Dear Sound Politicos,
TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION IN DC - ONLY YOU CAN STOP IT!
Did you know that District of Columbia residents have always been taxed, always fought in wars, but have never had voting representation in U.S. Congress? Find out more about this problem--and what corruption it's wrought--with a downloadable conversation with DC Resident and Educator Kathryn Ray (interviewed by yours truly) on behalf of the (non-partisan) Seattle League of Women Voters. Find out what the problem is, why you should care, and why we, the rest of the country, are in the only position to change it:
http://www.seattlelwv.org/dcvotingrights.htm
THE TIME IS NOW: House to Vote on DC Voting Rights this Week!
And once you're informed--take action! Breaking news is that the full House of Representatives is set to vote on the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act this week. Please contact your Members of Congress immediately and urge them to vote for the legislation to provide a vote in the House for the citizens of our nation's capital. Please contact your Representative now and urge her or him to vote for the DC Voting Rights Act of 2007.
http://capwiz.com/lwv/issues/alert/?alertid=9365621&type=CO
Best wishes. -cw (your OctoberLeaf)
Posted by OctoberLeaf at March 19, 2007 01:10 PM | Email ThisThe House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
Emphasis added
The dems for years have been trying to increase the number of democrat reliable votes in the House; this is one of them. Earlier this year they tried to secure votes for the delegates from Guam and other territories.
As valid the points the LWV make, my reading of the Constitution limits representatives to the states, which DC is not.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 19, 2007 02:43 PMAs for the Constitutional text--that was fine when nobody lived in DC, but there are now more than 60,000. If they are not a state, then it is not Constitutional to tax them--one must have it one way or another.
This is also not a partisan issue. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have helped D.C. gain any kind of status over the past 250 years, and the bill proposed last year would have added 2 reps from Idaho or wherever that would have kept the precious republican majority--IN THEORY. We really don't know how New Columbia would vote, there is merely an assumption because it is a majority-black city. It smacks of racism if you ask me.
All I ask is that you review the facts. Who should be taxed or go to war when they have no representation in government? Is this not what we had an American Revolution over? If, after, careful consideration, there is some sane reason why any city of American Citizens of any stripe should not have the right to vote, let me have it. -cw
Posted by: OctoberLeaf on March 19, 2007 05:14 PMThere's a reason it was set up this way. Washington, D.C. is the Federal seat of power where there is a conflict of interest between its inhabitants' self-interest and the country's interests occupying the country's seat of power.
Washington's supposedly filled with civil servants - not the other way around. If a resident of the murder capital wants electoral respresentation, then they are free to reside in any of 50 States of this Union.
This incessant drive for "representation" of Washington's liberal inhabitants is merely one more thinly-veiled scheme to pad the number of Democrats inhabiting our seat of power.
-JP
Posted by: Jefferson Paine on March 19, 2007 08:11 PM1) Would D.C. residents somehow be more worthy of a right to say how their tax dollars are spent if they were guaranteed Republican? Socialist? Independent? This logic does not compute.
2) Though no "right to taxation without representation is explicitly written into the Constitution proper, the 23rd amendment does allow Congress to give DC state status with the same number of representatives any state of its size (pretty puny) would get. It is therefore constitutional to suggest that DC get *voting* representation in the House as well as the Senate.
3) As discussed in the interview, DC was indeed initially dubbed a district, because back in 1789--well it wasn't exactly the reasons you mention, but let's say they were. What I don't think you're quite comprehending is that the movement to give DC voting representation is in part in response to exactly the conflict of interest you describe. Consider also, that there are people that exponentially outnumber those directly connected to government, and that: a) being kept in limbo as a district isn't solving the "conflict" problem, it's making it worse; b) It's impractical to suggest 600,000 people just move elsewhere; c) annexation to surrounding states is being considered, but that's like saying 'lets just split up Seattle and give downtown to the city council'--no more neighborhoods or city cohesiveness--no more city as we know it. d) D.C. is treated as a state for all other areas of law--evidence, court jurisdiction, treaties--and are demanded to comply with the responsibilities of taxation, selective military service, etc., why should they be deprived of the rights that should accompany those responsibilities and sacrifices?
In the meantime, we have a highly unethical situation It was wrong in 1776, and it's wrong now. Instead of playing the incessantly juvenile game between the red-and-blue team, how about a viable solution? Or at least, listen to the interview I worked for hours recording and editing to make it listenable and politically neutral, so that I don't have to get all fired up and flame on this blog with such redundance.
I need a massage.
xoxo. -cw (Your fragile but flambouyant OctoberLeaf)
Problem solved, and no need for any nonstandard hacks to the makeup of the house or senate.
I agree, though, it is pretty shameful that the residents of our nation's capital - whatever their political leanings - are taxed but have no representation.
This isn't like overseas commonwealth territories like Puerto Rico or Guam that don't have representation but also don't pay federal taxes.
Posted by: therealsolution on March 20, 2007 12:54 PMAs for literacy rate, one must be careful--not only are averages deceiving (like Alabama and Mississipi are pretty bad too, but they can vote), but then literacy has been an historic tool for disenfranchisement, in voting, and also in legal matters. Also, one could argue that the very lawmakers that are seated there have neglected the district to just that degree that their educational system sucks. But hey, you win,john425, anybody functionally illiterate shouldn't have a say in anything... nor shall I post any further on this thread. -cw (your temporarily tattered OctoberLeaf)
Posted by: OctoberLeaf on March 20, 2007 01:42 PMIt would be nice also for Puerto Rico to have voting representation in Congress. That process would be called "statehood". And that option has been consistently supported by just under 50% of the people of Puerto Rico. Less than 5% want independence, while the majority or plurality is happy with the current "free associated state" status, which is a curious mix.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 20, 2007 06:33 PMTo address your points in #7:
1) D.C. residents DO have a say about taxation - they can say anything they want. Who's stopping their them from speaking?
2) Creating seats in Congress and TWO seats in the Senate for such a tiny swatch of land, where our federal seat of power just coincidentally happens to be located, is plainly absurd.
3) D.C. residents are NOT in limbo - they CHOOSE to live in a federal DISTRICT. Who's suggesting they move - that's their choice. I doubt that D.C. can, constitutionally, unilaterally 'secede' by voting themselves part of Maryland, or that an adjacent state can likewise "annex" them. If it turns out to be constitutional, I don't have a problem shrinking the size of the District, swallowing up most of the city of Washington provided BOTH the state and the district agree on "annexation" (and the state's congressional representation is adjusted according to normal procedure under the Constitution).
But, the whole notion that D.C. residents have "no representation" is ridiculous. They may not have the right to directly vote for or against a certain Representative, but this does NOT mean they have no representation. Just as I have no chance to vote for 98% of the Representatives, of 49 other states, who incessantly pass laws to control my life.
-JP
Posted by: Jefferson Paine on March 21, 2007 10:54 AM"2) Creating seats in Congress and TWO seats in the Senate for such a tiny swatch of land, where our federal seat of power just coincidentally happens to be located, is plainly absurd."
I'm not sure why, given that DC has a population greater than Wyoming and it's catching up on Vermont. I personally find it more absurd that Washington state has 3x the people per electoral vote than the Equality State - but them's the constitutional breaks.
Posted by: attwelve on March 21, 2007 06:48 PM