The deets were in Washington Whispers:Whaddya think of her new cause?!?

*headdesk*

Just..wow..

I heard a few years ago that D.C. residents had taken up the motto "no taxation without representation." Honestly, from a legal standpoint it's just ridiculous that DC isn't its own state. Everything that happens in DC is subject to either local law (i.e. county/municipal ordinance) or federal law. No state law. And the federal law takes a much greater precedence over the nation's capital than it does in any other state. The people there are regulated just as heavily as everyone else in the nation, or more so, but have no say at all in federal matters (which, as I stated, is a looming presence in DC that isn't felt elsewhere).

Go Hayden! Free D.C.!

You'll have to create another District to be the capital of the nation. That was the entire reason the Founding Father's created the District Of Columbia- they didn't want any state to be the center of government.

Actually, that's written into the Constitution. Article 1, I believe.

I read that one of the alternatives is to cede the land it sits on back to Maryland or whatever state it used to belong to. Why don't they just do that? Let's us keep our neat, clean 50 stars on the flag

Then we have to worry about Puerto Rico, though they're all still split down the middle about what they want.

But I like having 50 states..

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:

(Had to look it up...)

Fine, don't give them statehood. You could still give them rights. Why exactly can they not vote in Congress?

Actually, Puerto Rico has been offered statehood several times. They continuously reject it.

"No taxation without representation?" wasn't that the source of an adlib and major Ghosting moment for Steve McQueen in The Great Escape?

*Grins*

But seriously...

*Shrugs*

The fact that D.C. is its own real leader, why the hell isn't it a state? Or... rather... wouldn't it make sense for D.C. to be the state called Washington... while Washington just admits its really a part of Oregon...

C'mon... Oregon people are SEXY...

You'll all really love it...

And I liked having Pluto as a planet.

C'mon, Hayden. Must you feel compelled to express yourself on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE? Ugghh.

I saw this coming.. hehe.
If Pluto were to be re-instated we would also get at least 5 other new planets along with it. Of these other 5 at least 4 are larger and further away. Pluto also has a moon that is at least half its size and they share an atmosphere for most of the pluto-charon year. Sounds like a double whatevertheyare to me. The earth - moon system is almost a double planet but not quite. The list can go on.

And your point? Seriously...what does that have to do with...much of anything that's been said?

I was trying to make a point that not everything stays the same despite what you like or prefer. Didn't need to go into that.

They can give the senator/representative from DC the ability to vote without making DC into a state. If DC were made into a state, well, I'm imagining that they'd have to create a DC state Supreme Court. As it is right now, DC's Supreme Court is . . . The Supreme Court. They've already got the Superiour Court & the Court of Appeals of DC. But their Supreme Court is the U.S. Supreme Court instead of, say, a state Supreme Court.

I do recall hearing something on NPR the other day that they were going to vote to give the senator from DC the ability to vote.

Eh, I applaud her for standing up for what she believes in, though sometimes I can't help but wonder if it's all for publicity... (Not saying it is, just that the thought has crossed my mind.)

Either way though, bigger people than her have (and are) fighting for the same thing, so we'll see.

This.

I don't want an odd number of states just because one fine day, the following occurred:

Hayden: DC senator man, plz vote for my bill.
DC: No can do.
Hayden: Why not? >:O
DC: I literally can't do it. They won't let me, because I'm not a state.
Hayden: Well then I'm starting a campaign to make DC a state so I can get MY bill through.

This.

Could be wrong about this, but arn't states added two at a time? Maybe DC and Porto Rico (Sorry I can't spell) could come in together.

Nah, don't think they're added two at a time. I know Arizona was made a state on 14 Feb., 1914. And AZ was the last of the 48 contiguous states to be made into a state.

1: Never heard of them being added 2 at a time. (I know it's not in writing anywhere that it's required.)
2: The only reason Puerto Rico isn't a state is because of the Puerto Ricans. The issue's come up several times, and they keep voting against statehood.
3: There is a reason DC isn't a state. And, according to the law of the land (the US Constitution), if DC were to become a state, another section of land would have to be removed from a state/contiguous states to become the new US capital.

They don't have to be added 2 at a time, but way back when they were. Can you guess why? It's so they could add one slave state and one free state and not upset the balance of votes in Congress.

I still think DC should at least have votes in Congress.

I believe that would be unConstitutional:
By my understanding, that means there is no need for a representative from the District. In reality, there shouldn't be a need because that's where the law makers gather in the first place.

The whole debate falls under a rather simple notion I have. If you don't like living there, move. This is like people moving to a flood plain and then complaining when their house gets flooded. With the DC question, it's easily knowable that there isn't a Federal rep you can vote for who would have power in the Congress. Don't live there if you aren't comfortable with this set up.

It's very true that Congress has exclusive power to legislate over DC. That doesn't mean that there can't be DC members of Congress. And lawmakers from other states gather in DC. They have no loyalty to DC itself.

"If you don't like it, move" is a disingenuous argument. There are lots of reasons people choose to live where they do. It doesn't mean they should have to give up certain rights or, in this case, not be granted more rights. Take your flood plain example. Lets say the people want to build a drainage system to make the area safer and more livable. Should the people be denied that drainage system because they chose to live there? Just doesn't make sense.

The flood plain probably wasn't the best example, but it serves the point of knowing that there are certain conditions that are or can be easily found out about living in certain regions of the country. If you don't like those conditions, don't live there. I don't like living in a desert, so I don't live in one.

The District has functioned without a rep for over two hundred years. Why the (relatively) sudden desire to add that which has not been needed? Without searching, I'd be willing to bet this has gone to court in the past and, if so, obviously it was determined there is not a need or that rights are being denied. This has certainly come up for debate numerous times in the past, in addition to the original debate when it was included in the Constitution, yet it was decided that it wasn't necessary.

woahhh now I feel like a complete ditz for not knowing D.C. wasn't a state!
I was under the impression that it was one of the 50.
wow wow wow.