(07-09-2020 07:51 PM)mrbig Wrote: (07-09-2020 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: I guess analysis of an issue isnt a good thing for you. Some of us still do that when 'statehood history cheat sheet' isnt an option.
The states that have been admitted stand in one of a few buckets:
a) original 13 signatories (as sovereigns in their own right);
b) direct carve outs from states (mainly dues to a perceived difference of focus within a state) (Maine, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama)
c) formation of states from a territory or portion of a territory, the territory having a specific economic focus as evidenced by their own petitions and primary cuts at Constitutions that lent to localized sovereignty as opposed to 'governance from afar' (the majority of states)
d) formation of a state from a territory, the territory having a uniqueness in geography that lent to localized sovereignty (Hawaii, Alaska)
e) the acceptance of a state that was a sovereign unto itself (Texas, Vermont)
Yes, when I get interested in why looking for the 'list' is good; when that 'list' isnt available I actually try to ascertain from the record 'why'.
That is my cut at it.
I have said on multiple occasions that DC is in a unique position and that your historical examples do not really apply.
Original 13 - hasn't applied in over 220 years
Direct carve-outs - hasn't applied in over 100 years
Territories transition to statehood (non-geography) - hasn't applied in over 100 years
Territories transition to statehood (geographic) - hasn't applied for 60 years and clearly not a basket that DC falls into (unlike Puerto Rico)
State previously sovereign - hasn't applied in 175 years
I don't see any problem with adding a new category to your list.
Just like a progressive to invent a brand new rationale and pull it out of their ass. Kind of the way y'all apply Constitutional law, so why not this instance. Color me surprised
Kind of repeated in the bold there. Screw the historical reasons/rationales -- lets just make one up to fit our current situation. Sounds like smashing fun there.
Quote: (07-09-2020 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: As opposed to simply stating 'North Dakota makes no sense as a state' as a blind comment, bummer, I try to find out the underlying reason why North Dakota is a state.
Lol, now for everyone's favorite pastime where Tanq literally invents a quote and attributes it to someone.
Actually lad did say this (or its equivalent). My error was in implied attribution there. I am so fing sorry.
Quote: (07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote: That wasn't very many words at all, which you would realize if you were really reading the ole' history books you alluded to above.
Yes, asshat, I did try to read the histories. That is before making a vacuous statement like 'I dont know why North Dakota is a state'. Maybe that is a difference between you and I. Maybe not.
Again with the made-up quote? You made up 2 quotes for me about North Dakota?
Just one there. My error here was a direct attribution to you.
Quote:No need to name-call, my "wasn't very many words" comment was meant as a joke and the "history books" comment was just a retort after you were a jerk and started lecturing me about history.
Perhaps if you did a little bit of background such a lecture wouldnt be necessary. The response was to your snide aside implying that I didnt bother to look at the background. So yes, the name calling was a perfect response to your snide as fk remark there.
From this perspective you are simply tossing a grab bag of **** against the wall in your support of DC statehood.
Glad to know you didnt have a historical insight into the process. That would have made you intentionally dishonest. Now, I guess what we should ascertain is that you dont give a rats ass about the rationales in the historical context. Sounds like fun.
Quote:Your horse is so high, how can you possibly dismount without hurting yourself?
, sparky.
Quote: (07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Have fun embracing 'Federal government' as the special economic reason for statehood. Sounds pretty fing stupid to me. As I would surmise it would to most.
But, you have to play the cards you are dealt, dont you?
We have different opinions. Oh no!
Yes we do, and your opinion is that we have to have a special sovereign to look after the economic interests of the Federal government. That is, representative for the economic interests of the Federal government..... in..... (get this now)...... the federal government itself. (I **** you not....)
Again, do *you* think that sounds like anything remotely as smart or sane? In the first place, it sounds like a pretty much dumb as **** proposition myself. Secondly, it sounds exactly like the situation that the Founding Fathers expressly tried to avoid.
Quote: (07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote: So one of the factors about whether a place that is not currently a self-governing sovereign should be a self-governing sovereign is whether the place is a self-governing sovereign?
I guess you arent familiar with the rationale why Texas was admitted directly as a state. Most people in this part of the country are somewhat familiar with that background.
And, that talk ahs been used when people have mentioned the possibility of admittance of the various portions of Canada --- since under the Canadian systems each province is already a sovereign.
I am sorry you dont understand. I guess that is one of the advantages of *actually* 'reading the historys that I alluded to.'
I understand ... my point was that this historical rationale obviously doesn't apply to all states, in fact it doesn't apply to most states. It obviously doesn't apply to DC.
Amazing, I am glad there is one factor you arent flushing down the toilet in quest to flush them all down the toilet.
Quote:Though in full fairness, I do owe you a slight apology as I misinterpreted your list to mean "factors" instead of "historical rationales" (which is what you actually wrote). I would have been slightly less snide with some of my responses if I had properly understood your list as being one of historic rationales (to which I have responded that DC is unique and doesn't fit your rationales) rather than factors (which made me think you were arguing that a combination of the list applied, rather than your list largely being one of distinct categories). So my bad on that one.
In fairness, in the way I interpret the admission of states, if one applies with any force, that has been a reason to admit the state.
Quote: (07-08-2020 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Yep, your factors boil down to: a) poor DC city council doesnt know any one; and b) a smidgeon of air attempts that have zero relation as to the classic issues of why an area is deemed a sovereign state. And some 'Sharpie' rants about previous borders.
You doing OK? You seem to be taking the low road more than usual. Sorry if I have contributed to that, I'm mostly trying to stay civil and more light-hearted.
(07-09-2020 12:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Funny, you previously made such a big show about Home Rule (and how it equated to sovereignty), yet in your rush you dont even notice how you have already made your last sentence a complete 180 from that previous point. Good job.
Big show?
(07-08-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote: Congress passed the Home Rule Act which has already significantly lightened the load of Congress needing to oversee DC affairs. According DC sovereign status takes this the rest of the way and helps remove the force of national politics on issues that should be purely local.
...
I honestly haven't done much research into this, but it seems like since the Home Rule Act was passed DC is operating at >50% sovereign, but with the knowledge that Congress could undo anything or remove all sovereign-like powers if it wanted to.
That was a pretty pitiful "big show" since I literally wrote that I hadn't done much research into it.
(07-09-2020 12:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: And 3 is a rhetorical question with the passage of Home Rule, and the existence of an independent Mayor and City Council.
That impacts question 5. DC is a city, the city council as such has the effective power of a state over the entire 68.4 sq mi jurisdiction.
My understanding from my extremely limited and non-exhaustive research (aka my "big show") is that Congress can essentially veto or overturn a lot of what the city council or mayor does. Moreover, Congress can just get rid of home rule completely.
Big difference between they 'can' and the extent that they do. Effectively, there is little to no oversight by Congress.
As to the last sentence they can as well. Relatedly, the President *can* also invoke the Insurrection Act on pretty much any grounds they want to. Historically, they havent. Doesnt make the Insurrection Act a killer for me.
If you could show me a long history of very realistic threats to do away with home rule, you might have a better point here. But you dont.