• 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 Washington D.C. become a state?

Which of these is the most viable option

  • Washington D.C. should be granted statehood.

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Washington D.C. citizens should have the same voting rights as citizens of actual states.

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Voting rights in D.C. should remain the same.

    Votes: 12 52.2%
  • Other.

    Votes: 1 4.3%

  • Total voters
    23
The District of Columbia is not a very big place anyone who lives there and wants to have a state Government can just move a few miles a way to a real state.

Assuming they can afford it. With a lot of DC residents, that's not the case.

So, essentially we've created a big old ghetto with no representation in Congress. Of course, they still have to pay taxes...whatever happened to "No taxation without representation?"
 
Because it is district that was part of the State of Maryland specifically ceded to the federal government to be the national capital of the country. Wyoming was a territory carved out of the Louisiana Purchase which was acquired via Federal Treaty. Big difference...

Wyoming wasn't in the Louisiana Purchase. I think most of it was part of the Mexican Cession. A small part of it was part of Texas originally, if I'm not mistaken.
 
DC receives far more. It isn't a self sufficient city by any means. Maryland didn't want it because of the cost. I think it's best staying as a territory of the federal government subject to Congress. It's the federal city home to congressional buildings, the capitol, and many other important federal agencies. It's better off being run and funded by the federal government and not turned into an independent state that now houses the branches of the federal government.

So how will DC be paid for as a state? As I said, the main reason is the sheer cost of the city. DC should not become a state. It's best for the country to have it remain as a federal territory under the jurisdiction of Congress. I think it's important that Congress keep ultimate power over DC and not have it turn into an independent state run by an independent state government. Maryland gave up its land to the federal government to create a federal district, not to create a new state.

I would just like to mention, that a significant portion of the federal funds that go to DC don't necessarily help the citizens of DC, nor do they help to make the city a better place. All that federal money being used to run the federal bureacracy is used to hire workers who generally live in suburban Maryland and Virginia, who are much more educated and skilled. The average DC resident really doesn't get ****. Few of those funds are being used to help DC public schools and fund social and emergency services, for instance. Only about 1/4 of the city budget is derived from federal tax revenue, and it sure as hell isn't helping that much because most of DC is still a cesspool.
 
Last edited:
I don't really have a major problem with them having a voting member in congress, but allowing that would open the door for other territories of the US like Puerto Rico and Guam having representation in Congress.

I believe personally that as a general principle there should be no taxation without representation. Puerto Ricans and DC residents pay federal taxes. They should have a voice, at least.
 
Wyoming wasn't in the Louisiana Purchase. I think most of it was part of the Mexican Cession. A small part of it was part of Texas originally, if I'm not mistaken.

You are mostly mistaken.

The vast majority was indeed taken from the territory of the Louisiana Purchase (map)

Small parts came out of the Texas Annexation, the Mexican Cession, and the Oregon Country (map)
 
I believe personally that as a general principle there should be no taxation without representation. Puerto Ricans and DC residents pay federal taxes. They should have a voice, at least.

Actually, Puerto Ricans living on the island of Puerto Rico do NOT pay federal income taxes, though those living in the mainland DO, but they also have the right to vote in the areas in which they life.
 
Because it is district that was part of the State of Maryland specifically ceded to the federal government to be the national capital of the country. Wyoming was a territory carved out of the Louisiana Purchase which was acquired via Federal Treaty. Big difference...

Just divide the functions of the state and capital, problem solved. Federal stuff works like it does in any other state. problem solved.
 
Yes, they should have representation. The argument that it would disrupt the balance of red states to blue states is a ridiculous ground to try and construct an argument on.
 
Actually, Puerto Ricans living on the island of Puerto Rico do NOT pay federal income taxes, though those living in the mainland DO, but they also have the right to vote in the areas in which they life.

They still pay federal taxes in the form of excise taxes, payroll, etc., but you raise a good point.
 
I don't believe it should be state, agreeing with many of the things Digs has said.

I do however think its reasonable to expect the citizens of the district to have voting power of some sort in the house.

Split DC roughly in half, with part going to Maryland and part going to Virginia. While the land was originally marylands, with the metro region sprawling into both states and suburbs like Arlington and Silver Springs tieing in closely with DC, I think splitting between the two would be best. Have each state create districts within their allocated location contingent with the population there. Additional federal congressman for each state would be elected from those locations.

So DC would remain a federal district, owned and operated by the Federal Government, however would gain voting powers in congressional elections in one of the two bordering states to give them some power and sway over the House.
 
n The Federalist No. 43, James Madison explained the need for a "federal district," sub*ject to Congress's exclusive jurisdiction and sep*arate from the territory, and authority, of any single state:

The indispensable necessity of compleat authority at the seat of Government car*ries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every Legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insult*ed and its proceedings be interrupted, with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general Government, on the State comprehending the seat of the Government for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the Government, and dissatisfactory to the other members of the confederacy.

Madison's concerns about insults to the "public authority" were not speculative. In June 1783, several hundred unpaid and angry Conti*nental soldiers had marched on Philadelphia, menacing Congress in Independence Hall itself. Pennsylvania refused all requests for assistance and, after two days, Congress adjourned. Its Members fled into New Jersey.

The incident made a lasting impression. The Framers referenced it over and again in defend*ing their provision for a "federal town," which Anti-Federalists persisted in visualizing as a sink of corruption and a potential nursery for tyrants. In fact, however, the need for a territo*ry in which the general government exercised full sovereignty, not beholden to any state, was probably inherent in the federal system itself.

You gotta hand it to the anti-federalists for calling it.
 
I don't really have a major problem with them having a voting member in congress, but allowing that would open the door for other territories of the US like Puerto Rico and Guam having representation in Congress.
Giving DC (or any US territory) a voting representative in congress would require an amendment.
 
Actually, Puerto Ricans living on the island of Puerto Rico do NOT pay federal income taxes, though those living in the mainland DO, but they also have the right to vote in the areas in which they life.
Cannot comment on PR... But in the USVI, the population plays federal income tax, which then all remains in the VI.
They fill out a 1040VI form.
 
The reason DC is not a state is because DC is supposed to not have any undue influence over any one state. If you go back to the original intent of the union, it was to have 13 separate states acting under their own accord. The purpose of the federal government was to maintain the civil rights of the citizens, an organized army and negotiate trade agreements and treaties. If the capital had been in any one state there may have been a conflict of interest. So no, DC should not be a state.
 
The reason DC is not a state is because DC is supposed to not have any undue influence over any one state. If you go back to the original intent of the union, it was to have 13 separate states acting under their own accord. The purpose of the federal government was to maintain the civil rights of the citizens, an organized army and negotiate trade agreements and treaties. If the capital had been in any one state there may have been a conflict of interest. So no, DC should not be a state.

So we could leave the feds in charge of the National Mall (including the White House, Capitol, and Supreme Court) where the seat of government is located. There's no reason that the rest of the District, where people actually live, shouldn't be a state.

If the concern is that no state should have the seat of government, fine. We can carve a small slice out of Washington DC for the federal district. But there's no reason the federal district needs to be the size of an entire city.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom