13.7.04
TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION: I realise that I'm about two (or two hundred) years late on this particular subject. The DMV in the District of Columbia started issuing licence plates which say "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" in place of the old "Celebrate & Discover". It sounds nice, and the platitudes about how the United States are hypocritical because their leaders extol democracy and the residents of their capital city cannot *sob* practice it at the national level. So here's my question. What should be done about it? Some folks are calling for statehood for the District (which, if it doesn't violate article I, section 8 of the constitution, at the least raises constitutional questions).
My philosophy is rather simpler: Retrocede the vast majority of D.C. back to Maryland, keeping various spots as the "federal district": the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, the National Mall and the government buildings thereon, etc. Cede the rest to Maryland and give Maryland an extra vote in the House of Representatives until the next census is taken.
Here in Virginia, we acknowledge that we've paid the personal property tax on our cars with little stickers issued by the various localities. Fairfax County (my locality) back, from 1987 to 1991, celebrated the bicentennial of the signing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by proclaiming on its property tax stickers that it is the home of the Bill of Rights (which was written by a citizen of Fairfax County, George Mason).
My point is that, on the stickers of Arlington County, you don't see "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION". That's because, back in 1844, the vast majority of land ceded back to the Commonwealth was the entirity of modern-day Arlington (the remainder being part of what is now the City of Alexandria).
I don't call for statehood (which, thinking about it, could resolve the constitutional issues similarly as retrocession) for another reason: why should a chunk of land with as few (or fewer) people than Wyoming and which is smaller by far than Rhode Island become a state? Why should it not simply be part of one, as it was until two centuries ago? You could make a stronger case that the land which comprises Fairfax and Arlington Counties and the Cities of Fairfax, Falls Church and Alexandria should become a new state by seceding from the Commonwealth.
And I think that the compromise ("retrocession lite", I've heard it called) which keeps the entirity of Washington as the federal district yet shares Maryland's congressmen with Washingtonians poses the biggest constitutional challenges of all. The fact that a state would share its Senators with another political division runs anathema to the intent of the framers as regards the upper house of Congress: for each state to have an equal number of representatives to look out for that state's good. Could the State of Maryland petition for a redress of grievances should, say, Marion Barry occupy one of that state's seats, thus losing one representative to look out for the good of that state? And if Washingtonians cannot run for Maryland's Congressional seats, then what good is that partial representation other than a "traveshamockery", to use the Miller man's word - or an exercise in politics?
Zuletzt: Firstly, I have to give warning about the Zuerst. It's about 4 megs, so if you're on dialup you'll end up waiting a long time to download it. But it has been, by far, the funniest thing I've seen all week. Both times I've seen it I have laughed out loud; the first, I was crying because I laughed so hard. And, after I had seen it, I heard part of it on the radio, but it wasn't the same without the animation. It was still funny, but not as funny.
More later.
Comments:
Post a Comment
