[dangerlibrary]

Try living in DC.

It's a special kind of hell to live in the city where all this is taking place - where the local news IS what is going on in Congress (good and bad) - and not even be able to write to a voting representative in either house.

[discardorama]

San Francisco is similar in a way. Nancy Pelosi keeps winning with massive margins, simply because of her name and the fact that she's part of the political machine here; and no one goes anywhere in SF politics without the backing of the machine. And the machine prevents viable challengers from coming forth. For all practical purposes, we don't _have_ a representative who will represent us; she just represents the rich and the powerful.

[samstave]

And she is corrupt to the core, maybe almost as much as Feinstein who's husband's company Bechtel was one of the top profiteers in the wars.

[cwp]

And yet, Feinstein was the one who did battle with the CIA to get the torture report published. Establishing that crimes were committed is the first step toward prosecuting the criminals.

I'd be the last to defend corruption, but it's important to point out that these things are relative. A republic can tolerate a little graft and profiteering. It cannot tolerate torture.

[kabdib]

Read about Feinstein and the crypto wars.

She's a lying sack of garbage. Maybe, just maybe she had an attack of conscience about the CIA thing -- my guess is that she realized it would make it out anyway, and decided it would be better to look good on that account than defend something obviously illegal.

[kabdib]

I should add: And then work to have any repercussions be a wrist slap. "Don't do that again, okay?" and a wink.

Just watch. Nothing will happen.

I wonder who the next intelligence committee lapdog is going to be?

[discardorama]

> And yet, Feinstein was the one who did battle with the CIA to get the torture report published.

And she's great at doing just that: throwing the liberals a bone once in a rare while, which keeps them happy (no offense meant). She had no choice about releasing the report: she was going to get booted out of the SIC at the end of the year. If she didn't release the report (as was demanded by lots and lots of people), it would have been impossible to do so after January 1.

In any case: if she hadn't released it, Mark Udall would have, since he has nothing to lose.

[001sky]

but it's important to point out that these things are relative.

This and the CIA never crucified, amputated, or executed men on film for progoganda...which is what we look at now on the news every other week.

Not to mention CIA's lethal drone program (incl. under Obama) has killed, maimed, and injured more innocent men/women/children than the EIA stuff.

[spacefight]

If you can - take your tax money elsewhere.

[dangerlibrary]

Unfortunately, it is not possible to solve the problem that way. There are over 600,000 people living in this city - more than the population of Wyoming and Vermont. You wouldn't just tell everyone in Vermont to move to New Hampshire because the federal government can't get its act together. I was born and grew up in this city, as were many people who happen to fall on this side of the DC border.

[spacefight]

I agree that it's hard to relocate, that's why I stated "if you can". Some can and some do leave the places where they grew up for reasons of unhappiness with the policies of their gov.

[dangerlibrary]

That addresses my complaint, but doesn't solve the problem. There will always be residents of the District of Columbia - it's a city. Just like San Francisco or Chicago. The federal buildings make up a tiny fraction of the land area - the rest is private businesses and people's homes. The people who live in those homes should be allowed to vote.

[lambda]

I don't understand why they don't just change the District of Columbia to consist only of the federal buildings, and give the rest back to Maryland (I don't believe there are still any residences on the Virginia side of the river, but if so, give that land back to Virginia).

Then there can be the constitutionally mandated federal district, that consists simply of the federal buildings, and everywhere that people live (outside of the White House, Number One Observatory Circle, and maybe a few other formal federal residences) would actually be within state jurisdiction.

This already happened to the bulk of the Virginia side of DC in 1847 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocess...). I don't see why they don't just do that again with the rest.

[flavor8]

Geography, for a start. Federal buildings quite widespread, not just concentrated around the mall.

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/22431

[brianpgordon]

It's probably a good idea for DC to not be inside the territory of any state. Maryland would have the power to severely disrupt the federal government otherwise, and it could be seen as a conflict of interest if Maryland asks for a bunch of money to improve their roads or emergency services, since some of it will trickle back down to benefit the federal government.

[spacefight]

I fully agree that everyone should be allowed to vote. Solving the specific problem is hard. I just wanted to give a small hint, that if someone is not happy with the status quo, they might try to change it.

Of course I have to add, that first it would make much more sense to try to change the local sentiment first - usually done by enganging in your locale community.

[Cyther606]

Relocating your family to an alternate tax farm wouldn't accomplish much. The social contract has been severed.

In the USCIA, it's no longer possible to engage with your local community without being cognizant of government spies. After all that happened with the Occupy movement, if the criminals who oversaw these sadistic acts of torture aren't brought to justice, and it instead comes down to grassroots activism, I for one wouldn't count on justice.

And here's to hoping that I can at least continue to speak frankly on the internet. I certainly foresee my use of Tor creating problems for me down the road. It's why I'm such a big fan of Bitcoin, because that's the only viable way I'm aware of to defund these psychopaths.

[Dylan16807]

There was one itty bitty spot in the entire middle band of this continent that people could move to and wouldn't be able to vote. So hundreds of thousands of people did. Still confuses me.

[dangerlibrary]

I didn't move here, I was born here. I work here for a private company that has no relationship to the federal government. My home is here.

