DC Statehood

[Dave Moss]

No taxation without representation!

[Dave Moss]

[EaglesRocker97]

5 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

No taxation without representation!

A prime example of how our education system has failed is how this slogan is taught to children in elementary school who then grow up to think that the founders opposed taxation and that taxes themselves are "un-American." The phrase "...without representation" is key. They weren't opposed to taxation; Europeans were conditioned to paying them as a basic element of the social contract. What they opposed was being taxed without their consent, which was the case in colonies being taxed by a British parliament in which they had no votes. The "taxation is theft" people enjoy such representation. They just don't understand how it works.

[vikas83]

3 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

A prime example of how our education system has failed is how this slogan is taught to children in elementary school who then grow up to think that the founders opposed taxation and that taxes themselves are "un-American." The phrase "...without representation" is key. They weren't opposed to taxation; Europeans were conditioned to paying them as a basic element of the social contract. What they opposed was being taxed without their consent, which was the case in colonies being taxed by a British parliament in which they had no votes. The "taxation is theft" people enjoy such representation. They just don't understand how it works.

I mean, everyone understands what it meant in the context. It was about the tea tax. I don't know anyone who thinks it means no taxation.

[EaglesRocker97]

Just now, vikas83 said:

I don't know anyone who thinks it means no taxation.

You should talk to some of these kids today...

[Dave Moss]

7 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

A prime example of how our education system has failed is how this slogan is taught to children in elementary school who then grow up to think that the founders opposed taxation and that taxes themselves are "un-American." The phrase "...without representation" is key. They weren't opposed to taxation; Europeans were conditioned to paying them as a basic element of the social contract. What they opposed was being taxed without their consent, which was the case in colonies being taxed by a British parliament in which they had no votes. The "taxation is theft" people enjoy such representation. They just don't understand how it works.

 

[vikas83]

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

You should talk to some of these kids today...

I'd rather not. There's a reason I don't have any of my own. 

Speaking of an utterly worthless generation...https://nypost.com/2021/03/22/goldman-ceo-tells-exhausted-workers-hell-try-to-give-them-saturdays-off/

I hope the names of the analysts who put this out is leaked and their careers are over. You voluntarily went into investment banking. WTF did you expect? Goldman should wait 3 months for this to blow over and then fire all of them.

[EaglesRocker97]

3 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

 

My only question with this issue is whether the language of the Constitution regarding the capital makes it unconstitutional, looking at it purely from the technical standpoint of law. It seems that you could get around the issue at least by reducing the size of the District to a bare minimum, but you're of course going to get all kinds of wild arguments from Republicans that statehood itself is illegitimate.

[Dave Moss]

4 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

My only question with this issue is whether the language of the Constitution regarding the capital makes it unconstitutional, looking at it purely from the technical standpoint of law. It seems that you could get around the issue at least by reducing the size of the District to a bare minimum, but you're of course going to get all kinds of wild arguments from Republicans that statehood itself is illegitimate.

Good question.  I don’t know.  I mean, NYC was the capital the first few years before they moved it to Philly.

[Bill]

Honestly I’d rather not enfranchise @TEW

[EaglesRocker97]

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

Good question.  I don’t know.  I mean, NYC was the capital the first few years before they moved it to Philly.

The Constitution provides for the creation of a "Federal District," as distinct from a state or territory. It places a maximum limit on the area of said District but does not set a minimum.

[Dave Moss]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

Honestly I’d rather not enfranchise @TEW

Doesn’t he live in Potomac, MD?

Tbh, I think TEW would be fine with DC Statehood if women weren’t allowed to vote...

[vikas83]

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

The Constitution provides for the creation of a "Federal District," as distinct from a state or territory. It places a maximum limit on the area of said District but does not set a minimum.

The easiest solution would be to shrink the district down to basically the federal buildings, and give the areas where people live back to VA and MD. You'd also have to repeal the 23rd amendment. 

DC was never intended to be a state, that is clear from the intention of the founders. So just shrink it. The proposed legislation shrinks the District and creates a new state out of the remainder -- just give that territory back to MD and VA. There is no need for a new state, other than to tip the balance of power in the Senate. 

[JohnSnowsHair]

38 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I mean, everyone understands what it meant in the context. It was about the tea tax. I don't know anyone who thinks it means no taxation.

was actually the stamp act...  no taxation without representation came out of the stamp act in 1765.

tea tax was 1773.

[vikas83]

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

was actually the stamp act...  no taxation without representation came out of the stamp act in 1765.

tea tax was 1773.

Dammit. I took a shot. 50/50 chance.

[Dave Moss]

3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

was actually the stamp act...  no taxation without representation came out of the stamp act in 1765.

tea tax was 1773.

