Should Washington D.C. have its own Senators (it doesn't now)?
Should have one senator. Not senators.
Why? It's a city, not a state. Become a state and get your senators.
They have reps why not senators? And those people should have a say in legislation. I don't get the big deal. The President gets the final say anyway, as he should.
Join northern DC with the state of Maryland.
We have the right to keep and bear arms as part of the right to self-defense. The right to self-defense is inherent, not granted by any government or document. The Constitution simply documents existing fact and existing rights in the Bill of Rights.
It already has 100. How many more does it need? They, by and large, look out for D.C. far better than they look out for the rest of us.
I'd they don't like then they should move
Cuz it's not a state
D.C. Is not a state, therefore should NOT have its own senators.
They do...through the HOUSE. They are the DISTRICT of Columbia, and Districts only rate Representatives. Why is this so hard to understand?!?! Take an American Government class, people!! For God's sake!! smh
D.C. stands for DISTRICT of Columbia. Districts rate only Representatives. D.C. would have to be granted statehood to rate seats in the Senate.
There is a process by which DC can obtain voting Senators (as opposed to its current non-voting one), which is the same process by which its Delegate can become a Congressman: return to Maryland or become a state. It's all in the Constitution so let's calm down, read it, and follow the simple rules.
As to paying taxes, that's debatable......
Fore fathers said otherwise for good reason
cheesechile, I accidentally attached replies to your message to the one above it. Sorry about that.
And I agree about the national gems - The year I lived there my daughter was 7-8. We hit at least one part of the Smithsonian, other museum, government building, etc. each weekend. And we lived near the zoo so we went there often. Great pocket parks, too. Wouldn't want to live there longterm tho.
...else. Not to mention that there are a good number of private & public universities that have nothing to do with government, and major medical centers that serve all the residents. I'm not saying it should be treated as a state; I'd be happy if their rep. To Congress were able to vote...
...actual representation in the government.. [Sorry, BChrome, these messages were intended for cheesechile below.] when I lived there I didn't get the sense that everything revolved around the fed. gov't. I lived in a neighborhood that had shopping & entertainment & businesses just like anywhere...
Only about 30% of the residents actually work for the government. I understand what you mean about many of the others being in jobs that support those that do, but that's true for a lot of jobs in other cities; they support people working in some industry or other. That doesn't mean they have...
DC has a non voting representative.
Washington D.C. is NOT a state, so it should not have its own senators.
Yes, Many of times. everything either supports or entertains the populace that is there for the fed government. Highest density of fed workers in the nation. Albeit most commute from outside areas.
Great place to vacation - can't beat the number of national gems in such a concentrated area.
Giving specific power to individual 'states' is an antiquated concept and should be done away with entirely. Our country was founded by a bunch of forward thinking men. Why should we stop looking forward now? Do you really think that what they created is perfect?
I do understand it, more than this forum allows for a full explanation. I fundamentally disagree with our system of representation and believe that there are better systems that we could create going forward. One person, one vote should be the guiding principle.
Anyone who thinks citizens should have the right to own guns needs to actually read the Constitution. -- United States, 1788.
The Bill of Rights didn't exist until 1789. The Constitution, thank the founders, is not written in stone.
Because it's not "the government." It's over 600,000 *people,* about as many as the state of Vermont and more than the state of Wyoming. The people don't all work for the government. I lived there. I didn't work for the government. I was taxed. I had no representation.
that the intricacies of this are lost on far to many Americans. And with this comment, I am through beating my head against a brick wall.
Obviously you don't. The senate is EQUAL for ALL states, and is balanced by the house, which is determined by population. To have equal representation in both branches would mean that many states would get much more say than even your state does. This is a foolish discussion. It is apparent...
Have you ever been there? In areas away from the government buildings?
I understand it completely. I just don't agree with it.
Those who whine about the unfairness of two senators per state obviously do not understand the nature of our bicameral legislative body, or the reason for it.
Exactly! In our political system, citizen living in Wyoming having greater representation in congress than people living in California. In addition, due to the Electoral College, their presidential vote counts for more as well. The system is wrong and should be changed!
Yes, I am aware of how it all works. Personally, I would rewrite the constitution (imagine that!) and do away with the Senate entirely. While I'm at it, I would kick the Electoral College system to the curb as well. One person, one vote, I say!
The citizens of DC still pay taxes. They should have the right to a say in our government.
Every state has? Why not Washington, D.C.
Wyoming produces and supplies goods to other states.
What does DC produce?
They are beneficiaries of our federal tax system, albeit most indirectly earn the benefit as providers of services or goods (acquired from actual states) to federal employees and government contractors.
Anyone who thinks DC should have representation (including Obama), needs to actually Read our Constitution. There is a reason it is the way it is.
The other 50 states have GDP.
Washington DC has a negative GDP because it only furnishes the goods that others produced. It might be a necessary component of government, but does not resemble a state in any way.
At best, it is a confined city, and thus a mayor is adequate representation.
You have proportional, direct representation in the House.
The Senate having equal representation is because the populace moves around over time, so states need specific, consistent representation.
Short-term population vs. long-term
To the person from Guam who said yes. I'm very interested in hearing the reasons for your answer.
It's ironic and sad that the capital of a country founded in opposition to "taxation without representation" is taxed without representation. DC is the center of national politics, but is also home to more than 600,000 people who are subject to laws and taxes in which they have no say.
Why not just incorporate them into MD or Virginia. We need to reapportion the states so they all have a roughly similar population.
If residents and businesses in DC get taxed then they should have representation.
yes. It has to do with whether it is classified as a state or not. my point is that it's not very equitable. A senator and vote for every 275,000 people in Wyoming or every 18,000,000 in California.
....just sour grapes after listening to one of them today on fox n friends. what a joke.
Dang it! At least I wasn't the one who admitted it first! :)
it happens more often than you think, just not all the time.
RJ, we are remembering that the Senate has nothing really to do with the amount of people right?
Did RJ and I just agree on something?
oh man! <facepalm>