• Welcome to the Zelda Sages Forums!

    The Zelda Sages Community Forums are a fun and easy way to interact with Zelda fans from around the globe. Our members also have access to exclusive members' only content. Register and/or log in now! Please note that user registration is currently disabled. If you would like to register please contact us.

Congressional Representation for D.C.

D

Demoncrat7

Loftwing
Does anyone know why the District of Columbia doesn't have representation in congress?

Apparently there's a vote scheduled for tomorrow in the house of representatives to change this, but I don't understand why people would actually be opposed to giving them representation...unless it's completely partisan, since D.C. is kinda poor and probably would vote Democratic. But, does anyone know any other basis for this?
 
According to the US. Constitution, representatives for Congress are representatives of each state in the union. As the DOC is not a state, it has no representative in the House or Senate.

However, citizens living in DOC should be able to run for office. My own philosophy would be to place citizens of the DOC area under candidacy for the Maryland or Virginia ballot. Of course, this method may present some issues in terms of voter approval, however I do not see how DOC should be given the same prestige as a state for something so simple.
 
webmasterbob said:
However, citizens living in DOC should be able to run for office. My own philosophy would be to place citizens of the DOC area under candidacy for the Maryland or Virginia ballot. Of course, this method may present some issues in terms of voter approval, however I do not see how DOC should be given the same prestige as a state for something so simple.
Click to expand...
I'm too lazy to retype this as I agree completely.
 
uhhh, why are we talking about the DoC not haveing any reps.?

webmasterbob is right, DoC isn't concidered a state, and making it into a state would cause problems.... wait, it it's not a state then it's not part of the Union therefore, the consitution and US laws should not apply in the DoC... or is there something in the consitution that says the DoC is part of the Nation even though it isn't a state? That'd be wierd.
 
Well, Washington D.C. is taxed as if they're a state, (Well, basically) so they claim "taxation without representation."

And yeah, I know that it isn't a state. But, it's definitely part of the nation, considering that it's our nation's capital.
 
And yeah, I know that it isn't a state. But, it's definitely part of the nation, considering that it's our nation's capital.
Click to expand...
but why don't they use a state for the capital instead of a place that isn't a state, it doesn't make sence!
 
It make perfect sense. Well, depending on your persective. The capital shouldn't be a state, it should be a city or district, both of which are or could be part of a state. So, yes, it is in a state, but it is in it's seperate district, which you could compare to capitals of states.
 
llemes said:
but why don't they use a state for the capital instead of a place that isn't a state, it doesn't make sence!
Click to expand...
This was a huge debate during the government reform following the Constitution. None of the delegates wanted any particular state to lay claim to the capital, so they created the District of Columbia for this purpose. Just as an add-in, to gain Southern approval for the Constitution the delegates agreed to station the capitol in the South, which is why the US. Capital is not located in PA as it was originally :).

Again, they deserve representation, although there will be debates on how to work with DOC citizens to gain election *state issues, etc*.
 
webmasterbob said:
This was a huge debate during the government reform following the Constitution. None of the delegates wanted any particular state to lay claim to the capital, so they created the District of Columbia for this purpose. Just as an add-in, to gain Southern approval for the Constitution the delegates agreed to station the capitol in the South, which is why the US. Capital is not located in PA as it was originally :).

Again, they deserve representation, although there will be debates on how to work with DOC citizens to gain election *state issues, etc*.
Click to expand...

Uhh, back during the civil war, wasn't the future site of the DoC in the north? because if you look in a school text book, it is above the line that divided the Confederate States and United States of America.
And besides, since the Civil War has been over for a long time (sorry, i can't remember the date), shouldn't they give the land back to Virginia and Maryland and then have a Nation-wide vote for the location of the new capital? For example, each state would hold a voteing for a city from THAT state and then, when the next election comes around they will vote for the new location of the Capital of the United state. (note that the first votes would be held in only the continental United States and the final vote would be in alaska and hawaii too {Washing D.C. could not be on the list though}).
Does all that make sence?
 
It turned out that the north won, so all was well again. Then the nation decided that the present location would be a good one, and 'set up' there.
 
Well the capital was always where it is today (except when it was Philly). During the Civil War states seceded seperatly, and since DC is a territory, not a state but still a governed region seperate from other areas, they would have had to secede. That is why the south didn't have DC.

That leads me to my next point. DC is a territory. As such they do not get the other privilages that the full states get. Puete Rico is the same way. All citizens can still vote for president, own cars, have to pay taxes, et cetera, but cannot vote for senetors. Also the fact that DC is kinda "federal land" and doesn't have a govenor.

I do agree that we need to relocate the capital, however. Have it more centrally located, much like DC was back in the day, and maybe in a small rural area. It should be on the border of two (or even three) states, but the land should still belong to the states. How would that effect the laws? Well simple solution: They would get to choose the laws they would abide by. That is ones that the seperate states choose. If a certain law is passed in all the states (say a smoking ban) then that would apply to the capitol. If the majority pass it (say two out of three), same thing. If only one passes it, then the capitol can choose whether they want it or not.
 
Dakare said:
I do agree that we need to relocate the capital, however. Have it more centrally located, much like DC was back in the day, and maybe in a small rural area. It should be on the border of two (or even three) states, but the land should still belong to the states.
Click to expand...
That makes a lot of sence. And besides, if you know your US history, you know that DC has been attacked before when the US was trying to gain its independance from Great Britan (I think that that was the right war, if not, please correct me). They enemy sailed right up the channel and dropped off their soldiers and ended up burning the White House to the ground, which was rebuilt after the war. That shows that the the capital was never in a sretegic location to begin with. (if i left anything noticable out, please let me know, as i am going off memory and history isn't one of my stronger subjects)
 
thanks ^_^, i couldn't remember because we talked about that before christmas in history class (8th grade history is SO boring).
 
Let's try to keep this on topic shall we :).

Dakare brings up an interesting point in that DC is a US territory. As stated, territories do not gain the ability to elect senators. This could very well strengthen the debate on both ends of the spectrum.

To end the moving the capitol discussion, far too much time, money, and history has been invested into DC to move the capital, IMO :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top