Obama On Statehood
Posted on January 6, 2009 by andrew
In response to the comments below, I did some very quick searching and found a December article from Mother Jones that I can’t believe I missed earlier. As it turns out, while no one expects him to expend much political capital on the issue, our president-elect is not a supporter merely of representation for the District, but of full DC statehood.
The real question is whether or not advocates for representation, including Obama, want to push further [than for congressional representation alone]. During the campaign Obama was quoted as saying he supports statehood for Washington, a position his transition office confirmed but declined to comment on last week. Statehood gained some local support in the ’80s and early ’90s (the last time a constitution for the state of “New Columbia” was drafted was 1987), but has never generated the nationwide support needed to pass a constitutional amendment. It remains unpopular nationally today.
Obama was quoted as saying he supports statehood during the campaign, and I never heard about it until today. I’m almost embarrassed to have missed it, but still: Awesome.
For the record (and I may have mentioned this before), I’m not a huge proponent of statehood. I would absolutely take it over the status quo, and I would probably vote for it if given the option, but I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary. Representation in Congress equivalent to that of a state combined with appropriate limits on congressional meddling in local issues would be enough to satisfy me.
Sphere: Related Content» Filed Under Barack Obama, DC enfranchisement
Comments
3 Responses to “Obama On Statehood”
Leave a Reply
The seat of government clause of the constitution gives Congress full power over the District of Columbia, which could never be larger than 10×10 miles square. In 1846 Virginia ceded the portion of the district to the west of the Potomac back into the state. This created the precedent that the seat of government can be made even smaller than outlined in the constitution (which says “no larger than..”).
If DC were to become a state, the seat of government would shrink to only the federal lands around the National Mall, which comprise the seat of government. However, if DC is continued to be controlled by congress, then the voice of the people of the nation’s capital will continue to be marginalized by 535 unelected representatives.
Statehood provides for budget autonomy for the people, meaning congress will not be able to meddle in the fiscal affairs of people that never elected them. There will be taxation with full representation with Statehood. Residents will have two senators and at least one representative who will work on behalf of them. Residents will be able to elect their own district attorneys. Residents will be able to pass their own laws, like medical marijuana or needle exchanges, and not have Congress interfere.
The status quo is unfair, illegal under international law, and needs to be changed. Statehood provides the residents of Washington, DC the most freedom, equality, and long sought after identity than any other option.
Obama spoke of “Change in Washington,” but will this be statehood? We’ll have to see.
Oh, and Frederick Douglass said:
Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has and never will.
As long as people are fooled into believing “voting rights” are the answer, Congress will never concede full equality for the residents of Washington, DC.
Without political autonomy, representation in a legislature does not guarantee democracy. Throughout history, colonies have enjoyed voting seats in the legislatures of nations that conquered them, even while they suffered exploitation and oppression. Nations like Ireland in the 19th century and Algeria in the 20th fought for political self-rule, even while they held seats, respectively, in the British Parliament and French National Assembly.
I don’t see why any of this has to be the case. I think a compromise solution involving proper representation in Congress and strict, appropriate limits on congressional control over the city is both more achievable than statehood and equally satisfying. In other words, I think we can more easily get equality to the fifty states in practice than equality to the fifty states in name, and the former without the latter wouldn’t really bother me all that much.
Again, statehood would be great, but I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary for justice to be served.