D.C. should have representation in Congress. It’s population is GREATER than Wyoming and close to several other states such as Maine and Montana. This is a clear injustice with “taxation without representation” being a prominent one. In fact, I believe a powerful slogan of the Revolutionary War was, “Taxation without representation is tyranny.”
By making Philadelphia the capital for ten years, after about six years of meeting in New York.
~Max
Every one of the representatives in congress have residence in their home states right now. It’s not required but it’s the political reality. So those people wouldn’t get to vote in the State of Columbia or have any more say in running it.
It is required, by those clauses which state all representatives in Congress shall be inhabitants of the state they represent when elected.
~Max
I stand corrected. I was under the impression people could elect anyone they wanted as a representative, I don’t know where I got that idea.
A Representative is required to be a resident of their state, but they are not specifically required to reside in the district they represent. For political reasons, they almost always do so.
Another ending:
By giving the South yet another victory by placing the Capitol into a slave area that would work to maintain slavery for their lifetimes.
Just as modern prejudices are keeping the the District ineligible for national voting because of the political, i.e. racial makeup of the population.
Odious then. Odious now.
In hindsight the 23rd Amendment should’ve given DC representation in Congress on the same terms as in the Electoral College, but that’s not what happened and I don’t see an DC Congressional amendment going anywhere in this era.
You may have been thinking of Britain and Canada. MPs don’t have residency requirements in either country.
Ok, but still, the representatives living in the state of Columbia won’t be residents there, at least at the time they are elected. And yes, a representative not living in their district is likely to be called a carpetbagger and not gain much support until they buy some home in the district and pretend that they live there.
I don’t think I ever knew that, unless I heard of it somehow but never picked up on that very important detail. That sounds like me, I’ll go with that for lack of a better explanation.
Cite for your claim that this supposed unfairness was the reason for DC not having representation in Congress?
About the “Who represents DC?”
The have a commissioner like Puerto Rico does. Its not much, but it is better than
American Samoa
Guam
US Virgin Islands
North Mariana Islands
Who represents them?
Who will represent them when DC and PR become states?
How will they vote for President?
This is not a DC or PR (other thread) issue. I should be an all Americans issue.
Indeed, I have never been represented by a Congressman or woman that lives in my district.
~Max
Yes, they’re also disenfranchised in our current system. They should get the opportunity to be admitted as states.
DC, along with the four territories, are each represented by a delegate in the House of Representatives. Puerto Rico has a “commissioner” but the only difference between a delegate and commissioner is that the later is elected to a four-year term rather than two years. All six of these delegates/commissioner are currently allowed to vote in committee but cannot vote on the House floor.
Not necessarily. We could do what we did with the 23rd Amendment with a variation to allow voting AND representation. Since the 17th Amendment, there is no reason to limit Senators to states since they no longer represent “sovereign state interests”. Expand the number of Representatives to allow for new seats. Since I think Puerto Rico would want to remain in the US, this would give us 441 Representatives and under this organization 106 Senators
DC remains a federal district. 1 Representative and 2 Senators
PR votes on statehood or independence and Congress pledges to respect the referendum. Those are the only two choices since they are too big to be a colony … oops Organized Territory™ anymore. If they become a state they get 4 Reps and 2 Senators
OT (Organized Territories), the 4 territories I mentioned are combined into one voting/representative bloc. I believe even combined they would only get 1 Rep and of course 2 senators.
Would Americans living in foreign countries without state residency and those in unorganized territories need their rights upheld? Then we should include them in the organized territory category as a catch-all.
Sure, they deserve federal representation, whether by becoming states or another form of representation. The entire system of how we divide states and how we give them federal power is unfair so realistically we should support marginal improvements to make things more fair.
But any step that makes our unfair status quo more fair is positive. It’s not unfair to Guam to make DC or Puerto Rico states. It’s already unfair that they have essentially no say in the federal government that has significant power over them.
Which is why in my system, you don’t need to be the resident of a state to have your representation & presidential voting rights. The idea that people only live in states or people don’t need representation when out in the wilds of the territories may have made sense in 1787 but not anymore and if people believe the Constitution should adapt with the times, that is the first change we should make. Maybe I’ll ship off my idea to my Rep and Senators after Jan 3rd.
The Not-Quite States of America: Dispatches from the Territories and Other Far-Flung Outposts of the USA is the product of a travel writer who realizes that he had never been to the American territories. He shares his learning process with us as he records the shameful history of exploitation, racism, and condescension they’ve lived under - and the reasons why many of the life-long inhabitants don’t want change. The mix of travel book and political tome doesn’t always work but it was a slap in the face to realize that I had been as ignorant as he was before I read it.