Good job Eric Holder! - Page 7 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmbdiesel · #91 04-06-2009, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

Sorry to be cheesy in your book- I was three minutes late, and had not read your reply. Rights as given by Congress as far as citizenship is concerned- I guess you think then that there is more than one class of citizen---

Can I repeat... didn't we try that once?

Wikipedia is a poor source of info, really, but I'd say you took some time reading it to post what you did. Here's a bit more info not from there:
The CNMI Government adopted its own constitution in 1977, and the constitutional government took office in January1978. The Covenant was fully implemented on November 3, 1986, pursuant to Presidential Proclamation no. 5564, which conferred United States citizenship on legally qualified CNMI residents.

All of this is really a side step to the issue- USA citizens are USA citizens, regardless of the area of land that the feds control that is US soil on which they live. I do not believe that citizens living in Washington DC should have more rights than those living in Guam or the CNMI or Nebraska- do you?

Yes, two classes of citizen. Those who pay taxes and those who don't.

Legally qualified CNMI residents?

What would be giving the residents of D.C. more rights than those in Nebraska?

cmbdiesel · #92 04-06-2009, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

I got it... the amount of taxes you are paying determines your voting rights....

Didn't we try that once before?

BTW possessions are not the same as insular areas. I listed insular areas- of which Washington DC is one of, all of which are US soil. All persons born in insular areas are US citizens. Possessions like the Marshall islands do not have this birthright.

D.C. is not an insular area. It is the Federal District.

Possessions is not the preferred nomenclature. Territory, please (small t)

territories are insular areas, insular areas are not necessarily territories.

Don't believe me, check with Dept of the Interior

Honus · #93 04-06-2009, 11:51 PM

I don't see why you guys are so focused on the nomenclature. Does it matter whether D.C., Guam, etc., are "insular areas", "possessions", or whatever other name you want to give? I think not. What matters is whether citizens have a say in their government. I have no idea what goes on in Guam, the Marshall Islands, or any of those other areas. I don't know how much autonomy their local governments have, whether they are taxed, or any of that. But I do know that the citizens of D.C. pay taxes and are subject to the whim of Congress. They should have representation in Congress. Period. I don't see it as a close call, whatsoever.

cmbdiesel · #94 04-07-2009, 12:19 AM

I agree. I also see where MTU is going with it. If D.C. gets representation, then who else gets it? By attempting to define other areas in the same manner as D.C. you could make the argument that they deserve representation as well. The distinction for me is that D.C was at one time part of the continental United States. It is surrounded by United States. People born there are citizens. They pay federal taxes. That cannot be said for inhabitants of Guam, American Samoa, CNMI or about a dozen other small island territories. Eventually it seems, any discussion involving the Constitution ends up in a discussion of linguistics and terminology.

Honus · #95 04-07-2009, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

...If D.C. gets representation, then who else gets it?...

I don't know where the line is drawn between those that deserve representation and those who don't, but Americans living in D.C. are so completely dominated by the federal government, I can't see any argument against their being represented.

Quote:

By attempting to define other areas in the same manner as D.C. you could make the argument that they deserve representation as well.

Nothing wrong with that, IMO.

Quote:

The distinction for me is that D.C was at one time part of the continental United States. It is surrounded by United States. People born there are citizens. They pay federal taxes. That cannot be said for inhabitants of Guam, American Samoa, CNMI or about a dozen other small island territories.

Geography plays a part, but only indirectly. Location is one of the reasons the federal government plays such a dominant role in the lives of Americans living in DC, but it is the federal domination that should entitle them to representation, not their geographic location. America is a concept, not a place.

Quote:

Eventually it seems, any discussion involving the Constitution ends up in a discussion of linguistics and terminology.

Language is important, but it is secondary to the need for people to have a say in their government.

cmbdiesel · #96 04-07-2009, 12:43 AM

Again I agree. But where does it stop? I feel that a reasonable benchmark would be the requirement to pay taxes. If you are not required to pay federal taxes (as is the case with most territories) then you should not get a vote.

Honus · #97 04-07-2009, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Again I agree. But where does it stop? I feel that a reasonable benchmark would be the requirement to pay taxes. If you are not required to pay federal taxes (as is the case with most territories) then you should not get a vote.

That rule has the advantage of clarity and it would be better than the current situation, but I don't think it goes far enough. If, for example, Congress can require you to adopt the death penalty, you should have someone there representing your interests.

cmbdiesel · #98 04-07-2009, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That rule has the advantage of clarity and it would be better than the current situation, but I don't think it goes far enough. If, for example, Congress can require you to adopt the death penalty, you should have someone there representing your interests.

Excellent point!