D.C votes overwhelmingly to become the 51st State

[Starlight]

I just LOVE foreigners telling us what we "really believe."

I was telling you what I (and others) really believe. Learn to read.

I believe in democracy. That primary belief comes well ahead of any other ideas of policies I have - first and foremost I believe in the right of self determination by the people, all the people. I find the consistent rejection of basic democratic principles I see from people in this forum disgusting and horrifying. Rogue has made it clear he's all about being pro-Republican and anti-Democrat and that he's prepared to sacrifice almost any amount of democracy in order to lend support to Republicans and to hinder Democrats (no votes for people in D.C., supports electoral college, supports gerrymandering, supports voter suppression). I think that makes him an evil and disgusting excuse for a human being. It's not a democrat vs republican issue, it's a basic moral issue, a core issue of human rights that every single person has the right to a say in their own government. Even your idiot founders realized that "no taxation without representation" was a crucial idea. To rule over others without giving them a say in their own government is tantamount to slavery.

The Founders reasoned that the whole Congress would represent the interests of the residents of the District of Columbia.

And how well has Congress done lately at representing the interests of any of the American people, never-mind that of the people of D.C. in particular? If Congress was doing such a great job of representing their interests, why do you think the people of D.C. are so strongly wanting to be their own state? As per usual the Founders botched it up.

[Starlight]

If you can get justices on there who don't care what the Constitution actually says but what they at any given moment want it to say (turn it into a "living, breathing document") then blatantly unconstitutional acts and legislation can be pushed through. We have changed what is in the Constitution multiple times but now some don't want to do that but rather just pretend it says something or doesn't say something and have a public that doesn't know better makes it all too easy.

Well some problems with the US constitution include that it it's not exhaustive and doesn't speak to many issues, especially modern issues, is very vague on others, and the process for amending it is very difficult and contentious.

The problem with having a very literal interpretation and allowing anything that is not specifically banned, is that a creative person can come up with horrible and terrible laws that the government could pass that would be 'constitutional' in a strict sense:

Judge Richard Posner:
Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home...

Instead, it is sensible for judges to understand that the idea of the framers of the constitution was to prevent government tyranny and overreach, and so to rule such laws unconstitutional "even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution." The US constitution would need to be a much much longer document if it were to spell out each and every thing that federal and state governments could and could not do in detail. It doesn't do that, so courts have to fill in the blanks in specific cases. That is why it is called a "living, breathing document".

Could you imagine getting a loan or mortgage only to be told a couple years later that the paperwork you signed doesn't matter -- that they're "living, breathing documents" which change meaning at the whim of those you owe the money to? The same with insurance. Sorry you went to the hospital on Sunday Mr. Starlight but since many of our offices and departments are closed that day we have now decided that you aren't covered then.

I dunno what world you live in, but in the real world most companies update their "terms and conditions" every few years. I get notifications from paypal and facebook about twice a year to say they've updated something in their terms and conditions. Some companies notify their customers about it, but mostly their contracts say something like "we reserve the right to make changes to our policies". If companies do that twice a year or every couple of years, imagine how much a 200 year old document needs updating! And your example of insurance is amusing because insurance companies are absolutely notorious for deciding that they don't really have to pay out that money like their contract with you implies they should.

[mikewhitney]

Well some problems with the US constitution include that it it's not exhaustive and doesn't speak to many issues, especially modern issues, is very vague on others, and the process for amending it is very difficult and contentious.

The problem with having a very literal interpretation and allowing anything that is not specifically banned, is that a creative person can come up with horrible and terrible laws that the government could pass that would be 'constitutional' in a strict sense:

Judge Richard Posner:
Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home...

Instead, it is sensible for judges to understand that the idea of the framers of the constitution was to prevent government tyranny and overreach, and so to rule such laws unconstitutional "even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution." The US constitution would need to be a much much longer document if it were to spell out each and every thing that federal and state governments could and could not do in detail. It doesn't do that, so courts have to fill in the blanks in specific cases. That is why it is called a "living, breathing document".

I dunno what world you live in, but in the real world most companies update their "terms and conditions" every few years. I get notifications from paypal and facebook about twice a year to say they've updated something in their terms and conditions. Some companies notify their customers about it, but mostly their contracts say something like "we reserve the right to make changes to our policies". If companies do that twice a year or every couple of years, imagine how much a 200 year old document needs updating! And your example of insurance is amusing because insurance companies are absolutely notorious for deciding that they don't really have to pay out that money like their contract with you implies they should.

You better find better arguments. The quote by Judge Richard Posner is ignorant or is political. The 10th amendment prohibits the US government from making any laws beyond the powers explicitly given to it by the states via the Constitution. Posner's statement is odd (or used out of context) in that he is then trying to apply the US Constitution as being restrictive (in a broad sense) against the States. Any issue that is reasonably determined by the states to require an amendment, then such desired power can be granted to the US Government -- the problem may be that there are very few issues so commonly desired that will find support for a constitutional amendment. Isn't that the way it should be?

[shunyadragon]

If it becomes a state, where should we move all of congress and the federal offices?

Maybe, not a bad idea, and maybe an off shore government to give them a tax shelter.

[Carrikature]

I think it would also be fair to say that the real reason that most of those who support DC statehood is that it would be a reliably Democratic state.

Please back this up.

[Carrikature]

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/13/22...he-51st-state/

I wonder how much of the 7/10 wealthiest counties is due to the huge incomes of people living in the area because Congress. Meaning, it's not that DC is better off, but that the well-to-do live there.

