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?

response 39 of 59:

Dec 19 01:18 UTC 2000

flem, in a nutshell yes...it has nothing to do with thembeing "dc'ers"
and everything to do with the fact the district votes 80% democratic
in every election.  Which shouldnt surprise, since the district's
leading employer is the federal government, and if you work for the
federal government you arent going to vote for the party who always 
wants to shrink it.

response 41 of 59:

Dec 19 03:26 UTC 2000

(yes, the Republicans want to shrink government.  yes, the federal
government is the leading employer in D.C. [which doesn't translate
to "most of the people who live in DC work for the federal government,"
but you knew that, right, Marcus?]  even the people who live in D.C.
but don't work for the government more likely than not depend on the
government for their livelihood, whether it's needing politicians to woo
to your special interest or needing them to buy the hamburgers you flip.
as much as the GOP maybe *should* be in favor of turning D.C. into a state
[which I disagree with], they pribly *wouldn't* support such a plan
because of the area's strong Democratic leanings and the generally
partisan attitudes of the Republicans who would have a say in the matter.)

(perhaps if D.C. wants to become a state, they should learn to vote
Republican.)  ;)

response 43 of 59:

Dec 19 04:05 UTC 2000

  re #41:  Nobody's denying that Republican politicians *SAY* they
  want to shrink government.  It's just that many of us are skeptical
  and unconvinced that what they actually want to do is what they say
  they want to do.  Politicians from both major parties have acquired
  the habit of speaking in code-words that are attractive to their base
  but not, shall we say, strictly accurate.  When Democrats claim they
  want to eliminate racial bias, you'd be right to ask whether or not
  they're really talking about affirmative action or similar programs.
  Likewise when Republicans talk about reducing the size of government,
  some people read that as "eliminate social and environmental programs
  and replace them with defense spending"

  I guess the proof's in the pudding, though.  Now that George W. Bush
  is (finally) officially president-elect of the U.S. and Republicans
  control the legislature and have a unified voting block representing
  a major plurality of the Supreme Court, how much do you expect the
  government to shrink?