Is "taxation without representation" a thing in the United States?

In My Humble Opinion
61

The first thing I thought of apparently doesn’t count to the people who have posted so far. But I’m going to mention it just to get it out of the way.

I find extra taxes on visitors to a city to be a form of taxation without representation. Cities love to tack on stuff like hotel and car rental taxes. (But usually only for cars rented at or near the airport.) The politicians don’t have worry much about the locals complaining.

Note that this is different from, for example, someone driving thru a state paying gas taxes when they fill up there. The locals also pay the same amount. It’s the extra, and quite heavy, tax targeting visitors that I think is wrong.

Anyway. Like I said. I think others will disagree so let’s move on.

62

This is nonsensical. I’m at a loss.

63

Senators and Representatives are not DC residents. They mainly stay in Maryland and Virginia. Joe Biden commuted from Delaware. And that’s not mentioning the vast amount of time they spend in their home states, where their legal residence is.

Also, they don’t have to answer to DC residents. We don’t vote for them and they are largely insulated from our concerns. See @madmonk28 point about the marijuana referendum. Hugely popular in DC, not so much in rural Alabama. So how does a rep from there vote?

The real reason DC, a jurisdiction more populous than Wyoming, does not have representation in Congress equal to Wyoming is because the Republicans know it will result in two democratic senators and one representative. Not because of this incoherent nonsense about how they are all our representatives. (I do not recall being given the opportunity to vote against Marjorie Taylor Greene)

64

Yes, either that page was wrong or misleading or I was reading it incorrectly. Yet, while most nationals are residents of outlying possessions, the law has curious corners.

Section 308 of the Immigration and Nationality Act:

Unless otherwise provided in section 301 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens of the United States at birth:

(1) A person born in an outlying possession of the United States on or after the date of formal acquisition of such possession;

(2) A person born outside the United States and is outlying possessions of parents both of whom are nationals, but not citizens, of the United States, and have had a residence in the United States, or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of such person;

(3) A person of unknown parentage found in an outlying possession of the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in such outlying possessions; and

(4) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a national, but not a citizen, of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than seven years in any continuous period of ten years -

(A) during which the national parent was not outside the United States or its outlying possessions for a continuous period of more than one year, and

(B) at least five years of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

Again if I am reading this correctly, section (4) allows for some people not born on U.S. soil to be termed nationals without residency on outlying possessions. Otherwise the term nationals does appear to be limited to residents of outlying possessions.

The status and attitude of people in the outlying possessions was interestingly handled in Doug Mack’s The Not-Quite States of America: Dispatches from the Territories and Other Far-Flung Outposts of the USA. Mack is a travel writer who - like unfortunately most of us - realized he knew nothing about America’s possessions. So he set off to travel to every one and talk to the people there. Light reading, not scholarly research, but it hit me in the heart of my own ignorance.

65

Is that a concern? Sure. But we now have experience with voting capitals in mature democracies in historical eras with fast transportation systems. So far no problems have arisen.

This is a common glitch: people often overlook empirical experience when forming preferences for one policy or another. They confuse theoretic issues with ones that are at bottom a matter of observation and investigation. Identifying potential problems is all fine and well, but there’s no substitute for experience.

Perhaps there’s a case then for enfranchising DC and disenfranchising certain counties of Maryland and Virginia. If this is shown to be a problem, empirically. Admittedly, I haven’t found any research on this question outside of the US, presumably due to lack of interest.

66

Yes, I pointed that out. The Dems do want to give DC the same representatives as a state. The GOP wont even let it get discussed.

67

Also please note- No taxation without Representation is not part of American law. It is not mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

68

Without an amendment, they can restrict a capital district to the area between the WH and congress and give the rest back to MD, which would treat Washington as just another city. I thing the capital district once included part of VA and they did give that back.

69

I don’t know if this is true (or how anyone would know). Anecdotally, I knew of several group houses on Capitol Hill for Congressmen when I lived there a couple decades ago. And there are of course the stories about Representatives sleeping in their offices rather than shell out for accommodations they’ll only sleep in three nights a week.

70

It’s a problem for me! And 700,000+ other DC residents who are denied adequate congressional representation.

I was responding to Chronos.

71

Yeah, I may have overstressed that point. Some surely do live in the tonier parts of DC, the Paisades or Chevy Chase. But I doubt they send their kids to DC public schools.

72

…and there is plenty of study of DC disenfranchisement. What there isn’t substantial work on is the claim that enfranchising the residents of London, Rome, Paris, Tokyo, and Munich leads to an overabundance of focus on those municipalities to the detriment of the remainder of the country. Admittedly, Tokyo is pretty powerful, but so is New York City. Power tracks population.

They could also restrict a capital district to the area between the WH and congress and… admit the remainder as a state without a constitutional amendment. Cite:

Can Congress admit DC as a state?

Yes. The Constitution vests Congress with broad power to admit new states through legislation under Article IV, subject to two limitations: states may not be formed from existing states’ territory without their consent and jurisdictions seeking to join the Union as states must have a republican form of government. …
Admitting the Douglass Commonwealth as the 51st state through ordinary legislation is not only permissible but also consistent with how the other 37 non-original states were admitted, from Vermont in 1791 to Hawaii in 1959.

73

Unquestionably! And it’s probably more common for Senators with those nice six-year terms to establish more permanent digs in DC/VA/MD. But also, something that most legislators live in mortal fear of is the perception that they’ve “gone native.” Owning a Woodley Park brownstone and enrolling the kids at Georgetown Day is a good way to convince the voters back home that you’ve become a creature of Washington. It was similar circumstances that ended Senator Richard Lugar’s career.

74

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Senators from Wyoming represent Wyoming. Senators from California represent California. Senators from DC would represent DC.

And I certainly dont want to disenfranchise Maryland or Virginia! Where is that coming from?

75

Definitely true. And the reps who live in their offices reunforces the point that they are isolated from DC as a whole.

76

The Founding Fathers were concerned that DC residents would have disproportionate influence on the workings of Congress. @Chronos mentioned these concerns. Absent recent experience with democracy, this was a reasonable worry in 1786.

Subsequent international democratic experiments have shown it to be a non-issue. But if it is a problem, we should penalize residents of adjoining VA and MD counties who are unfortunate to live near sitting Congressmen. Of course nobody is proposing that. As you said:

The real reason DC, a jurisdiction more populous than Wyoming, does not have representation in Congress equal to Wyoming is because the Republicans know it will result in two democratic senators and one representative.

Quite. Republicans don’t want to very partially offset the over-representation of rural areas in the Senate or the gerrymandered House for that matter.

77

And by the President of the United States, for all the good that would do them.

78

I’ve long been for something like this. But it has no chance of happening with 40+ GOP senators since it would give MD a bigger population of Democratic voters and presumably result in a new Democratic seat.

There is also the question of what happens to its electoral votes. Can the new area be assigned 0 votes legislatively?

79

The loathsome JD Vance lives within walking distance of my favorite restaurant in the Del Ray neighborhood of Alexandria, VA. I deeply doubt that the good people of Del Ray have any more influence on him than his Haitian-American constituents in Springfield, Ohio.

(I know this because the Secret Service closed a neighborhood park in order to ensure his security, and it made the news. And if I ever run into him around there, you bet I’ll tell him what I think about him, but I digress.)

80

I used to live in Del Ray, is the Mexican restaurant with the guitar player still there? There was a hole cut in the kitchen door so that when they opened it, the neck of the guitar went through the hole. The guitarist had to stand very still.