I do disagree as far as this not being a Constitutional move. In Hepburn v. Ellzey in 1805, the Supreme Court found that Congress could allow residents of the District access to United States federal courts in order to sue residents of other states, even though such a right is not explicitly stated in Article III of the Constitution. In National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., Inc, 337 U.S. 582 (1949), the Supreme Court ruled that the District can be treated as a "state" for purposes of federal court jurisdiction. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (the District Clause), grants to the Congress "exclusive" legislative authority over the District, also allows the Congress to pass simple legislation in order to grant D.C. voting representation in the Congress. Now this would be unconstitutional in areas such as, say, establishing religion, abridging freedom of speech and of the press, or abolishing the right of peaceful assembly in the District. We are, however, talking about Congress making a decision about Congress itself, and the inclusion of representation of unrepresented taxpayers.
However, as a D.C. resident, I will also accept the following in exchange for proper representation on a national level: Give the District and it's residents the same freedoms in regards to U.S. Federal taxes and laws that other territories with non-voting representation on the Hill, such as Puerto Rico and Guam, have. That or shrink the size of the footprint set aside for an area to be free of State's influence (The District Clause only mentions that that space be a MAXIMUM of 10mx10m), and grant statehood to the remaining area in between Federal land and Maryland. Also, in this process, we should keep in mind that the writers of The District Clause never really intended for people to be living inside the area know as the District of Columbia, out side of MAYBE those who are already represented (or are doing the representing for areas) elsewhere. 95% of what is the District today was swamp or park.
I will say this: I think things are going to find us in a very 'Boston Tea Party' moment with a D.C. Tax Strike if this doesn't pass.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 08:24 pm (UTC)However, as a D.C. resident, I will also accept the following in exchange for proper representation on a national level: Give the District and it's residents the same freedoms in regards to U.S. Federal taxes and laws that other territories with non-voting representation on the Hill, such as Puerto Rico and Guam, have. That or shrink the size of the footprint set aside for an area to be free of State's influence (The District Clause only mentions that that space be a MAXIMUM of 10mx10m), and grant statehood to the remaining area in between Federal land and Maryland. Also, in this process, we should keep in mind that the writers of The District Clause never really intended for people to be living inside the area know as the District of Columbia, out side of MAYBE those who are already represented (or are doing the representing for areas) elsewhere. 95% of what is the District today was swamp or park.
I will say this: I think things are going to find us in a very 'Boston Tea Party' moment with a D.C. Tax Strike if this doesn't pass.