It’s the same damn thing. They are Republicans and oppose Democrats because they’re racists in the first place.
Also, supporting a policy whose practical effects are racist is just as racist as anything else. Most racists don’t admit to doing things because they’re primarily racist. That doesn’t make them any less racist.
Explain to us instead why denying DC residents equal representation is in the interests of the nation’s common good.
On these boards, I’ve heard something to the effect of “they could just move into a different jurisdiction if they weren’t addicted to sucking on the taxpayers’ teat.” (I might be mixing and matching verbiage. Probably. But the sentiment is accurately conveyed.)
I would if I could, but I can’t so I won’t.
~Max
To be fair, I don’t think anyone can.
It’s OK, we’ll forgive you if you don’t.
What’s there to forgive me for? I didn’t claim or imply that denying DC residents equal representation was in the interests of the nation’s common good. That was Red_Wiggler asking out of the blue.
~Max
You must not be a Gen X’er raised on the Electric company children’s show
Lyrics burned into my mind (alas I can’t find a link).
“I would if I could but I can’t so I won’t. Please forgive me if I don’t…”
One of the quirks about DC is that it would be relatively easy to cede to outlying sections to Maryland, but almost all the population is clustered closely around the central Federal buildings. There may be a limit to what the federal government is willing to hand over to Maryland. But a state government in the place of DC could end up functionally dependent on the Federal, which could be rather awkward Constitutional issues.
I prefer:
“I would if I could but I can’t so I shan’t.”
I believe he was riffing on my comment in post 55. I think that if you support denying rights to American citizens, you really need to be able to explain how it meets the common good.
Do you not?
It’s always suspicious when a bunch of partisans are proposing an outcome that “serves the common good” that just so happens to meet their partisan goals. Do you seriously believe that the Democratic Party cares more about the interests of the DC residents than they do about the 2 Senate and 1 HOR seats? DC statehood is flagrantly about gaining the Democratic Party an electoral advantage. Describing it as being about some secondary issue is just misleading rhetoric.
The generic “you” ought to be able to do so, yes.
However it’s important to distinguish between two kinds of “denying rights”. One is taking away rights presently in existence and the other is granting rights that were taken away years / decades / centuries ago, or were never granted in the first place.
There’s a general principle of law and government that the government is permitted to cure society’s ills at the pace, and in the sequence, of its own choosing.
Taking away the rights of, e.g. red-heads, to vote going forward is an active denial. Leaving DC residents’ voting as it is and has been since 17xx is a passive acquiescence to ongoing pre-existing denial.
The “reason” for the current denial of DC residents is simple: “Because the Constitution says so.” Perhaps stupidly so, but that’s what it says. And ref my prior paragraph the second half is “… and because so far we haven’t collectively decided to change that.”
So:
My bottom line: ideological consistency has never been the USA’s strong suit. And moral or ethical litmus tests are a poor fit for real-world politics.
Ref my comments above about active vs passive denial, your comment can also be read as “Opposing DC statehood is flagrantly about retaining an existing Republican Party electoral advantage.”
If it’s just a happy coincidence that Democratic support for DC statehood serves both the political ends of the party AND serves the common good by granting long overdue fair representation to 700,000 of the nation’s citizens, I’m good with it.
It must be frustrating as hell that Republican opposition is based solely on political considerations without any regard for those 700,000 citizens. The GOP doing the right thing just because it’s the right thing to do would be a welcome development and would win deserved plaudits from the honorable opposition. But it appears that those kinds of actions are simply beyond it at this point in history.
Can you please cite exactly where the constitution says what you claim?
It would be helpful if you’d identify which of my several claims you think are unsupported.
@Max_S quotes Article 1 Section 8 in post #5. I don’t believe I’ve asserted anything not plainly in accordance with that short excerpt of fairly plain language.
Granted as always, the Constitution in effect today is actually the written word as above, plus the SCOTUS history on point, plus to some degree those issues that have lain unexamined or unused to date but where we can guess how large the hurdle to overcome enlivening them would be.
As I said, I’m ignorant of any SCOTUS or Congressional history on point. I’d welcome someone more knowledgeable to weigh in.
Your assertion “because the Constitution says so.” What does it say? What is the language and what are you claiming it means?
Yep, and that includes the notion of what is the Federal District and what is the status of their inhabitants.
The idea from the start was that the Federal District would not have any of the sovereign autonomy of a state and whatever happens within and around the seat of Congress is to be ultimately under its command and not that of some governor of a legally sovereign state, who would not have to obey them for example if they said, hey, call the militia and dislodge these protestors; and that there be no de-facto merger of one particular state’s political structure and machinery with that of the Union.
At the start of its existence there was a notion that in the parts of Maryland and Virginia where they had divested in favor of Congress, the residents could still have a vote for representation under the ceding states as citizens thereof. That was quickly left behind and it was cemented that it’s an exclusive federal jurisdiction and its land, its political apparatus and its residents are wards of Congress.
Now, does that require the residents remain unrepresented as people? The Constitution grants and apportions voting representation only to “the several states” so one could argue even the old idea of having the residents vote-as-if-in-Maryland would fall afoul of that. And this results in that of all the major countries with an actual Federal Capital District, the USA is the one where the residents thereof have no voting representation in the national legislature.
In the 1960s, as some local authority was devolved to the elected Washington, DC city government, the DC was also granted electoral votes by Constitutional Amendment. So strictly speaking, another Amendment could happen granting the DC representation without devolving on DC elected officials sovereign autonomy. But that again would not pass, since the issue of balance-of-partisan-power would still be there.
Another Constitutionally valid modest proposal would be to simply make it illegal for there to be any housing within DC, and for the existing housing and residents to be removed. As they resettle wherever (probably mostly VA & MD), they’d once again enjoy the full right of Federal suffrage and representation as they clearly should.
Understand I’m not defending the status quo as a good idea. It’s more stupid unfinished business from our half-assed decidedly undemocratic early years. I’m just cataloging the obstacles and outlining some sort of decision tree.