Election? We Don't Need to Honor Your Stinkin' Election!

a reply to: MOMof3

“The fact is the Constitution gives Congress the ultimate oversight about what happens in the federal district,” Harris said.


Hate to put it this way, but look at my earlier post.

We are talking about the FEDERAL DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Federal. Not a state. I am not fond of saying this, but, if you don't like it, move.

It has never been a state, will not be a state, and will not cease to be a FEDERAL DISTRICT. This means residents (which I am seriously curious as to why ANYONE lives there) have ZERO say in what truly happens.

Just the reality of the situation.

Oregon? Alaska? No problem. They can vote in any damned rule they want. They are residents of a STATE and have the right to do so.

DC? Not so much.


- NF

a reply to: nullafides

I get that. I just don't get a congressman who would provoke voters like that. That is what we can expect for at least the next two years.

a reply to: MOMof3

Well, first of all, politicians are reasonably free to do any damned thing they want for the duration of their appointment to office once they get in.

Second, Congress has the right to do anything they want with regards to DC. Hawaii. Make sense? Sure it does. Not a State. The residents of DC have no say.

Get enraged all you want. Blame it on one side or the other. Won't change a thing.

Do you really think that the Republicans are ok with legalized pot in DC ? Do you think having Democrats in their place will keep marijuana from being taxed and regulated beyond making it accessible by the average citizen who would want to partake?


I don't.



-NF

a reply to: buster2010

Thanks I got the 2 confused. BTW, I called the Beloit P.D. for you!

a reply to: nullafides

I am not enraged. I live in Washington state. I will never get use to Nazi's.

a reply to: MOMof3


What I do not understand is this. Why are you calling them Nazis if this was never a state that afforded citizens the same right as states do?

Honestly, this sounds to me like an emotional response of lumping all frustration into a heap against "them", and not looking at the reality of the situation.

I thoroughly suggest that anyone who feels that they are being attacked by "nazis" over their right to use marijuana and live in DC to leave the federal district of columbia. You never had the right (ordained by the US Gov't to those living in states that approve such a law) to expect the privilege of deciding how the district will be run.

It has been, and forever will be, under the control of the US Congress. Not Nazis, no matter how you feel about it. Call them all the names in the book, it doesn't change the reality of the situation, and what those who live there and are offended by it can do.

- NF

a reply to: nullafides

So the republican congressman from a state, added this rider over the will of the DC voters just to prove he can?

a reply to: MOMof3

Those DC voters truly have no final say. Never did.

Just the facts.

Go ahead and keep your stance on this emotional. It won't bother me or change the situation one bit.


- NF

a reply to: nullafides

Said the rabbis to the 6 million slaughtered jews. "Just take it, just don't cause trouble, just don't be emotional."

Earlier info on the topic of states vs district rights and "Why Congress Is Unlikely to Stop Marijuana Legalization in Washington, D.C."

Even if the House and the Senate both passed a resolution against Initiative 71, it would still need President Obama's signature. "The White House is already on record opposing interference with D.C.'s marijuana law," Piper notes. Last summer, after the House Appropriations Committee approved an amendment introduced by Andy Harris that was intended to stop the D.C. Council from decriminalizing marijuana possession, the White House objected:

The Administration strongly opposes the language in the bill preventing the District from using its own local funds to carry out locally passed marijuana policies, which…undermines the principles of States' rights and of District home rule. Furthermore, the language poses legal challenges to the Metropolitan Police Department's enforcement of all marijuana laws currently in force in the District.

Strictly speaking, "states' rights" do not apply to the District of Columbia, which was created by Congress and is subject to much more extensive federal control than the states are. But as Obama suggests, the arguments for federalism—in particular, the idea that political decisions should be made at the lowest feasible level to facilitate citizen influence, policy experimentation, and competition among jurisdictions—apply to D.C. as well as the states. Given the president's views on the subject, it seems reasonable to assume that he would take a dim view of attempts to nullify Initiative 71.

Source

a reply to: neo96

All it takes is someone walking over to their 'Ye ole filing cabinet' and ripping up the law.

LOL!!!!
It's only been 'Ye ole law' for 80-ish years. Remember 'prohibition'? Yeah. It doesn't work. No matter what these clowns do, it won't change popular opinion, or behavior, or the prison-for-stupid-reasons reality.

These asshats are the scum of the world and should be treated just like the green crap on the side of the toilet in a gas station bathroom.

Whenever the Republicans do anything it's always about showering the elites with our money and giving them "special rights", as republicans love to say, yet somehow people are still stupid enough to vote for them? They couldn't even wait for the official takeover to start screwing us?!

a reply to: CB328

People voted for scumbag Republicans in a lesser of two evils choice.

As bad as they are, imagine the Democrats that could have been elected!!!



Seriously, i can't even tell the difference between the two if i turn on the lights, squint real hard, and get closer. You know what they say about cockroaches: you can't tell them apart.

Eventually people will just stop participating in voting as they understand its not thier will being done.

People have awakened to the fact this government doesnt represent the will of the people at all.

As long as the people of the society go for the same old stuff they will continue the same old stuff and nothing will change.

Classic problem reaction solution.

We will know the peoples will by thier actions and the failure to act shows we have lost this generation.

So we will pass this same show of non action on to our kids and it will be up to them to act, if they dont then thier kids will have to, and it will be so until the will of the people has returned by the show of action.