[KingsGambit]

I wonder how much of the 7/10 wealthiest counties is due to the huge incomes of people living in the area because Congress. Meaning, it's not that DC is better off, but that the well-to-do live there.

Having spent time in both the Virginia suburbs and the city (as I nearly moved to Fairfax a few years ago), I can attest the suburbs and the city are very different. Large chunks of Northwest DC are where rich liberals congregate; the rest of the city is largely impoverished.

Arlington does have a feel of an extension of DC itself, but with a conservative population (lots of defense contractors and people in the intelligence community), but apart from Arlington, the other suburbs seemed very distinct to me.

[KingsGambit]

Addendum: I don't know much about the Maryland suburbs to say, though my understanding/impression is that many of them are, in effect, an extension of the inner city in DC.

[Cow Poke]

Please back this up.

Didn't take much looking...

Source: USAToday

The U.S. Constitution gave Congress exclusive legislative authority over D.C. as the seat of federal government. Proposals over the years to alter that arrangement have included giving the district statehood, defining the district as a state to give it seats in the House and Senate, or making it part of Maryland.

In 1978, Congress sent a constitutional amendment to the states to treat the district as though it were a state, according to the Congressional Research Service. But the amendment expired in 1985 after being ratified by only 16 states, rather than 38 needed for adoption.

A high-profile effort in 2009 sought to give D.C. and Utah each a seat in the House, raising the total from 435 seats to 437. This political compromise was expected to create one Democratic seat and one Republican seat, after a Utah dispute with the 2000 Census. The Senate approved the bill, but the House ignored it.

© Copyright Original Source

The fact that they would see a need to include a "republican seat" in Utah to offset the "democrat seat" for DC.....

[One Bad Pig]

I was telling you what I (and others) really believe. Learn to read.

<snip ranty mcrant>

You were explicitly referring to those who supported statehood for DC. That almost has to be largely an American position. As usual when you know you don't have a leg to stand on, you pick one thing to take offense at, ignore the rest, and rant until you hope the other person has been thoroughly sidetracked.

[rogue06]

Well some problems with the US constitution include that it it's not exhaustive and doesn't speak to many issues, especially modern issues, is very vague on others, and the process for amending it is very difficult and contentious.

Amending the Constitution being difficult is not, as you say, a "problem" but was intentionally designed that way. This way we wouldn't be changing it with every whim to follow the latest fad to catch our fancy but rather only when we're really serious, had a chance to really think it over and the public really wants it.

The problem with having a very literal interpretation and allowing anything that is not specifically banned, is that a creative person can come up with horrible and terrible laws that the government could pass that would be 'constitutional' in a strict sense:

Judge Richard Posner:
Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home...

Instead, it is sensible for judges to understand that the idea of the framers of the constitution was to prevent government tyranny and overreach, and so to rule such laws unconstitutional "even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution." The US constitution would need to be a much much longer document if it were to spell out each and every thing that federal and state governments could and could not do in detail. It doesn't do that, so courts have to fill in the blanks in specific cases. That is why it is called a "living, breathing document".

Posner is someone who has proclaimed that there "absolutely no value" in studying the U.S. Constitution even for a few seconds which puts him on the far fringes of judicial thinking. For all practical purposes he essentially wants to be able to base his rulings on how he feels any given day and not be bound by such antiquated concepts as laws and precedent. For folks like that you merely decide what outcome you desire and then find a means to reach it. Laws mean nothing.

I dunno what world you live in, but in the real world most companies update their "terms and conditions" every few years. I get notifications from paypal and facebook about twice a year to say they've updated something in their terms and conditions.

And you are given a chance to opt out. They don't inform you after the fact that they changed the rules like in the example I gave about insurance coverage.

[rogue06]

Please back this up.

Note what it was said in reply to.

[Starlight]

Amending the Constitution being difficult is not, as you say, a "problem" but was intentionally designed that way.

Various constitutions around the world seem to have problems with being either too hard, or too easy to change. The US constitution is too hard to change and so doesn't get changed enough. In other countries it is too easy to change and gets silly fast. It makes me very glad my country has no constitution.

Posner is someone who has proclaimed that there "absolutely no value" in studying the U.S. Constitution even for a few seconds which puts him on the far fringes of judicial thinking.

He's the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century, so not really all that 'fringe'.

For all practical purposes he essentially wants to be able to base his rulings on how he feels any given day and not be bound by such antiquated concepts as laws and precedent. For folks like that you merely decide what outcome you desire and then find a means to reach it. Laws mean nothing.

This shows you don't really understand the ideas involved.

[rogue06]

Various constitutions around the world seem to have problems with being either too hard, or too easy to change. The US constitution is too hard to change and so doesn't get changed enough. In other countries it is too easy to change and gets silly fast. It makes me very glad my country has no constitution.

Our state constitution is easy to amend. Every election cycle there are between half a dozen and a couple dozen amendments up for consideration. The result is a mess of often contradictory laws.

He's the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century, so not really all that 'fringe'.

I know he is popular among the screw the law crowd but I'd be very surprised if he is more cited than Lawrence Tribe, Akhil Reed Amar, Jonathan Turley or even Sanford Levinson and Glenn Harlan Reynolds.

For instance the first one I mentioned is regarded as being "probably the most influential living American constitutional scholar" with his treatise "American Constitutional Law" being a standard text in many law schools, and who is regularly cited in several dozen Supreme Court opinions.

OTOH, Posner has a reputation for being very bitter since he thinks he is the smartest judge in the world (he can't understand why he isn't on the Supreme Court) and pretty much the only one who works hard.

This shows you don't really understand the ideas involved.

Once again you pontificate on something you Googled one or two articles that agree with you.