• 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
Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the land the D.C. site on federal land right now? Are the federal authorities responsible for protecting the capital buildings?

If D.C. is made a state all that would transfer to the new state Governemnt.

How would all that be worked out? You have to figure in the federal protection of the president and the other representatvies.

If D.C. is a state they will butt heads at every turn.

Why go through all that?
 
None of those Amendments has anything to do with DC.

The DoI is not law.



Yes I have. I do not condone treason.

The Declaration of Independence is one of the roots of the concept of "no taxation without representation." The quoted amendments establish the principal of universal citizenship and suffrage for all adults born in the USA. In addition, general decency and fairness requires giving all rights to legal residents of the USA no matter where they live.
 
Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the land the D.C. site on federal land right now? Are the federal authorities responsible for protecting the capital buildings?

If D.C. is made a state all that would transfer to the new state Governemnt.

How would all that be worked out? You have to figure in the federal protection of the president and the other representatvies.

If D.C. is a state they will butt heads at every turn.

Why go through all that?

Federally owned land everywhere in the USA is not under state or local control. They are exempt from zoning laws and many other regulations that would usually impact land owners in their location. A state of DC would not be able to enforce any laws restricting the federal government.
 
Federally owned land everywhere in the USA is not under state or local control. They are exempt from zoning laws and many other regulations that would usually impact land owners in their location. A state of DC would not be able to enforce any laws restricting the federal government.

Exactly, so making D.C. a state would change all that.

How would that work?
 
In addition, general decency and fairness requires giving all rights to legal residents of the USA no matter where they live.

Why is this?
 
Federally owned land everywhere in the USA is not under state or local control. They are exempt from zoning laws and many other regulations that would usually impact land owners in their location. A state of DC would not be able to enforce any laws restricting the federal government.

That's the issue I believe he's trying to point out.

I believe the land of the city known as Washington DC is all FEDERALLY owned land. As you noted, federally owned land is not under staet or local control. So by turning Washington DC into a state, would that land cease being federal land? Would it remain federal land and "Washington DC" would be a state with no land that it claims it's own? Would part of the federal land be rescinded and made state land, but some of the rest would remain federal?
 
Doing a bit more research, I would amend my earlier suggestion...

Since DC is essentially created out of land that was Maryland's, I would not split the district in two for the purpose of voting.

Treat "Washington DC" as a county/district of Maryland for the purpose of federal elections. Count the residents of DC as residents of Maryland for the purpose of determining representatives. Residents of Washington DC would be voting for Maryland Senators and representative.

This provides Washintonians the chance to cast votes for elected officials in Congress, while leaving the District of Columbia as an independent city unaffiliated and seperate from the state system.

Alternatively, a retrocession of most of the land of Washington, DC to maryland...shrinking the size of the Capital and minimizing the impacted residents (and perhaps offer some kind of temporary, one time, relocation assistance to move people out...approving no future residential land inside the capital).
 
But as has already been noted, that would require consent of the state they do not reside in. Or it should. If the federal government assumes power to assign people to a state for purposes of voting, then it is all over for us as a representative republic. The federal government could gerrymand the vote anyway they wanted it to go.

People who live in DC do so knowing they are in an area designated for the seat of government for ALL the people and that they are not a state and are not entitled to have federal representatives. If that is a big deal to them, then they can move minutes away to Maryland or Virginia. Washington DC shouldn't even be a city, much less a state.

Good points. My initial suggestion was to let each voter choose which state he wants to be considered a citizen of, not selected by referendum, the federal government or whoever in an all or nothing one size fits all fashion. However, I just remembered DC residents were in fact allowed to vote for President, unlike those in the US territories. Nevertheless, I'm okay with treating DC like a big military base or embassy in terms of the status of the people who live there. Servicemen and diplomats who reside on those federal lands don't the lose state citizenship of where they're from even though they don't technically live in those states.
 
Good points. My initial suggestion was to let each voter choose which state he wants to be considered a citizen of, not selected to referendum, the federal government or whoever in a n all or nothing fashion. However, I just remembered DC residents were in fact allowed to vote for President, unlike those in the US territories. Nevertheless, I'm okay with treating DC like a big military base or embassy in terms of the status of the people who live there. Servicemen and diplomats who reside on those federal lands don't the lose state citizenship of where they're from even though they don't technically live there.

