DC statehood

[Gatorubet 30110]

My guess is that a Dem controlled Exec and Legis branch will make DC a state next year. (Note: the new state won't be called DC.)

I think every federal Republican elected official should have to live in “Obama”. Only fair. After all, he gets to live in their heads.

[Post Oak 20187]

17 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

 

I think every federal Republican elected official should have to live in “Obama”. Only fair. After all, he gets to live in their heads.

 

Pay taxes to Obama

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

On 6/26/2020 at 4:31 PM, Blotto said:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/26/politics/tom-cotton-wyoming-dc-statehood/index.html

Well-rounded in job diversity perhaps, Tom. Now lets compare racial demographics. 

It’s a good thing Wyoming is more qualified since we already made them a state. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Ironically, I imagine you saying that in a thundering bourbon-and-string-tie accent.

My favorite accent.

Fight me.

[Bama Chick 28596]

The city was basically nothingness other than the slave trading ports at Georgetown and Alexandria.  Because of that, it's always had a large black population, both slave and freedman. It's why Howard is here. Black people have always been the permanent residents of the city.  Outside of the white elite in Georgetown, the white people come and go.  The only multi-generational families are black families, which makes the lack of democracy even crueler.  Even today, most federal workers, lobbyist, lawyers, etc. live in the suburbs.  There are booming tech and non government industries which are fueling gentrification, but the concept of wealthy people willingly giving up enfranchisement (outside of the wealthy communities to the west of Rock Creek Park) to live here is something that has only been a thing in the last 15 years.
It was designed by L'enfant to look like a european capital, which has become a nightmare because the traffic circles are so goddamn dysfunctional (JUST EMMINENT DOMAIN DAVE THOMAS CIRCLE FOR FUCKS SAKE!!!).  But it was relatively pastoral for much of it's history. Livestock was grazed on the Mall well into the 20th century. It was surrounded by vibrant communities related to Maryland slave agriculture, like Hagerstown, Fredrick, and Bladensburg.  All of the legislativeand judicial functions and offices occurred in the Capitol Building itself until the 20th century.
People have to remember that the government as we conceive (i.e. Huge federal bureaucracies in ginormous marble buildings) of it didn't really come into existence until the New Deal and then even more so in the Great Society.  DC was a legislative town when Congress was in session, with the bars, restaurants, whore houses, stables, boarding houses, but it wasn't really a federal agency town before that.  So people lived here because there was livelihood that may have relied on government, but wasn't government influence full time.
As I mentioned before, the district was chosen for it's remoteness and the fact is was accessible to both the gentry of tidewater overland, and the New Englanders via sea travel.  Philadelphia was everyone's first choice, but the Quaker's inability to control armed mobs that kept hassling and attacking the founders lead them to look elsewhere.
Here's a great graphic of the growth of Capitol Hill: https://www.aoc.gov/history/capitol-hill
When I moved to DC, there was still a farm within the boundaries of the beltway north of the potomac.  It shut down about 10 years ago.
Here's a good link to DC's pastoral legacy: https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/Farm Estates_0.pdf
 

I’m ashamed I’ve never been to DC.

I really want to visit - but not till Mango Mussolini has been dragged out of town.

When I finally book my trip all you Surly DC hotshots should expect a DM from me for some advice and tips.

(Not that kind of tip ya pervs.)

[elfenix 34171]

i stumbled into that wendy's while drunkenly meandering down florida after drinking at showtime lounge.  interesting mix of hood and deaf students

Edited June 30, 2020 by elfenix

[Bateshorn 9904]

6 hours ago, elfenix said:

i stumbled into that wendy's while drunkenly meandering down florida after drinking at showtime lounge.  interesting mix of hood and deaf students

Drunk Gallaudet students always throw an interesting flavor into late night shenanigans. 

[RDCanecutter 26280]

Since we have moved into DC history, I thought I'd have Great-Grandaddy Canecutter step up. Here he is in the flower of youth, when (according to lore), he worked for a bit (1880s?) for Senator Joe Wheeler (Ala.) If lore is also correct, Great-Grandaddy probably got the job because HIS daddy was on General (CSA) Joe Wheeler's staff during the war.

(Joe Wheeler was one of those guys who almost lit out for Mexico after Appomattox, but was talked out of it by his staff. So they say. To tie it in to Surly, they were from around Colbert County, which repeatedly sent invading hordes to Mexican Texas. So if you're damned good-looking and a little bit crazy, then hello cuz.)

But back to young Great-Grandaddy, if anybody wants to find where the photographer's studio was and take a selfie there, we can wrap this up in a bow.

[hayden_horn 11360]

2 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

Since we have moved into DC history, I thought I'd have Great-Grandaddy Canecutter step up. Here he is in the flower of youth, when (according to lore), he worked for a bit (1880s?) for Senator Joe Wheeler (Ala.) If lore is also correct, Great-Grandaddy probably got the job because HIS daddy was on General (CSA) Joe Wheeler's staff during the war.

(Joe Wheeler was one of those guys who almost lit out for Mexico after Appomattox, but was talked out of it by his staff. So they say. To tie it in to Surly, they were from around Colbert County, which repeatedly sent invading hordes to Mexican Texas. So if you're damned good-looking and a little bit crazy, then hello cuz.)

But back to young Great-Grandaddy, if anybody wants to find where the photographer's studio was and take a selfie there, we can wrap this up in a bow.

per google maps, that address is now the canadian embassy.

[RDCanecutter 26280]

2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

per google maps, that address is now the canadian embassy.

 

[Francisco 2.0 32341]

 

 

[Bullneck 18987]

 

 

[Bullneck 18987]

 

 

[High Plains Drifter 10977]

 

A few years ago we went to DC for a family trip and stayed in a airbnb near that wendy's. That traffic circle is indeed a shit show.

 

anyway, I came here to post this:

 

 

 

 

 

[Bullneck 18987]

Tom Cotton, eh?

[Bama Chick 28596]

 
A few years ago we went to DC for a family trip and stayed in a airbnb near that wendy's. That traffic circle is indeed a shit show.
 
anyway, I came here to post this:
 
 
 
 
 

[washparkhorn 9935]

3 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Got him.

[WhatTheBuck 28712]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

I would’ve gone with a different quote from that movie under the circumstances. I would’ve gone with, “Suck my fat one you cheap dime store hood.”

[TwiceHorn 31283]

On 6/29/2020 at 1:22 PM, softlynow said:

At least concurrent jurisdiction means the states aren't shut out of that action.

From what I've seen of local prosecutors, I'm not sure they can handle computer crimes or mortgage fraud with any kind of proficiency. They struggle in trial even when the Homeland Security techs bring them open-and-shut child solicitation and porn cases. And the ones I see spend significant time doing only those cases.

No push back from me on the drug war, but I think there are quite a few crimes the feds investigate and prosecute that state and local governments will never have adequate funding to be competent. 

Late response, but it seems to me that that is a case of stupid prosecutors that is better cured through better prosecutors.   My fantasy scenario is that the feds help out with the investigation if it is true that their expertise exceeds that of local authorities.   But the cases should still be prosecuted in state court, under the locally enacted laws and with locally approved sentencing and judging.

I have two fundamental thoughts that guide me here.  The first thought is that an astute classmate (RIP Keith) observed, in connection with patent versus other fields of law, that law is basically law and it boils down to what kind of clients and subject matter you prefer to deal with.  I see history majors dealing with high tech stuff with sufficient aplomb, guided by technical experts, to win trials with regularity.

The other, and it's primarily a civil law canon, but underlies all of federalism, is this:  federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.  That means to me that the exercise of federal jurisdiction should be the exception and not the rule.  That a crime tangentially affects interstate commerce or that it's convenient that feds have expertise, is insufficient justification for the exception, to my mind.

The unprincipled expansion and exercise of federal criminal jurisdiction resulted in a perceived problem (lack of uniformity in sentencing) that led to a very real problem (the federal sentencing guidelines), a one-size fits all sentencing approach, that has been a major contribution to incarceration nation and is a microcosm of why criminal law should be the almost sole province of the states, with limited exceptions.

Edited April 24, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

Quote

Sen. Tom Cotton argued on Thursday that Wyoming, which he called a "well-rounded working-class state," is more deserving of statehood than the District of Columbia, even though the nation's capital has more citizens.

"Wyoming is smaller than Washington by population, but it has three times as many workers in mining, logging and construction, and 10 times as many workers in manufacturing. In other words, Wyoming is a well-rounded working-class state. A new state of Washington would not be," the Arkansas Republican said on the Senate floor.

Advocates of DC statehood point to the fact that residents pay taxes to the federal government but don't have representation in the US Senate and only have one non-voting delegate representing them in the US House. But Cotton argued that Democrats are only pushing for DC statehood so they can "have two new Democratic senators in perpetuity" and to "rig the rule of our democracy."

Imagine uttering this nonsense and actually believing this makes for a robust and compelling argument. I don't know if it's my old age or what, but I remember a time when Republicans actually made somewhat persuasive arguments for their stances. What tha fuck is this!?!?!

[MissingInAction 24823]

28 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Imagine uttering this nonsense and actually believing this makes for a robust and compelling argument. I don't know if it's my old age or what, but I remember a time when Republicans actually made somewhat persuasive arguments for their stances. What tha fuck is this!?!?!

Pure seething racism. They aren't even pretending any more.

[Sawbonz 27436]

11 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Tom Cotton, eh?

Now I want to learn sign language 

[Bama Chick 28596]

lol and the replies are great too.

[Js1 85110]

4 hours ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Imagine uttering this nonsense and actually believing this makes for a robust and compelling argument. I don't know if it's my old age or what, but I remember a time when Republicans actually made somewhat persuasive arguments for their stances. What tha fuck is this!?!?!

Uh sparsely populated western states were admitted in the late 1800s (and the Dakotas were split in 2!!) solely to add new GOP Senators. 

Go suck the corn out of Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ fecal receptacle, Tom. 

[fattyflattie 4636]

4 hours ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Imagine uttering this nonsense and actually believing this makes for a robust and compelling argument. I don't know if it's my old age or what, but I remember a time when Republicans actually made somewhat persuasive arguments for their stances. What tha fuck is this!?!?!

Then imagine not having a retort, so resorting to a racism joke. 

[Satchel 6908]

The Dakota Territories should be one state instead of four, should have two senators instead of eight for the 2.4 million people who currently live in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana.
 

Continuing to deny DC residents representation is an unsustainable proposition. The time for the WD Commonwealth has come.

[ultimaton 2966]

5 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Then imagine not having a retort, so resorting to a racism joke. 

Pretty sure he gave the only retort Senator Stolen Valor's ridiculous and racist argument deserved, but ok.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

Can a history buff explain how Texas’ annexation as a state was first rejected by the senate, which required a 2/3 majority. The senate majority actually voted against texas becoming a state. Then somehow it only required a majority 6 months later, and passed 27-25.

[Bateshorn 9904]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Can a history buff explain how Texas’ annexation as a state was first rejected by the senate, which required a 2/3 majority. The senate majority actually voted against texas becoming a state. Then somehow it only required a majority 6 months later, and passed 27-25.

it has to do with the uniquely complicated politics of the era, in that John Tyler, while nominally a Whig, was rejected by his party during the election of 1844.  James K. Polk beat Henry Clay soundly and the Democrats captured Congress.  But back then presidencies and Congress didn’t start till March. Since everyone could see Texas was going to come into the union eventually, a coalition of lame duck ploliticians worked out a compromise measure that passed the legislation to allow Polk to bring Texas into the union, although the bill was signed by Tyler.  the change in legislative rules was to accommodate the compromise.

The primary issue with Texas Annexation was slavery and everyone expected we would find some pretext to invade Mexico and try and take more territory.  That’s why Iowa was brought into the union a year later.

Which perfectly illustrates why it’s okay for DC to be brought in for political purposes:  this nation has been offering statehood for political purposes almost since the founding.  It’s the entire raison d etre of the Missouri Compromise. 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Bateshorn

[GW Hayduke 1952]

Is the vote threshold in the Senate 50 or 60 to allow admission of a state?  I don't see it listed as an exemption to the filibuster.  

[Bateshorn 9904]

Right now, 60. 

It’s not that you need 60 to pass a bill, you need 60 to end debate:  There is no ability to move the previous question, which is typically a majority vote under most rules of meetings.  A cloture vote is in essence a vote to end discussion and move to the next order of business. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

A criticism of the Obama-Harry Reid years were that they were short-sighted or perhaps too focused on healthcare reform.

They had a 60 vote majority for a short time in the senate and didn’t admit PR and DC as new states. Perhaps not every Dem senator would have been on board but they missed an opportunity to add 4 Dem senators.   Do things in order. secure long term votes and then push for legislative change.  Just imagine the difference over the last decade if it required 52 senators to have a majority.

but it’s possible that adding the 2 states would have pissed off middle-of-the-road voters which could have ended Obama after 4 years.

[fattyflattie 4636]

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

but it’s possible that adding the 2 states would have pissed off middle-of-the-road voters which could have ended Obama after 4 years.

You believe that has changed? 

[Js1 85110]

Yes. No one with half a brain can compare the polarization of 2021 with 2009. Your friends in the GOP started this. 

[CooterBrown 17913]

but it’s possible that adding the 2 states would have pissed off middle-of-the-road voters which could have ended Obama after 4 years.