Without action there will be no reaction so there will be no solution.

a reply to: MOMof3

Throwing a temper tantrum? I feel its the other way around because I won't change my view to your liking. It's happened over and over. The people vote someone into power based on what they promise to do in office. Then they get in office and nothing happens except stripping the citizens of their rights or going against what the people want as jtma508 said. Nothing is going to change as long as people keep buying into their bull####. So yea I still stand by my view of don't vote.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Eventually people will just stop participating in voting as they understand its not thier will being done.

Eventually? Voter turn out barely scraped 30% this past election.

People have awakened to the fact this government doesnt represent the will of the people at all.

As long as the people of the society go for the same old stuff they will continue the same old stuff and nothing will change.

The problem is that most of the people who have realized this, have checked out of the voting process, leaving the idiots behind to continue to vote Republican or Democrat like it means something.

a reply to: dreamingawake

That article is from November, this news happened two days ago. I think that information is a little out of date.

a reply to: MOMof3

Well, I've definitely been shown up at my own "game".

Yepp, you sure do have me with your raw intellect ability to see through personal filters on reality.

That is one AMAZINGLY rational response to something that has been established since the original design and layout of the the FEDERAL DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and the NEIGHBORING STATES, let alone the foundation of the United States of America


Ala WIkipedia...

A federal district is a type of administrative division of a federation, under the direct control of a federal government. Federal districts often include capital districts, and they exist in various countries and states all over the world.

Source

Although the legislation did not specify an exact location, it was assumed that Georgetown would be the capital. Washington began scouting out the territory to the southeast of Georgetown, near the Anacostia River (Eastern Branch). Some of the property owners expressed to the President that they were willing to sell land for the capital. Washington also looked at other sites along the Potomac. He decided that a few sites should be surveyed to provide specific details about the land and its ownership. Washington returned to Philadelphia in late November 1790 to meet with Thomas Jefferson to discuss the implementation of the Residence Act. At this time, the decision had been reached to locate the capital at or adjacent to Georgetown,[2] which was a short distance below the fall line and the farthest inland point for navigation.[citation needed]

More from Wikipedia

In the early 1700's, Goose Creek or Tiber Creek, divided white land to the south and east and Indian land to the north and west. The Indians left and that creek, still many years away from becoming Constitution Avenue, divided the lands of the Carroll family from that of the newcomers Burnes and Peerce. It didn't take long for a lawsuit to foment between the prestigious family of Maryland Catholics and the Scot Burnes. Not that many noticed. The lands in question were used for farming. A boom in tobacco, and the discovery by Maryland and Virginia farmers in the lower Piedmont that wheat was an even better crop, helped three small port cities prosper. Alexandria (founded 1749), Georgetown (founded 1751), and Bladensburg (founded 1742) all joined the global economy of the 18th century. The area was so attractive that in 1770, the Carrolls and their friend laid out another city, Carrollsburg, just south of Jenkins Hill (which would soon become Capitol Hill), but they did this as a speculation; no houses were built. In 1771, A group of Germans was initially impressed enough to lay out a city, just west of the future site of the White House, that they called Hamburg. Then they decided to settle Hagerstown, Maryland, instead.

Huh, so the formation of the District of Columbia was a good thing? Development of surrounding areas? Nahhh...

And finally from my vomitting of historical facts....

May 15, 1751: The Maryland Assembly appoints commissioners to lay a town on the Potomac River, above the mouth of Rock Creek, on 60 acres of land to be purchased from George Gordon and George Beall. This settlement becomes Georgetown.

February 27, 1752: The survey and plat of Georgetown into 80 lots is completed.

September 17, 1787: The Constitution is signed by the members of the Constitutional Convention.

June 21, 1788: The 1788 U.S. Constitution, as adopted by the Constitutional Convention on September 15, 1787, is ratified by the states. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, gives Congress authority "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States...."

Source


Now, why am I harping so much on the historical time line ? Because this land was specifically developed, i.e., nothing was there yet besides virgin land, BEFORE anyone lived there. It was parceled out with the express purpose of being used as a FEDERAL DISTRICT to serve the Gov't of the USA. Anyone who moved there to live afterwards KNEW what the intent of this was. They KNEW they would not have the same rights as those living in states.

If you smoke, and you go to somewhere smoking is prohibited, do you expect to pull out a cigarette and light up?

Do you go to a friends house where they don't allow swearing when the children are around and start talking like a sailor?

If you go to a country where they drive on the left hand side of the road, do you insist on driving on the right hand side?

I lived in Old Town Alexandria Virginia. Gorgeous part of Alexandria VA, a historically important part of our history due to trading and river transport along the Potomac. It is also a very popular area of town for bars and restaurants. Constantly, people would buy the expensive homes here, and loudly complain about finding beer bottles on top of mailboxes or doorstoops or front steps.

Didn't they know what and where they were buying their homes at? Did they not survey the surroundings? Did they not investigate the social and commercial (quite lucrative and also provides MANY jobs to the area) uses of the land? Most people DILIGENTLY check these things out, let alone crime and educational/recreational opportunities in the immediate area. I know I certainly would. And I have.

I mean, honestly, how in the world are you comparing this to the Holocaust? The Nazi's didn't build concentration camps, indicate what they'd be used for, only to have jews who knew what the camps were for decide to move in voluntarily?

How can you rationally make such a statement or declaration? If you're holding on to simply attempt to "win" the debate, how can you not see that your rationale is obviously flawed?

Bow out gracefully, no need to admit anything. Just bow out. If not, I am utterly flabbergasted at your constitutional fortitude when it comes to holding on to a blatantly lost cause.



-NF

a reply to: amazing

what's stopping us is the partisan bickering that plagues this site.

and ultimately what it comes down to is a difference in priorities, how people define things, what ideas or arguments are seen as valid. Total distrust of institutions that don't share our values or definitions.