, which I’ve never noticed anyone saying should be conjoined with New Brunswick.
And its representation in Congress, like that of Puerto Rico, the Northern Marianas, and the territories other than itself, is simply that of a delegate with voice but no vote on the floor, and such representation on committees as the rules of the two houses of Congress provide for.
I guess you missed the news report that undoubtedly led to this thread, where voting rights are on the table.
Linkety-link?
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20070128/1051309.asp
Expanding House Voting for the District of Columbia and Delegates - The House voted 226-191 Tuesday to adopt a resolution sponsored by Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., that would allow the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico and delegates from the District of Columbia, Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands to vote on amendments on the House floor. But if those votes would decide an issue, a new vote limited to full House members would be taken.
A stupid idea if I ever heard of one. Also probably unconstitutional.
If I recall correctly, there is some precedent for this. The House did something similar for the DC delegate in the early 90’s. Again, if memory serves, the delegate could vote when the House was assembled as the “Committee of the Whole,” which is how the House usually meets. However, if the delegate’s vote would have been decisive, the losing side could have moved to re-vote without the delegate voting.
Here’s the Wikipedia take on the matter:
And indeed, that will be the case again this time; in fact, the re-vote will be automatic. It’s a symbolic gesture; the votes of the delegates will count only when they don’t count. Anything more substantive would raise constitutional issues, since the House can’t delegate its powers to another body including non-Representatives.
I don’t hear a lot about Guam these days. Didn’t we win Guam during the Civil War when we defeated the Germans?
Marc
Gary Wills’s Sunday column raises the interesting point that the House is supposed to be composed of Representatives “apportioned among the several States,” which Commonwealths and territories emphatically are not. Allowing these delegates a vote in committee, including the House sitting as Committee of the Whole, is therefore probably unconstitutional. Even under the obnoxious provision that their vote counts only when it doesn’t count.
However, though it is not a Constitutional principle, we do have the tradition that there should be no taxation without representation, that every citizen should be granted a voice in how he/she is governed. And I was not aware that one forfeited such a right by choosing to live in an area with a small population.
And there is also a longstanding tradition that Congress can do whatever the hell it wants with or to DC.
True, but they do have to push for it, as with anything else. If they can’t even make up their minds to demand it, why should we force them to. As for DC, it is by nature a special case, established specifically for the purposes of running the government. It was never meant to be a “normal” city.