But servicemen and diplomats are ASSIGNED those assignments away from their homeland and therefore do have a permanent residency in one of the 50 states and they do not lose their eligibility to vote in state elections. However, those who choose to make their primary residence in Costa Rica or France or Great Britain or Mexico or whereve can vote in Presidential elections but are not entitled to Congressional representation. And neither should those be who CHOOSE to make their primary residence in Washington DC.
 
Last edited:
But servicemen and diplomats are ASSIGNED those assignments away from their homeland and therefore do have a permanent residency in one of the 50 states and they do not lose their eligibility to vote in state elections. However, those who choose to make their primary residence in Costa Rica or France or Great Britain or Mexico or whereve can vote in Presidential elections but are not entitled to Congressional representation. And neither should those be who CHOOSE to make their primary residence in Washington DC.

What about civilian American contractors who live on overseas embassies or US military bases? I don't know for sure; just asking. What about the spouses of the diplomats and servicemen who themselves were not "assigned?"
 
What about civilian American contractors who live on overseas embassies or US military bases? I don't know for sure; just asking. What about the spouses of the diplomats and servicemen who themselves were not "assigned?"

Such people can still vote in Presidential elections. But if they choose to give up residency in whatever state they came from, it was their choice. And like folks who choose to live in DC, they should voluntarily give up Congressional representation. The rest of us should be under no obligation to accommodate those who voluntarily give up their rights or benefits.
 
Exactly, so making D.C. a state would change all that.

How would that work?

It wouldn't change things significantly. The DC state would not have any more power over the federal government, its land or buildings than other any other state government. Private property and public land and buildings designated for non-federal local use in Washington DC would be under the control of the new state government.
 
Why is this?

I don't know how to describe decency and fairness and respect for the rights of others to someone who doesn't understand those concepts despite being a literate American adult. Besides being morally right, implementing those concepts helps reduce hostility and conflicts. The situation in Iraq right now is largely the result of a government that did treat a portion of the population (Sunnis) fairly.
 
I don't know how to describe decency and fairness and respect for the rights of others to someone who doesn't understand those concepts despite being a literate American adult. Besides being morally right, implementing those concepts helps reduce hostility and conflicts. The situation in Iraq right now is largely the result of a government that did treat a portion of the population (Sunnis) fairly.

correction: The situation in Iraq right now is largely the result of a government that didn't treat a portion of the population (Sunnis) fairly.
 
It wouldn't change things significantly. The DC state would not have any more power over the federal government, its land or buildings than other any other state government. Private property and public land and buildings designated for non-federal local use in Washington DC would be under the control of the new state government.

Nevertheless, the federal seat of government should be neutral and not subject to any one state laws. Just as there should be a separation of the federal government from the authority of any church, there should be a separation of the federal government from the authority of any state. The federal government should be subject to the authority of all the people and not any one state.
 
Such people can still vote in Presidential elections. But if they choose to give up residency in whatever state they came from, it was their choice. And like folks who choose to live in DC, they should voluntarily give up Congressional representation. The rest of us should be under no obligation to accommodate those who voluntarily give up their rights or benefits.

At least we agree DC should not be a state. I just think all Americans should have equality of civil rights regardless of where they live. Giving DC residents the option of declaring citizenship of either a nearby state, a formerly resided in state or the state of their birth seems to me to be fair; provided they also pay state taxes.
 
At least we agree DC should not be a state. I just think all Americans should have equality of civil rights regardless of where they live. Giving DC residents the option of declaring citizenship of either a nearby state, a formerly resided in state or the state of their birth seems to me to be fair; provided they also pay state taxes.

The people of DC have the same civil rights as anybody else. But if they want congressional representation, they need to live in one of the 50 states to get it just like everybody else does. If they choose to live in DC, they do so under the condition that they will have no congressional representation just like everybody else would. It isn't as if they are forced to live in DC, so no civil rights are involved in any way.
 
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?
No, but neither should it have electoral votes.
 
I don't know how to describe decency and fairness and respect for the rights of others to someone who doesn't understand those concepts despite being a literate American adult. Besides being morally right, implementing those concepts helps reduce hostility and conflicts. The situation in Iraq right now is largely the result of a government that did treat a portion of the population (Sunnis) fairly.

I understand decency and fairness. I'm questioning the notion that not having universal suffrage is indecent.
 
I heard that Rev. Jesse Jackson always lobbied for Washington, DC to have statehood. He must have had a good reason to want them to have statehood.
 
There wasn't an option for "Hell no", so I chose No...
 
Back
Top Bottom