Not certain which act it was that led to that phrase, but 2 important parts about the stamp act

1) colonists purposefully didn’t buy items with the stamp on it

2) Britain backed down and repealed it

after that point the relationship was doomed

[Bill]

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Dammit. I took a shot. 50/50 chance.

So schools started going to ish 40 years ago. 

[JohnSnowsHair]

doesn't really make a ton of sense to make it a state to me. even though it's more populous than Wyoming. realistically should be folded in to VA/MD.

that said, the dakotas should be one state not two. wyoming, idaho, and montana could be one state. vermont and new hampshire could probably be folded in to maine. alaska and hawaii should probably only get one senator each. doing that would probably get us well on the path of where we SHOULD be from a representation standpoint. still advantages low population states, but closer to the balance it was at around 1789.

[JohnSnowsHair]

4 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Not certain which act it was that led to that phrase, but 2 important parts about the stamp act

1) colonists purposefully didn’t buy items with the stamp on it

2) Britain backed down and repealed it

after that point the relationship was doomed

stamp act was very far reaching though. was the way to bind and recognize contracts, somewhat like a notary on steroids. they did repeal it, but as you say the damage was done. 

the only way back for Britain at that point was to give us representation in parliament. that would have shifted history significantly.

[JohnSnowsHair]

10 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Dammit. I took a shot. 50/50 chance.

the tea act (and the tea party) wasn't about a tax. it was about the monopoly on who could sell tea. 

[Dave Moss]

4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

doesn't really make a ton of sense to make it a state to me. even though it's more populous than Wyoming. realistically should be folded in to VA/MD.

that said, the dakotas should be one state not two. wyoming, idaho, and montana could be one state. vermont and new hampshire could probably be folded in to maine. alaska and hawaii should probably only get one senator each. doing that would probably get us well on the path of where we SHOULD be from a representation standpoint. still advantages low population states, but closer to the balance it was at around 1789.

New Mexico voted to come in as one state with Arizona, but Arizona voted against it.

[Bill]

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

Not certain which act it was that led to that phrase, but 2 important parts about the stamp act

1) colonists purposefully didn’t buy items with the stamp on it

2) Britain backed down and repealed it

after that point the relationship was doomed

It all depends on how you look at it. On the flip side of that, Britain had to pay off the debts incurred in the French and Indian War, and Britain largely viewed that war as only benefiting the colonists, so essentially Parliament viewed the colonists as modern day progressives: reaping the benefits without paying for them.

The stamp act wasn’t really what set things in motion. The colonists were already pissed about the Sugar Act (1764, which taxed more than sugar), the Currency Act (1764, which devalued paper money), and the Quartering Act (1765).

In 1765, the Stamp Act is what got the ball rolling even faster, but it was already in motion. Also the protests in the colonies weren’t in and of themselves what made Parliament repeal it a la the Parliament listening to the grievances of the colonists. It cost the crown more money to enforce the Stamp Act than they made from the tax revenue, so they scrapped it. 

[EaglesRocker97]

4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

doesn't really make a ton of sense to make it a state to me. even though it's more populous than Wyoming. realistically should be folded in to VA/MD.

that said, the dakotas should be one state not two. wyoming, idaho, and montana could be one state. vermont and new hampshire could probably be folded in to maine. alaska and hawaii should probably only get one senator each. doing that would probably get us well on the path of where we SHOULD be from a representation standpoint. still advantages low population states, but closer to the balance it was at around 1789.

Not sure why AK and HI wouldn't both be entitled to two Senators, but a big problem to me is representation being capped at 435 for almost 100 years now. This wouldn't solve the issue of DC but it has contributed to the outsized power of small states.

[EaglesRocker97]

Britain repeatedly poked the bear between 1765-75, but it was the Coercive (Intolerable) Acts that really sent the Colonists over the edge. That and the occupation of Boston/closure of Boston Harbor.

[JohnSnowsHair]

10 minutes ago, Bill said:

It all depends on how you look at it. On the flip side of that, Britain had to pay off the debts incurred in the French and Indian War, and Britain largely viewed that war as only benefiting the colonists, so essentially Parliament viewed the colonists as modern day progressives: reaping the benefits without paying for them.

The stamp act wasn’t really what set things in motion. The colonists were already pissed about the Sugar Act (1764, which taxed more than sugar), the Currency Act (1764, which devalued paper money), and the Quartering Act (1765).

In 1765, the Stamp Act is what got the ball rolling even faster, but it was already in motion. Also the protests in the colonies weren’t in and of themselves what made Parliament repeal it a la the Parliament listening to the grievances of the colonists. It cost the crown more money to enforce the Stamp Act than they made from the tax revenue, so they scrapped it. 

Franklin lobbied hard in London against the stamp act, and was even granted time to speak to parliament. While one cannot truly know how much that lobbying impacted things there is reason to believe he helped coordinate a shift in the appetite for the act.