Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: (ReacTor) Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line
 of Succession
Date: 19 Oct 2024 15:04:28 GMT
Lines: 172
Message-ID: <lni03sF4ch7U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ve3er7$bc5$1@panix2.panix.com>
 <g1lagj1nisg9lcp7v86keo3ajmvfec6si6@4ax.com> <ve4p55$2givf$2@dont-email.me>
 <ou8dgjp2mtgu5jv93ml600u284ifrccfpn@4ax.com> <ve6frg$2o1c0$2@dont-email.me>
 <2gtfgj9p2r66h84afc2hfapm4l2gflac9b@4ax.com> <ve8vb8$37i5m$1@dont-email.me>
 <ve9vu6$3cd21$1@dont-email.me> <vebftp$3n8j2$1@dont-email.me>
 <ln2ujvFq0s8U1@mid.individual.net> <vejmnc$1a2l8$1@dont-email.me>
 <ln752kFf3t0U1@mid.individual.net> <vem0cj$1oeb0$1@dont-email.me>
 <ln9rsnFrkhqU1@mid.individual.net> <veoo5r$2afu4$1@dont-email.me>
 <lnalhfFusvU1@mid.individual.net> <vern01$2sb1f$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net Ru3V5fqqR0w63xJ/eH6X8QXVt/4hIJkMN3V7YCK+vgPUfZSW1+
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zK3zeegIocX5x0ggGdZdgosCYw0= sha256:dXQX3WTClFSaSXmsMZ4K5Y2sful2PBbCIz5KLAGrOOI=
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Bytes: 8504

On 2024-10-17, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2024-10-16, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>> On 2024-10-15, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-10-14, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-11, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/2024 9:28 AM, William Hyde wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
>>>>>>>>>>>> probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
>>>>>>>>>>>> a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
>>>>>>>>>> the first place.  ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I understand it a number of people in Georgetown and other
>>>>>>>>> settlements in what became DC were rather unhappy with their loss of
>>>>>>>>> voting rights.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When I lived in DC someone published a few letters from the time as part
>>>>>>>>> of the movement to enfranchise the residents of DC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The issue in DC has not been about being able to vote for a long time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It certainly was when I lived there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
>>>>>>>> decades,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only plans that will never come to fruition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want
>>>>>>>> to vote that much."  The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
>>>>>>>> in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maryland doesn't want them.  That's what makes the plan so perfect for
>>>>>>> the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing
>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Baloney!
>>>>>
>>>>> Reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look it up.  It's not popular in Maryland.
>>>>
>>>> Please give your citations.
>>>   From the Washington Post, in 2019:
>>>
>>> "The Post-U. Md. poll finds Marylanders oppose making the District a new
>>> county in their state, a plan called “retrocession,” by 57 percent to 36
>>> percent. There is little variation depending on political party, with
>>> majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents all opposed."
>>>
>>> Other polls can be found supporting this.  It's not hard  to find.
>> 
>> That seems like an insignificant barrier to overcome,
>
>
> More polls asking different questions can be found.  If you want to.

Please give citations that actually support your case.

>
>   given all the
>> publicity in the previous years was about alternatives (the DC statehood
>> referendum).  It's pretty close but especially insignificant when
>> you consider the polls indicate only 20% support for retrocession
>> among DC residents.  Maryland residents are almost twice as much in
>> favor of it as DC residents!
>> 
>> I don't understand why you consider Maryland resident support, who don't
>> get to vote on the issue, is more important than DC resident support, who
>> do get to vote on the issue.
>
> Can Maryland be compelled  to take DC back?  I'd be very surprised if 
> that were so.

The Maryland *legislature* gets to vote on DC; the *residents* don't.
The *DC residents* do get to vote.

> Can the federal government compel states to change their borders?  How 
> interesting that would be.
>
> Do the voters of DC actually have any legal rights in this?

Yes, but exactly where and when the line is drawn hasn't been legally
tested. One of the only Constitutional requirements for a state to be
approved is that it has to be governed by the consent of its citizens
(republican form of government). In practice, this has meant voting
for becoming a state in those questionable cases. Examples include
1) the Virginia retrocession, which had to not only be approved by the
Virginia legislature but also the citizens of Virginia side DC (which at
the time meant white male residents since the major purpose of the Virginia
retrocession was to preserve slavery in that area),
2) The Puerto Rico statehood. US Congress is currently attempting to work
towards a "binding referendum" for Puerto Rico that has to be approved
before Congress will vote on statehood.

>> And note that all of this is about Maryland actually re-annexing DC.
>> The much more likely proposal (and the one the Republicans keep
>> suggesting) is for DC residents to be able to vote as Maryland residents,
>> but otherwise remain separate.
>
> That would equally dilute their voting power.

?? Equally with what?  Whose voting power?

>> 
>>>
>>>>>> First, both DC and Maryland are heavily Democratic;
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> The issue is an intensely political issue.
>>>
>>>
>>> If we can't rise above politics on an issue of fundamental rights, what
>>> are we?
>>>
>>> To make my position clear:
>>>
>>> Reunion with Maryland would be fair.  Whether or not the citizens of DC
>>> want it, it can be done.
>> 
>> ??? It can't be done without the citizens of DC approving 
>
> As above, I'd be interested in the legal basis for this.  They were not 
> asked to approve when the district was formed.
>
> Article one, section eight, gives congress power over DC.  Congress 
> regularly overturns laws passed by the city.
>
> The voting rights act of 2007, which would have given some justice by 
> allowing DC (and Utah, just to keep the political balance) a seat in the 
> house did not pass a republican filibuster in the senate, gaining only 
> 57 votes.
>
> A similar bill in 2009 did pass the senate, but only with a republican 
> amendment requiring DC to abandon all gun-control legislation.  It died 
> in the house.

Those are pure political theater. Not-withstanding Holder's opinion
that the right to vote is so fundamental that it overrides the clear
text in the rest of the Constitution, it is clearly unconstitutional
and has been viewed so for hundreds of years. That's why things like
the 23rd Amendment giving DC the right to vote in presidential
elections had to be a full constitutional amendment, not just law.

> I am not as sanguine about the republicans' good intentions as are you.

Clearly the Republicans have the motive of denying the 2 Senators that
statehood would give DC. But that is a different issue than denying
voting rights. That DC should have voting rights has frequently been
part of the Republican platform, but they are firmly against DC statehood.

Almost everybody agrees with you that DC residents should have voting
rights. As I said originally, that is not the issue. The Democrats
have hijacked the issue; they have not been willing to discuss resolutions
that do not give them 2 Democratic Senators. 

Chris