You’re too fuckin dumb to troll homeboy
Because otherwise the president and Vice Presidents families would control 3 electoral votes , as they would be the only ‘residents’ of the federal city. Can’t just ignore the amendment - would have to be addressed.
They aren’t denied representation. They can move.
When the Colonists protested against the Crown over taxation without representation, it wasn’t just those people in Boston - NOBODY in the colonies from GA to NH had ‘representation.’
If people in DC want to be represented, they can move a few blocks to MD or VA. Nobody is forcing them to live in DC. The Constitution establishes that the seat of the government is in a federal district, not a state. So the District is here to stay.
Again, this is entirely a democrat pretext.
The Constitution says Congress determines how those three electors are chosen. So if they don’t want the POTUS and VP families to control those votes, then they can change it. Again, there is no population requirement for the District. So what you mean is that you think the Constitution should be amended if most of DC were annexed into an existing state, but it is not required.
What about the 23rd amendment?
that indian’s i-talian.
And to be clear- I think it would be required. The right of dc citizens to have those electors vote is enshrined. If the only residents left after slicing up the district to MDVA are the incumbent pres/vp, that’s an issue that requires correction.
There are a lot of examples of taxation without representation in the U.S. Why should the residents of D.C. expect any different.
A lot? Please provide that list. All citizens should have the right to vote and elect their government.
One example: California charges a sales tax on Internet sales to California customers from other states (although it should properly paid as a use tax by the end consumer. The out-of-state seller is not represented in California, cannot petition as a constituent to a representative if the tax is too high, cannot start a recall petition in California.
That is comparing apples to water buffaloes
So is comparing an administrative district to a state.
Listen… let the canadian tell you how your country works… mind your business…
I’m comparing citizens who can participate in democracy with those who can’t. I don’t care what name you attach to their geographic location.
I had read the 23rd amendment. What in it do you think requires that it be repealed if DC residents are mostly absorbed into an existing state?
What about Art. I that establishes a federal district that is not a state?
The seat of the government is required to be a Federal district, not a state. People are perfectly free to live there, or live in a state, are they not?
You can’t get away from the fact that the district is required to exist. So it’s up to people to decide if they want to live there or not. There isn’t a wall around DC keeping people in. They can chose to live in the district, and accept all that comes with that, or move to a state.
Why are you fighting so hard for these people when it’s really that simple and easy of a choice for them?
We could just let DC’s current representative to vote instead of being a non-voting member. That would be an improvement.
That would be rational. I was surprised to find out that seat was not allowed to vote.