I am rather perplexed as to how the powers that be authorized a license plate for Washington, DC with the slogan: “Taxation Without Representation”.
It seems to go against all logic for the very government to allow, nay, promote such a rebellious statement against the very government that is issuing the license plate.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the Federal Government have the final say on what would appear on the license plates of cars registered in the District? I just have a hard time believing that they would be willing to authorize a slogan that basically criticizes the Federal Government.
The District government is issuing the license plate, not the Federal government. Congress can review any laws passed by the District government if it wants to. They didn’t want to in this case. Among other things, a fair amount of members of Congress agree that the District ought to get representation in Congress:
The plates are meant to draw attention to the fact that residents of DC pay federal income tax yet have no representation in Congress…approval of the slogan was a matter for local officials.
(Rebellious? Well, Presidents Clinton and Obama, anyway, have used the plates on their vehicles in support of the idea of representation for DC citizens.)
It can seem rebellious if you don’t realize what it references. The first time I saw it, I didn’t realize it was about DC’s lack of representation, I thought it was talking about America as a whole and meant something like “the government is out of touch doesn’t really represent America anymore.”
I certainly understand that the slogan is referring to the District’s lack of representation in Congress. I just found it odd that the very government that doesn’t provide that representation on the one hand, would also make an official license plate that bemoans that fact on the other.
Of course, it makes more sense if one aspect of government is deciding the license plate issue, separate from the aspect of government that is withholding representation from Congress. However, I was under the impression that the Federal Government has the ultimate responsibility for the District, and can step in and overrule decisions made at the local level, if they so choose.
I gather that it is more about making a choice not to meddle in this particular matter, even though if they wanted to - I suppose they could.
I would just imagine that the same people depriving DC representation in Congress, and in favor of keeping things that way, would not be crazy about the citizens of DC promoting the opposing viewpoint - and I guess it is just odd that they haven’t ended that.
Not quite. It’s slightly more so in the case of D.C. The constitution grants the United States Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the district. Congress can overrule laws passed by D.C. lawmakers. They can also revoke any sitting District lawmaker.
There are several ways to look at this. If the residents of the District wanted individual representation so badly, then move to a state. Another way to look at it is that the entirety of Congress represents the district and its residents.
Which doesn’t address the fundamental issue of why several hundred thousand Americans should be disenfranchised from the national legislature.
…said nobody who has ever lived in DC, ever. If I wrote to 535 members of Congress to urge them to vote a particular way on a bill, or asked them for help with grandma’s retirement check, the vast majority of those letter would either be thrown in the trash or forwarded to the office of our non-voting delegate. There are a few members, like Senator Tom Carper, who are actually concerned about why the republican form of government doesn’t apply in the nation’s capital, who I’d give 50/50 odds of responding.
I say they should just cede DC back to Maryland. DC’s population is only about 658,000. Only Vermont (626,000) & Wyoming (584,000) have fewer people. Plus, DC is physically tiny as well (only a small fraction of the size of Rhode Island), so it’s pretty hard to take statehood for DC seriously.
Congress could agree to add 1 representative, who would represent the County of Columbia after it’s given back to Maryland. As part of Maryland, they’d use MD’s senators.
I agree with the OP. When I first saw a Washington DC license plate with that slogan on it, I thought the driver sure must be a hardcore, militant, militia type figure who was about to do something horrible. (That was when I left the airport building at Reagan National, only moments later I realized that everybody had them.)
Well, there was some merit in setting up a governmental district that wouldn’t be part of any of the states. That was why DC was created in the first place. The rub is that it should be a citadel or something like the Vatican City - nobody but certain government officials, military personnel and a few other special classes of government employees should actually reside in it. Those people would continue to vote in their home states, usually by absentee ballot. The workforce that makes the place run - restaurant owners, bus drivers, clerical workers in the offices, etc, should reside in the adjoining states and be represented by them. As with the Vatican City - it’s sovereign, but the large workforce that makes it run resides in Rome and is mostly Italian citizens. Perhaps we could get there by ceding back most of the areas that are largely residential, moving out the remaining people who are not special status government employees who have reason to be “on assignment” in there, and shrinking the size to something that would not impose problems for people to commute to work inside it from Maryland or Virginia.
While reverting most of the current District to Maryland would be a good solution to the representation problem, it’s not viable right now, with the 23rd Amendment granting DC three electoral votes. You’d need to repeal that, or you’d end up with the First Family casting the entire vote behind those electoral votes (and presumably, being themselves the electors).
Maryland has never wanted retrocession, because it would completely disrupt the existing power structure, by creating a large political power base separate from Baltimore.
Here is the bigger question. Should ALL Americans get representation in Congress including those in Puerto Rico, Guam, USVI, expatriates in foreign countries, etc?