Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Those Who Still Wait

Those Who Still Wait

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

As the Obama health care takeover grinds to a conclusion, (or not) there has been much focus on expanding health care as if it were a right denied. In truth, your right is not to have health care, but to have the choice of how to provide or not provide for your health. This bill seeks to take this away. Dictating behavior, fining, taxing all seem like very much akin to a police state mode — if not Mussolini then perhaps Franco. Maybe, I'm too naive to be scared or perhaps since I've lived (very shortly — thank goodness) in a police state, I know where this is headed. Still, this talk of rights strikes a chord

Are there rights being denied today? Are constitutional rights granted to all American citizens being abridged? Strangely enough, steps away from where the anointed one lays his head, there are Americans who had no voice in the recent health care vote in Congress. If you live in the District of Columbia, you have nothing but a non-voting delegate to represent you. To translate that in airy Obamaspeak, the voice of these people was not heard. Some might think this a paltry issue. If, over half a million Americans with no democratic participation in the debate about the travesty of Obamacare is paltry then America is truly off course. Popular representation is the sole reason this country exists. If that is violated or ignored, this country is betraying the main reason why it was set up in the first place.

Now, in our wonderful technologically advanced society, the Internet has given us many opportunities to express opinion. However, as the old saw goes, everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it. Well, why don't we do something about it. Instead of Obamacare creating complicated, budget-busting, new "rights" to say nothing of the threat of prosecution if you don't abide by your new "rights," why don't we work on the rights recognized by Washington, Adams, Hamilton and Jefferson. Let's put out a plan to help bring those into the tent set up by Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and Adams. They've been waiting over 200 years. So, let's hit the practical then the political.

Certainly, D.C. is small relative to other states. So you could attach it to neighboring states like Maryland or Virginia to provide representation. Actually, the southern part of the District was taken back by Virginia in 1847, so Maryland could take northern portion that exists today. However, since the Constitution mandates a Federal seat of government, regardless of what you do you'll need to carve out an area (probably around the White House, Capitol and Supreme Court) that is run by the federal government itself, perhaps by the Dept. of the Interior.

A more daring idea would be to create a new state. The federal area in the center of D.C. would be retained, but the rest of the district plus perhaps the original portion (now Virginia) would constitute a new state. While small its' population would be about the same size as Rhode Island. Statehood would allow the residents full representation in the House as well as much more importantly two senators. Now let's head over to the political.

Even a water walker like Obama, would have trouble doing this one. To create a new state might be too much, but perhaps a swap might be easier. Republicans would fight against a new state that was perceived as likely left leaning. The solution: swap Rhode Island for the new state. (let's call it Columbia) This allows many things, like the number of seats in Congress to remain the same. Presumably, Republicans wouldn't care about switching one set of Democrats for another. And would anybody miss Rhode Island as a state?

Face it. Rhode Island's state government is a cesspool of corruption and has been for years. Even bubble-gum-for-brains Patrick Kennedy is quitting representing the state. Word has it that perennial name coaster, dolt Lincoln Chaffee is running again for statewide office. Didn't that guy give himself a lobotomy some time ago? Economically, Rhode Island is dog food as well. The unemployment rate was 12.9% in January, third highest in the nation. Those folks really do need some change. Why not slap little rhodey onto Massachusetts and give those who are unrepresented in D.C. the Rhode Island seats in Congress? Obviously, you've got to amend the Constitution. That's tough, but it's been done before. What is so wrong about enfranchising half a million Americans?

This is about a simple choice. Do we fix the concrete problems of America or do we try to use Marxist tactics to live in some Rube Goldberg dystopia? Is the American way about asset theft, thousands more IRS agents, government health files on everybody and a bankrupt budget? Or is the American way giving democratic song to those Americans who hear the music everyday, but cannot sing?

Powered by

About Mr Dock Ellis

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ jeannie danna

    Doc,

    I was chuckling to myself and ready to tell you how entertaining this article was when this caught my eye.

    Obviously, you’ve got to amend the Constitution. That’s tough, but it’s been done before.

    That is the beauty of the Constitution and the reason that we should be able to change and grow as a nation, instead of this tug-of-war hate fest that we have today.

  • John Wilson

    I’m against admitting another state because it will result in 2 more senators who have power disproportionate to their constituency. Short of disbanding the Senate altogether we would do better to combine some of our runt states (like Wyoming and Alaska) with other states so as to reduce the malign influence of Senators.

  • mrdockellis

    J.W.
    I’m with you. I don’t feel you need more states.

    If you combine states, it has to have no net increase or decrease in the power of one side or the other.

    Hence, Blue Rhode Island becomes Blue Columbia. DC residents get representation and we can get back the usual tussle of Democracy, hopefully minus the gunfire.

  • citizenw

    Why not combine Wyoming and DC? Call it Wyombia? Nowhere in the Costitution does it say states must be contingouos territory.
    Wyombia would combine red Wyoming and blue DC to a deep purple Wyombia, and would slightly mitigate the inequality of Wyoming having half a million population and two senators, while California has 37 million population, but only two senators…

  • citizenw

    The Constitution says “the people –OF– the several states”. The residents of DC are not the people of the Asian steppes, nor the Argentinian pampas, nor the arctic tundra, nor the African savannahs, they are “of” the several states; they are part and parcel, progeny and posterity of the Founders, who pledged their Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor to secure Liberty for their Posterity.

    The Constitution does not say “residents of the several states”, it says “people of the several states.” So why not let residents of DC individually affiliate with a state of their choice, much as expatriates abroad can do. Then they could be “of” the state with which they decide to affilate, and vote in that state.