The apathy about this issue is what confuses me - what harm would it do to allow DC residents to vote? What reason could you have to oppose DC citizens gaining the right to vote? The argument that federal government workers should be forbidden from voting is incredibly hollow - the vast majority of them reside outside the city. Also, this is tantamount to saying "Park Rangers in Idaho shouldn't be allowed to vote," a position I have never heard put forward.

[jfoutz]

Historically, i think it made some sense. now with instant communication, it seems hard for locals to influence congress unduly.

Personally, I have no problem with adding DC as another state.

Politically, it'll never happen (imho). why would any senator give up 2% of their power to add 2 more senators? There are probably many issues blocking, but on that one at least is a monster to overcome.

[curun1r]

There's no need to add it as a separate state, just give back the land that Virginia and Maryland originally donated to create DC in the first place. Then when the next census rolls around, residents would be considered during redistricting.

No new senators would be created, so no yielding 2% power, and Maryland and Virginia might get 1-2 more electoral votes and/or congressional representatives.

I would imagine that the main issue that would need to be resolved is jurisdictional...would laws passed in Maryland and Virginia apply to residents of DC? If so, it's conceivable that those states could influence Federal policy. What would happen if one of those states made it illegal to order a drone strike without the approval from one of their courts...could the President be arrested and charged in that state for violating that law?

[desdiv]

The jurisdictional problem isn't as big as it seems, because not 100% of the land will be returning to Maryland, only 99.99% of it. To wit, the White House, the Capitol, and the Supreme Court building will still retain their status quo[0].

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocessi...

[saalweachter]

Not to mention that neither the Pentagon nor the CIA are in DC.

[dragonwriter]

> What would happen if one of those states made it illegal to order a drone strike without the approval from one of their courts...could the President be arrested and charged in that state for violating that law?

Probably not, because Supremacy Clause. Federal officers operate in the states fairly regularly, and this general issue (not the specific issue involving the President and drone strikes in particular) has been litigated extensively.

[einhverfr]

it's not even just the Supremacy clause. Generally speaking, the state governments cannot regulate federal agents, nor can the federal government regulate state agents except for things like the equal protection clause.

See Coleman v. Maryland, holding that since the medical leave act provisions under the Family and Medical Leave Act were passed under the commerce clause, not the EPC, then state governments were not bound to it.

[dalke]

"why would any senator give up 2% of their power to add 2 more senators?"

Presumably for reasons similar to ones that lead previous Congresses to add the previous 37 states to the Union, despite even higher dilution of power.

[jfoutz]

Manifest destiny? Vast natural resources? Strategic location? I don't see a compelling political reason to do it, but fortunately we're free to disagree.

[dalke]

If DC's Members of Congress are likely to vote with the Democrats (which I think they are) and Congress has just enough Democrats to allow DC to become a state, but a couple of offices are shaky and they are likely to loose power, then bringing in DC as a new state would help keep the Democrats in power.

That sounds like a decent reason. Not compelling, but decent. It only needs to be enough to counter the anti-dilution argument, after all.

Puerto Rico's statehood is more likely though. In the 2012 election both Obama and Romney indicated support for statehood should that be what the people of PR decide. That's complicated because apparently the Republican Party of PR is the statehood party, even though PR is likely to vote for the Democratic Party. (See http://www.caribbeanbusinesspr.com/news/dc-lobbyist-warning-... )

So, D's control the House and Senate, DC and PR become states, and the D's pick up about 10 seats and hold power even longer. That's more compelling than DC alone.

[rtpg]

>why would any senator give up 2% of their power to add 2 more senators?

I think the issue is more why would any republican senator vote for it, since DC is extremely liberal and would be confirmed Democratic bastions

[rayiner]

The harm is that DC is already "the capital" from hunger games. Housing prices going up while the rest of the country suffers. People here don't need the vote. Heck, we should take it away from NoVa and Maryland for good measure.

[dangerlibrary]

Housing in DC didn't have the crash that the rest of the country experienced, that's true. Of course, neither did Houston's, or San Francisco's, or much of New York City's.

By contrast, people who don't live in DC didn't have their pay cut 10% by mandatory furloughs demanded by a governing body they have no vote in. People who don't live in DC get to pass laws determining how they want to live, without those laws being vetoed by representatives from Oklahoma who find them politically inconvenient in their home state.

I haven't even touched on the fact that DC's population is over 50% black, and has been for decades. It may not be the case now, but in the past the arguments for refusing DC residents the right to vote were very explicitly racial.

[eru]

> Housing prices going up while the rest of the country suffers.

Aren't rising house prices also a problem?

[bmelton]

If the problem is that too many members of the underclass live in D.C. without representation, then rising house prices is, in a somewhat sadistic sense, a potential solution.

[Dylan16807]

I'm not blaming you, I'm blaming your ancestors.

I'm not against letting DC vote to fix the problem at this point. But this situation is ridiculous. There was no reason to start a major city in the no-voting zone.

[TheCoelacanth]

The no-voting zone was created around two already existing cities (Georgetown and Alexandria).

[eru]

Why? Not having a vote is not a major pain point for most people.

[Dylan16807]

Can someone explain why they downvoted me? This comment was positive for quite a while...

(Please tell me it wasn't because someone thought I was including dangerlibrary in those hundreds of thousands. That's a distinction that really doesn't matter, and I didn't want to double the size of the post with a disclaimer.)

[eru]

Who cares about voting anyway?