Ummm... I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the way DC was specifically set up by the FFs was that they didn't have representation. DC was put under the direct control of Congress (of they which they have none). I.e., it was intentionally set up so their votes didn't matter.
In any case, DC is gonna have legal pot and Congress won't do jack about it (my prediction anyway).
Fern
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/house-republicans-warn-dc-mayor-not-to-legalize-pot/2015/02/25/2f784a10-bcb0-11e4-bdfa-b8e8f594e6ee_story.html
And the social conservatives strike yet again...on an issue that is routinely being approved almost everywhere it's going on the ballot. I mean even Alaska has it now.
The party of small government at work.
I think the Republican establishment knows they should get out of the way of this issue because it's inevitable where it's going, but the old codgers that vote for them wont let them. Must suck to be a Republican politician and be forced to constantly make a stand on losing positions just so they can say they did.
Ummm... I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the way DC was specifically set up by the FFs was that they didn't have representation. DC was put under the direct control of Congress (of they which they have none). I.e., it was intentionally set up so their votes didn't matter.
In any case, DC is gonna have legal pot and Congress won't do jack about it (my prediction anyway).
Fern
What's the 'FFs'?
Everything you said could be 100% correct, I don't know. But I think my point still stands either way... they don't seem to care for what the people want and voted for and won by a large majority. The politicians, in this case the Republicans it appears, are saying they know what's best even though it is the exact opposite of what the people want.
I'd suggest that the politicians DO care what the people want. Question is: Which people? I believe the answer, and the problem, is that the system is set up so that the politicians care about the people back in their own state who will or will not vote for them. The politician can't lose any votes in DC, can't gain any either. If Chaffetz (or whomever) needs to be anti-pot to win his election back home, well he's going to be anti-pot. I think it's really that simple. DC people getting ignored/screwed? Yep, but it was set up that way. IMO, it's also unfair to the politicians.
Fern
DC people getting ignored/screwed? Yep, but it was set up that way. IMO, it's also unfair to the politicians.
Fern
When Jefferson lived in DC, it was a swamp with a handful of slaves living in it. Now it's a city with more people than some states, but without any representation in Congress.
Even if they HAD planned on keeping DC undemocratic, screw them. They didn't think black people should vote, either, and we've seen sense since then about that.
It's more about partisan politics than anything. DC is overwhelmingly Democratic. The Republicans will fight tooth and nail to keep another 2 Democratic Senators and minimum 1 House Democratic from popping into existence. Dems would probably do the same if, for example, Puerto Rico were overwhelmingly Republican and wanted in.
It's still a horrific injustice, and should concern everyone, *especially* small-government types.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
The political organization of DC itself has been changed several times since the Residence Act and Madison pretty clearly indicated that while Congress would exercise ultimate authority that residents should not be disenfranchised. Given the size to which the District has grown I would be very leery of making claims that the founders intended for this particular outcome or that it could not/should not be remedied (as it was partially in the mid 70s with the Home Rule Act) via legislative action.
So some theoretical problem with a state's AG being an ass (as happens all the time, sometimes in Virginia and Maryland where lots of Congressmen live) should prevent 660,000 Americans from having representation in Congress? That's absurd.I think you're being a little hard on the FFs.
I think there are probably some good reasons DC was set up this way. The individual states are supposed to be sovereign, subject to limits, so designating DC as a state would likely make for some complicated/difficult legal questions.
Who would actually be in charge of DC were it to become a state? What kind of monkey business could happen?
I don't think Congress can pass a law applying to just one state, so they would effectively lose control of DC. If DC were either strongly Dem or Repub could the DC AG harass members of Congress from the 'wrong' party? What if there were an important vote on a contentious bill, could the DC state govt decide to set up road blocks etc to keep Congresspersons from making it back to vote? Shut off a bridge or two maybe?
Allowing black people the vote required a constitutional change, too. For that matter, so did revoking Prohibition and a mostly for-show amendment about Congressional salaries. An amendment isn't some kind of insurmountable barrier.Unlike other territories/non-states who can and did receive statehood by vote of Congress, I believe changing DC's status would require a change to the Constitution. See Article 1, Section 8:
The only "good reasons" are partisan politics, when it was set up (Jefferson wanted it in Virginia, Adams didn't, so they compromised) and now. It wouldn't be impossible.So, I'm thinking there are some very good reasons it's set up the way it is, and that it would be damn near impossible to change it since it's in the Constitution.
