Taxation without representation

[Firecat]

May no longer be an issue in D.C. anymore

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070415/...gton_rights_dc

Not something discussed very often. Actually, the last time I talked with others about this was several years ago.

Thoughts?

[tigger]

I think that DC should be represented in Congress or just not have to pay federal taxes. Even if they just had one senator and a representative or two.

[nomix]

Of course DC should be represented. Why not?

I guess I'm not orientated on the internal politicial reason as for why DC isn't represented, would anyone like to explain the issue?

[zenkidori]

From TFA:

The bill is "flagrantly unconstitutional" -- ignoring the Founding Fathers' stipulation that Congress members are elected by "the several states" -- and is virtually certain to be struck down by the courts, said Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School.

Residents of the District of Columbia, which is not legally a state,

and wikipedia:

Representation in federal government

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress direct jurisdiction over Washington, D.C. While Congress has delegated various amounts of this authority to local government, including an elected mayor and city council, Congress still intervenes, from time to time, in local affairs relating to schools, gun control policy, and other issues.

Citizens of the District have no voting representation in Congress. They are represented in the House of Representatives by a non-voting delegate (Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC At-Large)) who sits on committees and participates in debate, but cannot vote. D.C. has no representation at all in the Senate. Attempts to change this situation, including the proposed District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, have been unsuccessful.

Citizens of Washington, D.C. are not unique in having diminished representation in their federal legislature, although they are unique in having no voting representation at all. Some nations that have built capital cities from scratch, including Nigeria, have diminished representation for a federal district. Washington's situation can also be compared to the historical status of U.S. territories, which had only non-voting delegates to the House. However, unlike U.S. territories today (such as American Samoa and Guam), citizens of the District of Columbia are fully taxed and subject to all U.S. laws, just as the citizens of the fifty states. In recent years, "Taxation Without Representation" has been the ironic motto featured on D.C. license plates.

With the passage of the 23rd Amendment in 1961, citizens of the District became eligible to vote for President. The District has three electoral votes--the same number as states with the smallest populations, such as Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas.

See also: United States presidential election, 2004, in D.C., D.C. Statehood, District of Columbia voting rights, and No taxation without representation

in short, DC has no state.

[nomix]

Yes, but why does it need to stay that way?

[tigger]

Originally Posted by nomix

Yes, but why does it need to stay that way?

Probably because the republican administration and the ousted republican Congress didn't want a few more democrats in the Senate and House with the power to vote. Hopefully this democratic Congress will get off their collective ass and give DC some real representation.

[watisdis]

Originally Posted by tigger

Probably because the republican administration and the ousted republican Congress didn't want a few more democrats in the Senate and House with the power to vote. Hopefully this democratic Congress will get off their collective ass and give DC some real representation.

You got it completely wrong. DC was never planned to have representation for the sole purpose of providing an un-biased, objective, and secure place to run this country, without having to worry about DC's obstructive party affiliations and politics. They knew they would already have enough of that trying to run the rest of the damn country. Republicans vs Democrats has nothing to do with it. Think of it as the same reason Top Gear features the Stig, to provide a strict utilitarian service, un-biased (they got Jeremy for that) and to provide a level playing field for all participants (cars).

[tigger]

Originally Posted by watisdis

You got it completely wrong. DC was never planned to have representation for the sole purpose of providing an un-biased, objective, and secure place to run this country, without having to worry about DC's obstructive party affiliations and politics. They knew they would already have enough of that trying to run the rest of the damn country. Republicans vs Democrats has nothing to do with it. Think of it as the same reason Top Gear features the Stig, to provide a strict utilitarian service, un-biased (they got Jeremy for that) and to provide a level playing field for all participants (cars).

That's all fine and good, but if the people living there are not going to have a voice at the federal level, then they shouldn't have to pay taxes for it. I fail to see how giving DC a voice in the legislature would make anything worse.

[nomix]

Would be nice, I guess.

Not just because of the democrats, more to the point, I think all people should have proper representation.

[zenkidori]

Yeah, just get rid of thier federal taxes.

[Viper007Bond]

It'd be a tax haven. Everyone would move there. Boo.

[zenkidori]

Not everyone would move there, there is a limited amount of housing. Also, some states have no income or sales tax and you don't see tides of people quitting thier jobs, pulling thier children out of school, selling thier homes and moving there now do you?

[watisdis]

Originally Posted by tigger

That's all fine and good, but if the people living there are not going to have a voice at the federal level, then they shouldn't have to pay taxes for it.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by tigger

I fail to see how giving DC a voice in the legislature would make anything worse.

I dunno, DC is already over-bureaucratic as it is, allowing this would just add to the political cluter. It's a tricky issue I guess, closer to a 'catch-22' than anything else, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[tigger]

Originally Posted by watisdis

I dunno, DC is already over-bureaucratic as it is, allowing this would just add to the political cluter. It's a tricky issue I guess, closer to a 'catch-22' than anything else, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Eh, it could be I suppose. I think they ought to just totally separate the DC city gov't from the feds. Let it run itself like all the other cities in the US. I doubt it would really become a 'haven' either. A lot of DC is black, democratic and middle class. Probably not the haven wealthy, right-wing businessman would be looking for lol.