The only people it’d piss off are people who’d never vote for a Dem anyway. You know, the deplorables. I’d bet even most middle of the road Republicans recognize that all Americans deserve to have full rights.

I’m still of the opinion we need 3 new states...DC, the Caribbean state of PR and USVI, and a Pacific Islands state of Guam, etc. Give these Americans their due.

[immamac 42519]

5 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

Right now, 60. 

It’s not that you need 60 to pass a bill, you need 60 to end debate:  There is no ability to move the previous question, which is typically a majority vote under most rules of meetings.  A cloture vote is in essence a vote to end discussion and move to the next order of business. 

good thing cloture isn't a law and can just literally be changed.

[hobbes2702 12846]

3 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

You believe that has changed? 

What are you contributing to this thread? Do you have an opinion on this topic at all or are you just here for snide remarks?

@immamac  so it’s 50+1 to admit a new state but no cloture can be had without 60? And as far as changing cloture is it as simply as ignoring it or would a rule change be required?

[fattyflattie 4636]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

What are you contributing to this thread? Do you have an opinion on this topic at all or are you just here for snide remarks?

Yeah. I specifically asked if the board thinks the country is ready for one side to have power indefinitely, which is what this will bring.   I know this particular board wants that, but I’m guessing that’s not indicative of most of the country.  So kindly go fuck yourself.  

[Murfdogg21 4412]

Merge them back into Maryland, from whence they came, if we are no longer in favor of a federal district that is not located within a state. 

[hobbes2702 12846]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Yeah. I specifically asked if the board thinks the country is ready for one side to have power indefinitely, which is what this will bring.   I know this particular board wants that, but I’m guessing that’s not indicative of most of the country.  So kindly go fuck yourself.  

You didn’t specifically ask that actually. “indefinitely”. You know politics is about winning voters right?
 

So you think that whole taxation without representation thing is ok? 

[fattyflattie 4636]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

You didn’t specifically ask that actually. “indefinitely”. You know politics is about winning voters right?
 

So you think that whole taxation without representation thing is ok? 

No, they can be represented as Maryland. This is about only 1 thing, and it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise.  

[hobbes2702 12846]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

No, they can be represented as Maryland. This is about only 1 thing, and it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise.  

So why don’t we merge all of the dakotas into one state? Why or why not?
 

It is about one thing. It’s about voter representation. This isn’t hard. Seriously do you think political parties should work to represent voters or should they look for ways to disenfranchise them?

[fattyflattie 4636]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

So why don’t we merge all of the dakotas into one state? Why or why not?

I was thinking we turn them into 16 states.  No reason other than representation and whatnot. 

[hobbes2702 12846]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

I was thinking we turn them into 16 states.  No reason other than representation and whatnot. 

Cool. I support that as well. Our reps and senators represent too many people. So if you support separating the Dakotas what’s the problem with DC?

[fattyflattie 4636]

Listen, you are obviously fine with a one party America. Just say that. It’s ok.  

[hobbes2702 12846]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Listen, you are obviously fine with a one party America. Just say that. It’s ok.  

Am I? Because I think I’m advocating for parties trying to win over voters and your advocates limiting representation. So again, what’s your issue with expanding representation?

[fattyflattie 4636]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

Am I? Because I think I’m advocating for parties trying to win over voters and your advocates limiting representation. So again, what’s your issue with expanding representation?

Would they not be represented as part of Maryland, or Va?   

[hobbes2702 12846]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Would they not be represented as part of Maryland, or Va?   

They would be better represented by being their own state. They would have a governor who has actual authority over the space governed. They would be larger in population than I believe three states and virtually equal to two or three others. So why the uneven influence for citizens in Dakota or Vermont? Why are their votes worth more than 700,000 people in DC?

So I guess you’re not actually for splitting the Dakotas are you? 

[TheStoicPaisano 9904]

They got this through both houses with a 2/3 majority back in 1978. Now, GOP only had 38 Senators, but they split evenly. Only 17 state legislatures ratified and it died in 1985. No statehood for DC, but there would’ve been senators. GOP seems to have said fuck it once Dole, Thurmond and Goldwater moved on.

[Mdhorn 5911]

On 6/30/2020 at 7:37 AM, Bateshorn said:

Drunk Gallaudet students always throw an interesting flavor into late night shenanigans. 

Have you gone to DC Brau on Friday nights?  Some of 'em are hawt and it's very quietly busy.  Haven't checked on it since the beginning of the pandemic.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Mdhorn