Comments on: Emancipation Without Representation http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/04/emancipation-without-representation/ Race, Class, The District. Mon, 16 Jul 2012 03:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Anonymous http://dcentric.wamu.org/2011/04/emancipation-without-representation/#comment-460 Anonymous Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:04:00 +0000 http://dcentric.wamu.org/?p=5820#comment-460 Recent events within the District of Columbia have been quite interesting! Actions of our Mayor have quite accurately pointed out how Congress is holding the City hostage. This sentiment has reared its odious head previously; revealing that special hatred and disregard harbored by some Congress members towards District residents. Not too long ago six Representatives, including John Boehner, objected to the District having a State Quarter issued. This is the same disregard that allows the City’s name and flag to be listed in any manner when there is a listing of all the states and/or their flags (e.g. sometimes you’ll find the city listed as District of Columbia and sometimes it’s listed as Washington, D.C). The District of Columbia is the Capitol of a Nation and its name and flag should ALWAYS follow the name of the country and its national flag. This logic follows the “Order of Precedence” used when listing the names of the Armed Services: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps (Seniority then by department). I believe these “haters” fail to realize that disrespecting the District and its residents is indistinguishable from disrespecting our nation. They are cutting off the nation’s nose to spite its face. Representation for DC residents could be accomplished by re-determining the “District” to be any land hosting a Federal building (collectively these various locations would be the Federal City in the same sense that an embassy is the territory of a foreign land). The remaining land would be granted statehood and given a name: e.g. the State of Columbia. The issue of DC representation (Statehood) has encountered the same tired retort time and again: The Founding fathers established the District to be independent. This is true of their original intent. The founding fathers envisioned a location where the elected persons from the various states would gather, perform the business of the country and then return to their respective states. They did not envision a city with permanent residents to develop. The social, economic and political dynamic which existed during the time of our founding fathers also failed to allow them to envision women’s suffrage (Nineteenth Amendment) and the emancipation of slaves (Thirteenth Amendment). However, our founding fathers did provide us with a mechanism to adjust the foundational document of our government: the amendment process. Said process empowers us, through deliberative effort, to address issues theretofore unanticipated. Establishing term limits for a person serving as President (Twenty-second Amendment) is yet another example where the Constitution has been changed to accommodate a new social, economic and political dynamic. Therefore, if one should encounter a person or persons who balk(s) at the idea of representation for District residents and start spewing off about the Founding Fathers’ original intent, he/she should note that the person or persons standing before him/her is/are (I am risking committing the fallacy of bifurcation here) at the very least intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. American Rogue DC Proud Resident of the District of Columbia – Capitol of a Nation Recent events within the District of Columbia have been quite interesting! Actions of our Mayor have quite accurately pointed out how Congress is holding the City hostage. This sentiment has reared its odious head previously; revealing that special hatred and disregard harbored by some Congress members towards District residents. Not too long ago six Representatives, including John Boehner, objected to the District having a State Quarter issued. This is the same disregard that allows the City’s name and flag to be listed in any manner when there is a listing of all the states and/or their flags (e.g. sometimes you’ll find the city listed as District of Columbia and sometimes it’s listed as Washington, D.C).

The District of Columbia is the Capitol of a Nation and its name and flag should ALWAYS follow the name of the country and its national flag. This logic follows the “Order of Precedence” used when listing the names of the Armed Services: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps (Seniority then by department). I believe these “haters” fail to realize that disrespecting the District and its residents is indistinguishable from disrespecting our nation. They are cutting off the nation’s nose to spite its face.

Representation for DC residents could be accomplished by re-determining the “District” to be any land hosting a Federal building (collectively these various locations would be the Federal City in the same sense that an embassy is the territory of a foreign land). The remaining land would be granted statehood and given a name: e.g. the State of Columbia.

The issue of DC representation (Statehood) has encountered the same tired retort time and again: The Founding fathers established the District to be independent. This is true of their original intent. The founding fathers envisioned a location where the elected persons from the various states would gather, perform the business of the country and then return to their respective states. They did not envision a city with permanent residents to develop. The social, economic and political dynamic which existed during the time of our founding fathers also failed to allow them to envision women’s suffrage (Nineteenth Amendment) and the emancipation of slaves (Thirteenth Amendment). However, our founding fathers did provide us with a mechanism to adjust the foundational document of our government: the amendment process. Said process empowers us, through deliberative effort, to address issues theretofore unanticipated. Establishing term limits for a person serving as President (Twenty-second Amendment) is yet another example where the Constitution has been changed to accommodate a new social, economic and political dynamic. Therefore, if one should encounter a person or persons who balk(s) at the idea of representation for District residents and start spewing off about the Founding Fathers’ original intent, he/she should note that the person or persons standing before him/her is/are (I am risking committing the fallacy of bifurcation here) at the very least intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient.

American Rogue DC

Proud Resident of the District of Columbia – Capitol of a Nation

]]>