• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should DC Become the 51st State?

Should DC Become the 51st State?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 20.8%
  • No

    Votes: 55 76.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 2.8%

  • Total voters
    72
Recently the Senate heard arguments for Washington DC to become the 51st state. Only two members of the Senate heard the arguments. In your opinion do you think Washington DC should become the 51st state in the Union?

Sure. Then we can move the capitol somewhere else and name that <Insert Name> DC.

I nominate BFE Wyoming.
 
Sure. Then we can move the capitol somewhere else and name that <Insert Name> DC.

I nominate BFE Wyoming.

I nominate Death Valley, CA. As part of the deal no air conditioning allowed.
 
DC residents are taxed without representation in Congress. The same type of situation, in fact, that started the revolutionary war. I say yes, turn DC into the 51st state so that the 645,000 DC residents actually have representation in their federal government.
 
Dc is already dysfunctional. No need to further institutionalize that. They aren't worthy of statehood.
 
DC residents are taxed without representation in Congress. The same type of situation, in fact, that started the revolutionary war. I say yes, turn DC into the 51st state so that the 645,000 DC residents actually have representation in their federal government.

Then just outlaw residences in the federal district, problem solved.
 
Because residents of DC don't have representation in Congress.

So? Is Congress going to cease being functional if DC residents don't get to vote for its members?
 
Then just outlaw residences in the federal district, problem solved.

How about we not outlaw people from living in certain areas of the country and just make DC a state? Why is that such a big deal to you?
 
Because residents of DC don't have representation in Congress.
How about we not outlaw people from living in certain areas of the country and just make DC a state? Why is that such a big deal to you?

And they shouldn't, because they don't live in a state.

The DC was created to be the seat of the government, case closed. Its not intended to be a state, so if you want to live in one of the United States, then live in one.
 
So? Is Congress going to cease being functional if DC residents don't get to vote for its members?

1. Congress is already dysfunctional. So them "ceasing to be functional" is not really much of a worry to me.

2. The problem is that residents of DC are taxed without proper representation in Congress. That's the #1 reason why the revolutionary war happened, Great Britain was taxing the colonists when they didn't have proper representation in Parliament. Now we're doing the same thing to residents of DC.
 
And they shouldn't, because they don't live in a state.

Hence the problem.

The DC was created to be the seat of the government, case closed.

What about granting DC statehood will make it cease to be the seat of the government?
 
DC residents are taxed without representation in Congress. The same type of situation, in fact, that started the revolutionary war. I say yes, turn DC into the 51st state so that the 645,000 DC residents actually have representation in their federal government.

The residents are free to move elsewhere, because the Constitution gives the Congress explicit control over DC.
 
1. Congress is already dysfunctional. So them "ceasing to be functional" is not really much of a worry to me.

2. The problem is that residents of DC are taxed without proper representation in Congress. That's the #1 reason why the revolutionary war happened, Great Britain was taxing the colonists when they didn't have proper representation in Parliament. Now we're doing the same thing to residents of DC.

1. I meant more so than it already is.

2. Is the lack of voting powers preventing the collection of taxes, is it making people unwilling to pay taxes, has anyone threatened revolt? If not what's the problem? If you're claiming injustice, then please explain your moral reasoning, step by step.
 
What about granting DC statehood will make it cease to be the seat of the government?

Because the Constitution says it needs to be a District, created from the cession of the states.
 
Is the lack of voting powers preventing the collection of taxes, is it making people unwilling to pay taxes, has anyone threatened revolt? If not what's the problem? If you're claiming injustice, then please explain your moral reasoning, step by step.

Taxation without representation defeats the whole purpose of the democratic republic our founders set up. Residents of DC pay taxes to the federal government and are forced to abide by the laws they write, yet are not able to have a say in either. At that point we might as well scrap the whole "democratic republic" idea and turn our country into a parliamentary monarchy or an oligarchy.
 
For some background....

Much of the initial reasoning against the capital being held in an explicit state is that many of the first generation (often times, your small government, southern types) considered it dangerous for that state to have the ability to shape national policy for its own interests. Perhaps some of it was also a southern distrust of the (at the time) Northern industrial dominance of the early American independence effort in politics, which lead to wanting a more southern, isolated capital.
 
Because the Constitution says it needs to be a District, created from the cession of the states.

The capital of the US resided in Virginia and later Philadelphia for quite a while after the constitution was ratified...
 
Already established that they gave up those rights when the DC was formed.

"They" weren't alive when DC was formed. "They" didn't give up any rights. Especially not the fundamental right to have representation in their government.
 
Recently the Senate heard arguments for Washington DC to become the 51st state. Only two members of the Senate heard the arguments. In your opinion do you think Washington DC should become the 51st state in the Union?


Congress takes up bill to make D.C. the 51st state

No, not at all. DC was to be the seat of the federal government itself, not really a town. But if we want to make it so in order that the residents of DC gain representation then it should just be absorbed into Maryland, it should not become a state unto itself.
 
Taxation without representation defeats the whole purpose of the democratic republic our founders set up. Residents of DC pay taxes to the federal government and are forced to abide by the laws they write, yet are not able to have a say in either. At that point we might as well scrap the whole "democratic republic" idea and turn our country into a parliamentary monarchy or an oligarchy.

That's a potential argument for D.C. to be a state unto itself or to be absorbed. Nevertheless the concern for representation was actually the rationale for why the capital should not be part of an actual state. A number of the Founders, if you will, argued that it was dangerous for representation to allow the capital to be in a state or to be considered a state. Those who wanted the industrial North to be the place of the capital, say, a Hamilton, argued that it was good for the capital to be in the main place of commerce, and so forth. This created a legislative deadlock. A compromise was needed. A compromise was created, largely on the basis of that agrarian, anti-industrial commerce, political virtue argument, so that Hamilton could in turn get the assumption of debt. As a result, the Founding generation largely gave way to the idea that this did not in fact "defeat the whole purpose" of the Republic they set up. Rather, it either was not that important, or it in fact, secured the Republic.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom