Talk:D.C. statehood movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Similar Situations

Are there other examples of federal states where the capital region is not part of another subnational entity? This is (partly) the case in Belgium where the Brussels Capital Region has certain autonomy. Voters in Brussels do have their own legislature and the rights to vote in the federal general elections. Wouter Lievens 09:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can think of a couple examples: the Australian Capital Territory of Australia and the Distrito Federal of Mexico. Some nations' capitals are considered "special cities" directly under the administration of the federal government, such as Seoul in South Korea. Ian 13:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The ACT has since the 1970s been more-or-less equivalent to a state. It is represented in the Commonwealth (federal) House of Representatives and the Senate; residents of the ACT must vote in federal constitutional referenda; these rights & responsibilities were originally granted only to residents of states. Additionally, the ACT is self governing to a similar extent as the states: it has responsibility for its education and health etc. etc. (though I think it's police force are the Australian Federal Police, rather than a separate territory-based force as in the Northern Territory). At this stage the biggest difference between the ACT as a territory and it as a state is that the federal government can over-rule legislation in the territory it can't in the states. —Felix the Cassowary 14:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congressional oversight

"Such an action would require an act of Congress and approval from the District and the State of Maryland. " This sentence contradicts what is written in Voting rights in Washington, D.C.. I don't believe that legally the district would have a voice in the matter as Congress makes the laws for DC.15:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since self-rule, the District basically makes its own laws and sets its own budget although these actions can be overturned by Congress. Constitutionally, Congress is the ultimate authority and can do what it wants in D.C. unilaterally. When the Virginia portion of D.C. was retroceded, District citizens were not consulted. They didn't even have any locally elected government that could represent them in such a decision. I removed the reference to the D.C. approval requirement in the article. --dm (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge into Voting Rights page

The page on D.C. Statehood is short, and represents a subset of the subect matter of Voting rights in Washington, D.C. I am proposing a merger of the two, retaining the name of the latter. Any objections? --BlueMoonlet 15:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I decided to keep this page, since it pertains not only to District of Columbia voting rights but also District of Columbia home rule. See Talk:District of Columbia voting rights for more. --BlueMoonlet 04:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge D.C. Statehood and New Columbia

  • Merge as "D.C. Statehood" Someone has put a merger tag on both articles, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion as yet. I think this is a fine idea, as the article cover essentially the same subject matter, and I would have done it myself if I had had time. I would propose D.C. Statehood as a better title than New Columbia, as the latter is only one possible name that the proposed state might have. --BlueMoonlet 05:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge in same way and for the same reasons as BlueMoonlet mentions. Scoutersig 05:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per BlueMoonlet.--Tainter 07:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll do it.Ferrylodge 20:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why does D.C. Statehood fail?

I was just reading up the related articles on D.C. home rule, D.C. voting rights, D.C. Statehood and D.C. retrocession to Maryland and I was wondering why it all seems so difficult to give D.C. representation. As noted above, even Australia's capital territory is represented in both its House of Representatives and the Senate. Now it is true that have all of Washington D.C. become a state might require a constitutional amendment, but in the D.C. retrocession article there was a paragraph in the proposals section to the effect that most of the District could be retroceded to Maryland, with the exceptions of the National Capital Service Area (federal monuments, the White House, Congress, Supreme Court and other federal buildings) with the National Capital Service Area (NCSA) becoming a rump District. If that proposal doesn't require a constitutional amendment, then neither should Statehood for D.C., if a Statehood proposal includes separating the NCSA from the proposed New Columbia and retaining the NCSA as the District. Thus there would be the state of New Columbia and the District of Columbia with no need for a D.C. Voting Rights Amendment. In the fact the only amendment needed would be to repeal the 23rd amendment and it shouldn't be too hard to get the required number of states to get any such "repeal amendment" through. And if the article on 51st state(s) is correct, then Washingtonians are supposed to be the most in favour of statehood out of all the potential candidates (and this includes Puerto Rico where around 45-46% favoured statehood in the last few referenda). If that is the case, then it isn't hard to imagine that the majority (even if only a slim majority) of Washingtonians are in favour in statehood. Does anyone know if the Statehood advocates have any proposals along those lines (New Columbia and a rump D.C.)? Or do all the Statehood advocates put forward proposals to turn all of the District into a State?72.27.165.213 06:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You're puzzled perhaps because you have forgotten that the USA is racist, partisan, and undemocratic. That's mentioned in our article on D.C. voting rights. Korky Day 01:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Your claim that the fact that D.C. hasn't been made the State of New Columbia is a sign of America being "racist" and "undemocratic" is unsubstantiated and simplistic. There are plenty of people, including many D.C. residents, who don't want statehood, but do want D.C.'s current problems to be fixed. Are those people racists, because they don't agree to your solution?--Repeal 16-17 (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)\
Korky is a Canadian, don't expect much logic from him; only anti-american foolishness. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Taking the original question seriously if I might... It's true that a simply act of Congress could grant statehood to D.C. Congress is reluctant to do this because D.C. would be the second smallest state in population (ahead of Wyoming) and its population votes about 90% Democrat. This doesn't sit well with Republicans and the Senate as a whole because D.C. would then be entitled to two senators thus diluting everyone else's power. Not exactly a fair or principled argument, but logical. Retrocession doesn't seem to be popular with D.C. or Maryland residents. Marylanders don't relish the idea of taking responsibility for Washington's many urban problems (failing schools, rampant crime, etc.) while most of the D.C. residents I ask about the matter seem simply not to like Maryland much and like to bask in the city's unique status of not being part of any state. Seems like pretty shallow arguments to me. That's why as a D.C. resident I favor retrocession, but I'm pretty much in an extreme minority on this point. --D. Monack | talk 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Although I'm not a resident any where near DC or it's neighboring states, I too favor retrocession to Maryland, perhaps as Maryland's second independent city (Baltimore City being the first.) However, I think one of the real reasons something doesn't happen is just general apathy - no one really wants to do anything, too many people don't really care,a nd too many are OK with the status quo. Granted, that's all conjecture on my part, and certainly doesn't belong in the article as is, but at least it beats the "cause america is racist" line! - BillCJ (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia headings should not be abbreviated

Who can fix that to "District of Columbia statehood"? I don't know how. Korky Day 01:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homeland

Homeland? That's not what statehood is about by any stretch. Please stop adding this without verifiable, reliable sources to back up your claim,a nd a concensus here to include the phrases in the text. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A "homeland for the African-American people of DC"? Where are they moving to? Are non-African-Americans who live in DC going to be get their own ethnic homelands too? I'm beginning think this is simply vandalism or trolling, not a serious attempt to add info, esp given the IP is from Canada, not the DC area. I will file an AIV report or contact an admin if further changes are made without any serious attempt to discuss the issue AND gain a consensus first, and to provide sources to back up the 'homeland" language. - BillCJ (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The movement is hardly known *only* in the "DC area". People around the world are also familiar with this controversy, and we're supposed to cover all POV's (see Wikipedia:POV). For example, here's a BBC article on the statehood movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.134.80 (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a trend these days to ethnic self-determination, on all scales; DC's size is on the order of, say, a Kosovo, and, as I and anyone who's actually lived there will tell you, the secessionist spirit is at least as motivated by race as it is by, say, voting rights. DbelangeB (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Statehood has nothing to do with ethnic self determination, homelands, or secession. If there is a movement for DC to "secede", then that, but the actual definitions of words, "secession" means leaving the US, not becoming a state of the US. Btw, all the BBC link above states is about voting rights, and the piece is 7 years old. - BillCJ (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Secession" is too strong a word, I agree, but the meaning should be clear from context. "Statehood" also carries multiple meanings, some of them overtly ethnic; see, for example, the article on Israel, which Wikipedia calls "the world's only Jewish state". DbelangeB (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a solution would be to create a new article discussing secession and include an "other uses" link at the top of this article to the new article. Or a new section in this article might also suffice. 129.97.134.80 (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
"Statehood" as it is used in the phrase "D.C. statehood" means making D.C. a U.S. state like California or New Jersey. It never refers to secession from the U.S., because no one is advocating that. Please don't add anything about nationhood for D.C. to this article unless you have legitimate sources for this. Like I said, no such movement exists as far as I know, so citations would be hard to come by. --D. Monack | talk 02:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)