Statehood Now
Frankly, I agree with the view that D.C. residents cannot be given a representative in the House because the District of Columbia is not a state. I actually think that this is a close call, in constitutional terms. But that's what I think the Constitution says.
So . . . the only solution to the taxation without representation problem is statehood for the District of Columbia.
So you can keep your House seat--I want two senators AND a House member.
posted by Number Three @ 7:55 PM
3 Comments:
I used to think this was a problem, but Matt Yglesias's amazing MS Paint map linked to below convinced me that this is how things should be. It seems obvious, and I can't believe that people have a principled objection to it.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/12/dc_statehood.php
But not "the State of Columbia." We stay "the District of Columbia." And don't give me any crap--if Virginia can call itself a commonwealth, then we can be a district.
Here's the problem. If you get to vote, then that dilutes the power of my vote. And, by my reading of the ruling for the court in Bush v. Gore, that means allowing DC votes to be counted would violate my equal protection rights.
Post a Comment
<< Home