Skip to main content

View Diary: Representation for D.C. A Map (20 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Definitely not an easy decision. (0+ / 0-)

    It seems you have given this a lot of thought.

    I'm not too familiar with the "state-like entity" status, is that constitutional? It does however seem like a fair stepping stone and solution in its own right.

    •  In actuality (0+ / 0-)

      I meant that it would be a state (meaning it would go through the process of statehood), but we just wouldn't call it that, so as to appease both sides of the issue.  And yeah, that's perfectly legal, since MA, PA, VA, and KY are all commonwealths, not states.  Hell, if you properly go through the process of statehood, you can call yourself a sack of pineapples. ;-)

      And I think some people are making too big a deal out of the fact that there would be federal buildings still located within this new state/entity.  That problem just doesn't seem insurmountable.  The federal district in no way would have to be contiguous, or the new state could just keep the federal buildings (maybe not the VP residence, but as far as the zoo - are we seriously going to shoot down this whole thing over that?)

      Of course, Congress could also just grant DC full voting rights and home rule and let the courts decide on the constitutionality.  I think they would easily uphold home rule, while voting rights could go either way.  And if the courts shoot it down, we're only back to where we are now.  You could also reach a compromise - 1 Senator and 2 House reps, although that would be constitutionally very iffy.  But I think the DC/Utah deal is bullshit.

      •  I get it, I totally agree (0+ / 0-)

        I think I agree with you on pretty much every point you made, haha.

        I think that the zoo/parks/etc can easily remain/become part of the NPS, the VP residence issue would be easy to deal with, either by having a non-contiguous district or just by moving it (easier said than done I know, but hey, they moved the whole capitol around back in the day).

        As far as DC/Utah, I agree, it is bullshit, the way the current electoral votes are bullshit. (preferable to zero representation but still bullshit).  I don't really like 1 senator either from a constitutional standpoint. They require 2 senators (whether as their own state or as part of another state).

        As a way of just getting the "state-like-thingy" process going, is there another prospective state that leans republican? Does the much larger Puerto Rico lean slightly Republican? (not sure on this) If they could admit two states at once to balance it, that would be nice. Of course this is not a requirement for representation, just an option to ease the process.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site