You asked Tano to take a look at the Amendments, but you still fail to recognize that the amendment you cited authorizes Congress to tax from "among the several states." This demonstrates the fact that DC is conveniently construed as a "state" when it comes to extracting money, but is then denied the vote on the converse of the same argument. This is intellectual dishonesty as its worst!

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That said, I think it's the way to go with DC, just not the way most people think.

I believe that DC residents should be exempted from federal tax, period.

That would permit the DC government to raise its already high taxes even higher, while still reducing the overall tax burden of the taxpayer. Instead of 9% DC income tax, they could charge 25% and the taxpayers would still be ahead.

If they extend that tax exemption to corporations, then DC would never face a fiscal crisis again. There would be money galore for schools, hospitals, streets, etc.

Of course, a federally tax-free DC would create a vastly different demographic. High-income tax payers would start to flock to the city. That would drive up property values which would tend to displace large portions of the "underclass". DC could drop its property taxes completely--or charge only businesses--to provide some protection for the poor.

But DC was created to be a capital city, not a collection of residential areas. They were pre-existing, to a large degree, but aren't mandated by any laws.

Perhaps large portions of the city would become nothing but office complexes of companies. So?

DC was explicitly denied the right to vote. That was a decision taken with due deliberation.

Do you suppose that if DC were a 100% Republican vote lock that there'd be much public support for a general enfranchisement of DC voters? I rather doubt it.

So keep DC disenfranchised, but don't federally tax the residents!

Again, the dilution of the Davis-Norton plan comes from the addition of two seats. If they were advocating reapportionment and keeping the number at 435, I would not make that particular argument. The Constitutional one--which is my main argument, anyway--would remain.

The way to solve an obvious problem--the lack of voting representation for people who are paying federal taxes and live in the District--is to make them residents of a state.

I don't support making D.C. a state for a variety of reasons, chief of which is that it's merely a city. Yes, it's bigger than Wyoming populationwise. Knowing what we know now, however, we obviously wouldn't have carved so many states out of the Northwest Territory. We'd also have made two states out of California. Still, there's no reason to compound the results of a bad guess with knowing stupidity.

So, the remaining option is Maryland retrocession. There has to be a reasonable way to accomplish that.

The VA parts of the district were given back to VA a long time ago, before the civil war, and they were given back essentially because they were not being used by the federal government. So it would only be MD.

DC has been a unique jurisdiction relative to MD for over 200 years now. The only reason that retrocession to MD is raised as a possibility is so that the implications of equal representation - i.e. that DC have two senators as well as a rep (remember, DC's population is larger than that of Wyoming) can be avoided. And the reason that folks want to avoid that is because, once again, of the partisan implications (there may well be some racial ones as well).

How about we dissolve the DC and give the portions back to Virginia and Maryland? Then you can have representation as a part of which ever state you end up in. Of course, that might create a problem if the Virginia DPS conflicted with the capital police or secret service, but we can have that anyway.

And if you do believe in the principle, why are you only motivated to write to your congressman to oppose his plan, without any demand that they enact full representation in a constitutional manner? Seems to me like the standard dodge - oh yes, I agree with the principle, I just disagree with actually doing it in any way that could be accomplished....

As to attunement. I wonder what your reaction would be if we decided to take away YOUR congressional vote. There are few places on the face of the earth whose residents exercise more power than do the residents of Alexandria VA. You have thousands, if not tens of thousands of residents who have positions in the executive and legislative branches, including a lot of congressional representatives. These people are all attuned to the interests of Alexandria - what the hell do you need with an actual vote in Congress?

The dilution I refer to is the creation of two extra seats. I go from Davis representing 1/435 of the House to 1/437th. That's dilution.

My argument re: being attuned to DC issues is not that they are therefore providing representation. It is, rather, that they have a personal stake in what goes on in DC that influences their vote. Those of us who live in the DC suburbs don't really think of ourselves as Maryland or Virginia residents; it's all "D.C." just like those who live in the suburbs of NYC, LA, or Chicago.

I agree with James. The constitution is pretty clear. DC is not a state and therefore doesn't get a vote in Congress....

That is ridiculous. Many of them live in Md, or Virginia. And the notion that they are "attuned' to District issues is absurd. I lived in the District for three years, and I can assure you, the representatives of KS, AK, LA etc could not have given a damn about the situation of the people in southeast or any other parts of the district.

In any case, the basic principles of American democracy rests on the notion that representatives are to be ACCOUNTABLE to the people, through elections. It is NOT that they merely be ATTUNED to the interests of the people. A monarch can be attunded to the interests of his subjects - the whole point of a democracy is that the people are empowered to remove their representatives if those reps fail to do an acceptable job representing them. How can a DC resident remove a rep who votes for policies that they disagree with?

And your notion that somehow your vote in VA is going to be "diluted" because your fellow citizens in DC are granted the same rights that you have, is laughhably absurd.

Lets be honest here. We all understand, in our deep American bones, that the denial of voting representation to American citizens is WRONG, on first principles. The ONLY reason that this situation still exists is because the Republican party knows perfectly well that this added representative would almost certainly be a Democrat. Instead of accepting the basic principles of equal represntation, and voting rights, and setting forth on what may well be a long term project of actually trying to win the allegiance of DC voters, they cut it off by denying these people the vote.

And all this talk of dilution, and reference to a time when there actually were few if any people living in DC is all evasion. There is a simple principle at work here - the most basic of all principles, and it is outrageous that you cant see that.

I dont know if the particular law is constitutional or not. I just find it digusting (and further proof of my point) that the only way that at least some Republicans might acknowledge the rights of DC residents, is if they can get an extra seat for their own party too.

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Sorry, but I find this to be an outrageously deceptive argument.

From 3rd para. Art. I Sec. 2

"...direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states..."

No representation, no taxation. What could be more American than that?