Comments on: DC Statehood Makes No Sense

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:52:48 +0000

I assume the founders originally believed that the swamps of Washington D.C. were largely uninhabitable and that given the modest expectations of federal government, most everyone would go to their real homes for elections.

You would assume wrong, the founders knew that people would want to live close to the seat of government. Seriously, go read the Federalist Papers, I'm disappointed it took me so long to do so.

But Congressional representation is the sine qua non of statehood; and as to it being a city- Singapore is also only a city.

The point is that the federal government was established by a union of the states, not of cities.

By: Floyd

Floyd — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:23:39 +0000

Tear down all residential areas,...
enlarge the airport, build museums, put in new highways,
"take paradise, put up a parking lot",
build a big forest preserve, maybe even an
intergalactic bypass!
Then put Blagojevich back in office, and all the DC residents can move to the "Peoples Republic of Illinois", where they will find that so-called representation ain't all it's cracked up to be![lol]

By: Raoul

Raoul — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:30:39 +0000

But Congressional representation is the sine qua non of statehood; and as to it being a city- Singapore is also only a city.

By: PD Shaw

PD Shaw — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:05:23 +0000

Every time I hear someone say that the current situation goes against what the founders believed I chuckle

I assume the founders originally believed that the swamps of Washington D.C. were largely uninhabitable and that given the modest expectations of federal government, most everyone would go to their real homes for elections.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:47:50 +0000

Of course it makes sense. It would be a way of boosting the number of surefire Democratic seats in the Congress, important especially when you recognize that the decennial census is almost certain to reduce the number of seats in Blue States. What makes more sense than increasing your majority via machinations rather than the electoral process? It's like the late Mayor Daley's comment that one map drawer was worth 1,000 precinct workers.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:42:14 +0000

I just finished reading some the Federalist papers where, I think it was James Madison, made the cause for not giving DC residents a vote in the federal government.

Every time I hear someone say that the current situation goes against what the founders believed I chuckle, then I cringe because I know other people believe them. Why is Romeo and Juliet required reading, but the Federalist Papers are not?

By: PD Shaw

PD Shaw — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:11:26 +0000

I'm not convinced by Matt's assertion that the Constitutional requirement of a District could be satisfied by a rump of a few buildings and the mall. The purpose of the District was to give the federal government the exclusive jurisdiction over its own security. If anything the security demands and the increased size of the federal government require a larger District than twenty years ago.

By: Moonage

Moonage — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:42:29 +0000

Having been a former resident of DC, I'm more inclined to believe at this point in time there is no reason for DC to exist at all, much less become the smallest state in the United States by a longshot. Just undo the error made 200 years ago and give the land back to the states that it was taken from.