Jump to content

Talk:District of Columbia federal voting rights

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Npendleton (talk | contribs) at 23:13, 8 April 2010 (i need to figure out how to better use signatures to own credit and responsibility for my own text.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WikiProject DC

"However, proponents of voting rights point out that Wyoming has a smaller population than the District, yet has the same number of Senators as California, the most populous state." This statement, although a true opinion of some, ignores the Connecticut Compromise and the reason for the Senate making it not very relevant. Recommended for deletion. 69.149.152.227 (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel what is being ignored should be in the article, and you can provide reliable sourcing, then add that material. Added that material would be better than removing the material you quoted. SMP0328. (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SMP0328. The information you quoted is not opinion, they are all true statements of fact. The information serves only to bolster the thinking behind the Connecticut Compromise. Best, epicAdam(talk) 04:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous?

The Constitution says: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States." Does this belong in the article? Ferrylodge (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that material, because that section already refers to Article I, Section 2. SMP0328. (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's from the 14th Amendment, not Article I. There is similar language in Article I.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, it's a restatement of what Article I says, but I'll restore that quote with wording clearly stating it comes from in the Constitution. SMP0328. (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the easiest thing is to just add it to the initial blockquote. I did that.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added it right after that quote. SMP0328. (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hepburn and Tidewater

In 1805, the Court said in Hepburn that "this is a subject for legislative, not for judicial, consideration." In Tidewater, the Court commented: "The latter sentence, to which much importance is attached, is somewhat ambiguous, because constitutional amendment, as well as statutory revision, is for legislative, not judicial, consideration." So, I don't think this Wikipedia article should assert that Hepburn gave a green light to Congress.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteenth Amendment

The Sixteenth Amendment is a potential constitutional argument for (or against) DC statehood, and while it was not the focus on Senator Leahy's statement, is discussed in it. It seems to me that it should remain in the Constitutional provisions section since, contrary to SMP0328.'s assertion, is not covered elsewhere on the page. -- Autopilot (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sixteenth Amendment applies the same to the District of Columbia, the territories and the States. The reference to the "several States" is in the part of the amendment which overruled Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.. The fact that DC is not a State in no way limits the Congress's authority to "lay and collect" income taxes within DC. Because DC's non-State status is irrelevant to the Sixteenth Amendment, the Sixteenth Amendment is irrelevant to this article. SMP0328. (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Proposed Reforms section

User:Justicelovespeace had reordered the Proposed Reforms section to list Statehood first and Legislative action last. I have reversed this change for the following reasons:

  1. I think it makes sense to order information so the most timely information is presented first.
  2. The current order has a logical cascading effect. In essence, each section describes the proposed reform, then the solution, and why it doesn't work. The next section then logically answers the problem of the first, and so on.
  3. Related to the issue above, the sections are currently written to be read in this order. For example, the amendment section refers to proposed legislation mentioned in the section above, and the statehood section refers to the amendment process, etc. If we were to reorder the sections, we would run into problems of duplicating information. For example, explaining what the DC Voting Rights Amendment was in the statehood section only to refer to it again in the Amendment section.

In any event, I have opened this issue up for discussion just to explain my reasoning. Best, epicAdam(talk) 13:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have an additional reason. The current order goes from the smallest (legislation granting one Representative) to the greatest change (Statehood). That's preferable to having it in greatest to smallest order. SMP0328. (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Introduction

I am deeply concerned that fact checked NPOV History and information is being removed. It is sad. This space is supposed to support the facts. The vague terminology on the page and absence of the key history is (or was) quite striking. I have tried to correct it and add the key facts, but find that bias and POV of other editors requires them to delete the key events. The Individual Rights, States Rights, and access to Federal Rights are Central to this issue and this Wikipedia page, and how they were extinguished by Congress is the question here. The POV redactions and vandalism by SMP0328 of US Constitutional Rights abolished by Congress are breath taking.

The page was very long, used vague words, and ignored the central problem, Congresses exclusive interpretation of "Exclusive" and how it abrogated Rights and Checks and Balance in this place. Without this fact checked history of Congress, the motive for the District of Columbia asking for restoration of Rights is lost. Deleting factual history and present day News makes this entire page Anti-Rights Astroturf again.

Given the importance of rights, such "Freedom of Speech" as applied from the First Amendment of the US Constitution, and is central to the existence of Wikipedia, suggests that the redaction of United Constitution and Amendment citations in this Wikipedia article is shockingly bad. Particularly when they are at the introduction. How do we address this pattern of POV redactions, deletions and fact checked content removal, and stop wasting the reputation of Wikipedia.

The only good news about the biased deletions by SMP0328, is that I got to read the Fourteenth Amendment Again.

Can anyone find one fact that is incorrect in this paste of my effort to remove the POV of those opposed to Voting and Civil Rights? Please point it out to us all to assure NPOV, and not just delete what does not match your own bias.

The United States Congress repealed, extinguished, and alienated almost all Voting rights of Citizens in the District of Columbia, from Maryland, starting about 1801. The United States Congress treats Citizens of Washington, D.C. as "Separate and Unequal" from other United States Citizens, because the United States Congress controls both the States Rights of this District, and most Federal Rights of this District. United States Congress, interprets Article One, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution as unsupervised "Exclusive" Congressional Legislative Powers superior to any guarantee of most Individual Rights, States Rights, and Federal Rights of Citizens of the Washington, D.C., as described in the US Constitution, such as the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Citizens of the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.) have asked for restoration of some or all nationally standard Civil Rights, Voting Rights, States Rights, and access to Federal Rights, to and for the Citizens of the District of Columbia.

