District of Columbia

[Man from La Mancha]

What are Ron Paul's view on the District of Columbia?

I'm 100% behind Ron and the Constitution as we know it today but always learning more. I hope there are those much smarter than me that can figure this out and to correct the flaws of the past.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=107051

This site has pretty far out and weird stuff but occasionally some good thought provoking subjects.

,

[freelance]

I was wondering if the author of this piece is a lawyer. They also publish about US vs. US, Inc. and I don't quite get it.

[james1844]

Dr. Paul does not support DC statehood.

[beermotor]

DC, worst crime in the country. Yeah, definitely deserving of statehood. Gimme a break. NUKE IT FROM ORBIT! It's the only way to be sure!

[Bradley in DC]

Dr. Paul does not support DC statehood.

The joke among staffers was that we favored independence!

[freelance]

I don't think that the question was about statehood for DC, but rather how the exact wording in the Constitution affects the meaning of the Constitution--something I don't quite get.

Anyway, I believe that the Constitution only addresses representation of the states, but please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

[pazzo83]

DC, worst crime in the country. Yeah, definitely deserving of statehood. Gimme a break. NUKE IT FROM ORBIT! It's the only way to be sure!

Do you think DC residents should be denied their CONSTIUTTIONAL RIGHT to representation in the federal gov't??

[pazzo83]

I don't think that the question was about statehood for DC, but rather how the exact wording in the Constitution affects the meaning of the Constitution--something I don't quite get.

Anyway, I believe that the Constitution only addresses representation of the states, but please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Congress can give DC a vote in the house per Article 1 Seciton 8. I think it is reprehensible that residents of the capital of this country (self included) have NO representation in the very body that not only legislates nationally, but ALSO locally. All legislation for the District must be approved by Congress (per Article 1 Section 8), and Congress can essentially block anything it pleases. There are several cities with higher crime and more corrupt local politics than DC, yet no one seems to be trying to deny THEIR right to representaiton.

[Bradley in DC]

Do you think DC residents should be denied their CONSTIUTTIONAL RIGHT to representation in the federal gov't??

We don't have that Constitutional right--in fact, the Constitution reserves that right to the sovereign states.

[pazzo83]

We don't have that Constitutional right--in fact, the Constitution reserves that right to the sovereign states.

Yea but the Preamble states the gov't is of by and for the people, something that is egregiously violated in the District. Don't you think it is odd that residents of the nation's capital have fewer rights than those residents of the 50 states?

[Bradley in DC]

Yea but the Preamble states the gov't is of by and for the people, something that is egregiously violated in the District. Don't you think it is odd that residents of the nation's capital have fewer rights than those residents of the 50 states?

The question of it's oddity doesn't trump the Constitutional prohibition (and I am one of those residents!).

[pazzo83]

The question of it's oddity doesn't trump the Constitutional prohibition (and I am one of those residents!).

Where in the Constitution is it prohibited?

[freelance]

Doesn't it say, "the several states"--states, not districts, not territories, not slave islands in the South Pacific, but states.

[pazzo83]

Doesn't it say, "the several states"--states, not districts, not territories, not slave islands in the South Pacific, but states.

But does it say that residents of the District are DENIED representation? No, it makes no comment either way.

[Bradley in DC]

But does it say that residents of the District are DENIED representation? No, it makes no comment either way.

Ah, interesting point. In fact in the early days of the Republic, DC residents continued to vote as residents of their previous status (Maryland or Virginia) and, I'm pretty sure, there was a "Maryland" Congressman from Georgetown (DC). Yes, I think we should have our votes count towards Maryland (Alexandria and Arlington have already returned to Virginia).

But, yes Congressional representation is reserved to the several States only (and, by definition, not DC).

[pazzo83]

Ah, interesting point. In fact in the early days of the Republic, DC residents continued to vote as residents of their previous status (Maryland or Virginia) and, I'm pretty sure, there was a "Maryland" Congressman from Georgetown (DC). Yes, I think we should have our votes count towards Maryland (Alexandria and Arlington have already returned to Virginia).

But, yes Congressional representation is reserved to the several States only (and, by definition, not DC).

That is exactly what I think too, I think that is the best compromise since there is currently no provision in the Constitution forbidding that. I think it was the Organic Acts of 1801 that disenfranchised DC residents and took away their ability to be represented in MD or VA. It is definitely true that before that time, Georgetown residents voted as MD residents, and Alexandria residents voted as VA residents.

[freelance]

But does it say that residents of the District are DENIED representation? No, it makes no comment either way.

That is an interesting point, but it doesn't seem to be addressed. I'm reminded that RP votes against most anything that's not specifically addressed.

Bottom line, I think it sucks! I would be livid if I were a taxpaying DC resident. I wonder if this goes back to that stuff that I don't understand that is often posted on RumorMillNews.com about US vs. US, Inc. Why on earth would DC have been set up this way?

[pazzo83]

That is an interesting point, but it doesn't seem to be addressed. I'm reminded that RP votes against most anything that's not specifically addressed.

Bottom line, I think it sucks! I would be livid if I were a taxpaying DC resident. I wonder if this goes back to that stuff that I don't understand that is often posted on RumorMillNews.com about US vs. US, Inc. Why on earth would DC have been set up this way?

I think that the foudners didn't really think people would live there on a perminent basis. It would primarily be people working in the gov't who would be residents of another state. Although by including Georgetown, Alexandria, and Alexandria County (now Arlington County, with both being returned to VA in the 1840s), and then passing the Organic Acts of 1801, it seems Congress at that time didn't really feel that the residents of those localities deserved representation.

[freelance]

It would primarily be people working in the gov't who would be residents of another state.

I didn't know that. It's interesting that we had "commuters" way back then.

[Bradley in DC]

I think that the foudners didn't really think people would live there on a perminent basis. It would primarily be people working in the gov't who would be residents of another state. Although by including Georgetown, Alexandria, and Alexandria County (now Arlington County, with both being returned to VA in the 1840s), and then passing the Organic Acts of 1801, it seems Congress at that time didn't really feel that the residents of those localities deserved representation.

No, there were always some permanent residents. This issue was not important to them at the time. The district under control of Congress was seen as important for Congress. Dr. Paul does support "home rule" for us though.

[pazzo83]

No, there were always some permanent residents. This issue was not important to them at the time. The district under control of Congress was seen as important for Congress. Dr. Paul does support "home rule" for us though.

I can't see how Dr. Paul would be for something that denies self-gov't to full US citizens. This is good to hear.