response 15 of 59:

Dec 17 20:02 UTC 2000

So you're saying you think there's no ethical reason to ban murder, or at
least that murder isn't banned due to ethical concerns?

Ethical (or moral) rules aren't always cut and dried rules that everybody can
agree on.  Even among those that come close to that, there are probably plenty
of things we can agree rise to the level of actions that are wrong, but not
to the level at which those actions should be banned.  Perhaps, some of these
more questionable ethical questions should not end up in law, or perhaps some
of them are important enough that they have to end up in law.  You'll probably
never find complete agreement on which are which, though.

response 17 of 59:

Dec 18 00:25 UTC 2000

The solution to this is to federalize the area surrounding the Mall, the
Capital, the White House, just that area as the "district" and let the
rest of the Washington DC metro area, which has a population larger than
many of the smaller states, become the state of New Columbia.  

if they don't do this, then a bill being introduced this coming year makes
sense-- this bill would except residents of the district of columbia from
paying federal taxes.  If you have no voting members of the Congress who
participate in decisions about taxes, you have "taxation without
representation", which is wrong.  In fact, taxation without representation
was a primary cause of the revolutionary war and the formation of this
country.  

when I lived in DC, I did know people who refused to pay their federal
taxes for that reason.

response 19 of 59:

Dec 18 01:17 UTC 2000

I think the solution is (1) take away the District's three electoral
votes, and have the District participate in the presidential election
jointly with Maryland.  (2) Allow the District to participate jointly
with Maryland in electing U.S. Senators; those would be the Senators
"from Maryland and the District of Columbia".  (3) Give the District
one U.S. Representative.

response 21 of 59:

Dec 18 03:52 UTC 2000

Re 20.  Unfortunately, that would require "fiddling with the constitution"
since the District gets three electoral votes via a constitutonal
amendment which calls it "the District constituting the seat of
Government of the United States."

response 23 of 59:

Dec 18 05:02 UTC 2000

The residents of DC are beneficiaries of federal tax dollars, regardless 
of whether they have a voice in determining how those dollars are spent.
They have interstate highways, they have regulated airspace and 
electromagnetic broadcast spectra, and they have food on store shelves 
which, by virtue of federal regulation, they can generally trust to be 
safe (within subjective limits).

There is no justification that I know of for DC not to have voting 
representatives in congress.  At the same time, it seems that municipal 
administration of the District should permanently be done by a 
subcommittee of the House of Representatives, made up of Representatives 
from DC and the adjoining districts in Maryland and Virginia which 
constitute the suburbs of D.C., the city.

response 25 of 59:

Dec 18 05:17 UTC 2000

The Constitution grants exclusive legislative power over the District
to the Congress (Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 17).  That is both chambers.  I don't
know how they've organised themselves to exercise that power; it could
very easily be by a committee or sub-committee.

However, that does not address the matter of their own representatives
in the Congress.  In general, that is prerogative of the States.  Also,
granting the residents of the District representation addresses more than
just the governance of the City and District.  Not, in and of itself,
a bad thing, but also not as simple as it appears on its face.

I would prefer to make the residents of the District citizens of either
Maryland or Virginia, or of any other State they may choose, and allow
them to vote absentee in that State.  There is precedent for moving
out of a state not terminating residency in/citizenship of that state.
The difficulty would be whether residents of the District would think of
themselves as residents/citizens of another state.

Granting the District direct representation brings it one step closer
to Statehood.  I cannot explain (right now) why I think that is a bad
idea, but part of it is that the Framers thought it a bad idea.

response 27 of 59:

Dec 18 06:21 UTC 2000

Amazingly, I think Richard has (at least the roots of) a good idea.  Hell,
make the area around the mall district area, and call the actual property the
federal buildings are on parts of the district (not unlike the pockets of
township that exist within Ann ARbor today).  

response 29 of 59:

Dec 18 07:35 UTC 2000

The National Cathedral is not a government building.  I presume it
belongs to the Episcopal Church in some fashion.

Messing with the boundaries of the District would be disruptive and
unnecessary.  Altering the way it is governed happens all the time
under Congressional authority.

We passed a specific constitutional amendment to give D.C. residents the
right to vote in presidential elections.  That amendment, which causes
D.C. to be overrepresented in the Electoral College, offers the
possibility of bipartisan compromise on a NEW specific amendment.

A new amendment along the lines I suggested above would (as a practical
matter) subtract two Democratic electoral votes and add one Democratic
representative.  It would change the political balance of Maryland for
presidential and U.S. Senate purposes, but given demographic changes, it
would change Maryland far less than it would have even ten years ago.

I don't much like the idea of making D.C. a state like the other states.
Among other things, it would mean that 700,000 people would get two U.S.
Senators, just like New York or Michigan or California with many times the
population.

response 31 of 59:

Dec 18 09:12 UTC 2000

  I'm sure Larry's aware of the approximate populations of Wyoming, etc..
  That doesn't mean that he can't argue against giving D.C. representation
  equivalent to an entire new state just because he's not also arguing 
  for the abolishment of Wyoming, the annexation of Vermont by New Hampshire,
  or the re-unification of the Dakotas..

response 33 of 59:

Dec 18 13:21 UTC 2000

Re 31.  Garrison Keillor said that "Now that East and West Germany have
finally been reunited, isn't it time for North and South Dakota to begin
talks?"

response 35 of 59:

Dec 18 15:58 UTC 2000

re resp:15 back there:  
> So you're saying you think there's no ethical reason to ban murder, or at
> least that murder isn't banned due to ethical concerns?

No and yes, respectively.  Obviously, murder is usually considered 
unethical, but (IMO, at least) that's not why it's illegal.  It's illegal
because, when people set about building a society for themselves
to live in, they usually don't want people killing each other.  
It tends to have a destructive influence on society, and all that. 
  Now, you could argue that, say, pornography has a destructive
influence on society, but it's not completely clear.  While many,
probably even a majority, would agree that porn does in fact have
a destructive influence, it's hard to be sure.  Besides, it turns 
out that the oppressiveness of most of the laws written against porn 
puts us in a much worse position than just leaving it legal.  Plus, 
there's a vocal minority that claim porn is actually a good thing, and ...

  At any rate, my point is that laws can be morally useful and 
socially useful, and the two are often related, but that laws that
are only, or mostly, morally useful tend to be bad laws.  

response 37 of 59:

Dec 18 20:03 UTC 2000

So, basically, Republicans would vigorously oppose any plan that fully
enfranchised DCers?