Congress partitioned ("cession"ed) the Citizens of Georgetown, Maryland and District of Columbia from the State of Maryland, between 1790 and 1801, (and a part of Virginia until 1846, but returned to protect slavery). Maryland signed the Declaration of Independence, and the United States Constitution, and the Maryland Constitution of 1776, and those laws applied to all of Maryland, including the District of Columbia until US Congressional take over of Georgetown, Maryland and the larger county of Washington, D.C. in 1801. The United States Congress established "Exclusive" legislative power over the District of Columbia. Congress extinguished all States Rights and Federal Rights, and many Individual Voting Rights of the Citizens of the District of Columbia and Georgetown, Maryland.

Washington, D.C., and its Citizens, were stripped and are denied by Congress in perpetuity of its Statehood, State Constitution, State Governor, State Legislature, County Sheriff's Department, United States Senators elected from this place, full voting membership in the United States House of Representatives elected from this place, nomination as well as unfettered "Advice and Consent" during appointment of its own Local, County and State Judges, and any binding "Advice and Consent" through the US Senate during appointment of any Federal Judge with Jurisdiction that includes the District of Columbia. Congress became the unquestioned Fiduciary and Custodian of States Rights and access to Federal Rights for the District of Columbia.

Most the United States Constitution does not apply to the District of Columbia because of ambiguity of Congress's "Exclusive" interpretation (unchecked and unbalanced) of Article One, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution. Therefore most of Articles One, Three, Four, Five, Six, of the United States Constitution have been barred from these United States Citizens, due to their Citizenship in the District of Columbia, previously bestowed by Maryland. Congressional interpretation of "Exclusive" also undermines Amendments 14, 15, 19, 24, and 26. Congress can move the seat of national government to any place in these United States and repeat the District of Columbia rights alienation precedent through simple Federal law of Congress such as the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801, based on powers from Article One, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.

Starting with 1964 Presidential Election, the first Presidential Election since 1804 (or possibly as early as 1796) permitted in Washington, D.C. by the Many States, through the Twenty Third Amendment of the United States Constitution, D.C. Citizens were allowed Voting Rights for electing the United States President, and voted. Twenty Third Amendment of the United States Constitution permits Washington D.C. Citizens electoral votes but only equal to the smallest other State, so only three, but not full voting Members of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate. The Twenty Third Amendment partially reapplies Article Two of the United States Constitution and also permits Amendments 15, 19, 24, 26, to apply to the District of Columbia for US Presidential Elections starting with 1964. In the U.S. House of Representatives, the District is entitled to a delegate, who is not allowed to vote on the floor of the House, but can vote on procedural matters and in House committees.

There are almost 600,000 citizens of the District of Columbia. Some residents of the District of Columbia are not citizens, such as full voting members of the US House of Representatives, members of the United States Senate, the President of the United States, the Vice-President of the United States, are all conferred State Citizenship from where they were elected, and formerly resided. Foreign Diplomats retain their foreign citizenship when residing in the District of Columbia. Critics of DC Voting and Civil Rights often confusingly refer to District of Columbia Citizens as merely residents, to down-play questions involving State Citizenship rights, Individual Rights, access to States Rights, and access to Federal Rights. The term "reside" and "Citizen" are central to the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The United States is the only NATO country (a military alliance of democratic and market based nations) and the only OECD country (30 wealthiest, market based, and democratic nations) that denies citizens of its national capital full voting representation in its national legislature. No State Capital denies voting rights to its citizens, even Montpelier, Vermont has full Civil and Voting Rights. The only State to bar most Constitutional Rights, is run "Exclusive"ly by the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives who are Fiduciary and Custodian of the States Rights of the District of Columbia. No one has identified a judge with jurisdiction over this place, that was appointed since 1801, that was appointed by and had "advice and consent" from the Citizens of this place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.146.226 (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the article as being in violation of NPOV, because of the replacement of the old Introduction with a rant by 207.172.146.226. This anon is certainly entitled to his/her opinion, but Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be used as bully pulpits. The Introduction should be returned to the way it was before today. I would do this myself, but I have already reverted this anon multiple times and believe that if I continue to do so I risk being blocked on 3RR grounds. So, instead I added the POV tag. SMP0328. (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fully stand by my work be it by IP address or jumping through login hoops. Find something that is factually inaccurate, I and will help you make this long history and process more precise. Your POV is the problem here. Dispute the facts. Not just delete willy nilly. I would enjoy a reply to this thread. Also who has overwrite permission for the update summaries. I wrote to you SMP0328 'Stop removing correct and powerful legal terms like citizen! POV using "residents" is wrong' but I find instead 'Stop removing correct and powerful legal terms like citizen POV using "residents" if wrong'. Dispute one fact and I can work with you. Using your POV to destroy NPOV is wrong. Find one, and I will help you. Npendleton talk Npendleton (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry first fact issue, the link I wrote the Declaration of Independence points to all, not US, now fixed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npendleton (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:District_of_Columbia_federal_voting_rights&oldid=354845925"