TLDR: Don't live in DC
Fern
Apparently not everyone has been given the memo
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/03/harborside-melinda-haag-appeal_n_6608768.html
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/201...federal-war-oakland-harborside-pot-dispensary
Founding Fathers.
I don't think that's quite right.
There's a problem here that I think is being overlooked. It has to do with DC's unique 'design'.
I'd suggest that the politicians DO care what the people want. Question is: Which people? I believe the answer, and the problem, is that the system is set up so that the politicians care about the people back in their own state who will or will not vote for them. The politician can't lose any votes in DC, can't gain any either. If Chaffetz (or whomever) needs to be anti-pot to win his election back home, well he's going to be anti-pot. I think it's really that simple. DC people getting ignored/screwed? Yep, but it was set up that way. IMO, it's also unfair to the politicians.
Fern
-snip-
An amendment isn't some kind of insurmountable barrier.
Who would be in charge? The same people who are in charge now, the democratically-elected government of DC. They just wouldn't then have Congress meddling in their affairs whenever someone wants to score a partisan point.
This is America, we've had states flatly refuse to enact federal law lots of times. It's been handled before, it could be handled again.
Check the Constitution. Looks to me like they clearly intended for DC to ruled exclusively by Congress.
I think a potential solution is to roll back the size of the federal district to that necessary for the federal govt. I.e., create residential areas that are not considered within the district and allow them some autonomy. The Constitution called for no more than 10 sq miles. I think DC is currently larger
than that (I could be wrong though about its size).
Fern
And before that, in the 1970s, the voting age changed in 3 months 8 days:I disagree and believe modern history is on my side. (The last one passed took over 200 yrs of debate etc.)
No, the city government is in charge. Mayor, city council, campaigns, budget, etc. Congress just has the ability to overrule the local government's decisions whenever it wants. And it does so whenever someone wants to score some political points at the expense of American citizens who pay taxes and don't have any say in their national government. 660,000 of them. That's more than the entire state of Wyoming. It's also more than the entire state of Vermont.While I don't live there my strong impression is that Congress is in charge now. So yeah, things would change.
Exactly, and Congress has no right to pass laws that micromanage DC. That's the entire point of statehood. But if the DC decided to do something unconstitutional like arrest representatives on their way to the floor of Congress, federal supremacy would kick in, just like it applies now to VA and MD.That's not the problem IMO. It's a bit different, much different actually. I believe Congress would have serious difficulties (if not an impossibility) passing laws for DC. Sure Congress can pass laws that apply nationally, but micro managing a state is another matter.
I'd like to know more about how the daily nitty gritty life in DC is governed, but right now it reminds me of an HOA. The rules were there long before you moved there and no one forced you to move there. Don't like the rules, don't move there.
Fern
The only "good reasons" are partisan politics, when it was set up (Jefferson wanted it in Virginia, Adams didn't, so they compromised) and now. It wouldn't be impossible.
Hamilton traded the capitol to the south in return for Jefferson's support on debt assumption (and ultimately public credit for the US) at a quiet dinner with Madison.
Transparency
The party of small government at work.
If Congress wants to shut down Homeland Security, I'm okay with that...
If they want to shut down the DEA and defund the war on drugs, I'm okay with that as well...
Pity, that the White House lacks leadership when it comes to legalizing marijuana....
Uno
If Congress wants to shut down Homeland Security, I'm okay with that...
If they want to shut down the DEA and defund the war on drugs, I'm okay with that as well...
Pity, that the White House lacks leadership when it comes to legalizing marijuana....
Uno
Obama could snap his fingers and have the DEA reclassify it but it's more fun to let the media claim it's the GOP dragging their feet when it comes to legalizing it.
When Obama snaps his fingers and signs an executive order, he's KingObummer ruling over his own fiefdom while taking away your freedoms.No, he really couldn't. It's federal law. http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-2015-updated.pdf#page=71
Edit: As I read more on this, I could be wrong. In which case it's an area where Obama is genuinely being a shit. Still, Congress could also solve this easily. I really hope this becomes less of a partisan issue in the near future, because there are good arguments from the right and left to decriminalize it. The only reason to keep it so scheduled is 1) money (prison industry), 2) money (police), and 3) leftover racist fear of black people and drugs associated with them.
The Republicans weren't the party that passed the federal ban on Marijuana, that was the progressive.