July 25, 2006
District Police Storm Senate
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As part of D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams' on-going crackdown on crime in the nation's capital, District police officers burst into various Senate Office Buildings this morning, sources tell DCist. The officers, clad in SWAT uniforms and roughly pushing Senate staffers to the ground, raided a number of sundry stores in the Senate complex and confiscated multiple cartons of cigarettes.
"We'd heard reports that cigarettes were being sold in Senate stores without charging the local $1 tax per pack," noted D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey. "We could not let this flaunting of the law stand. We have a crime emergency on our hands -- and the law must be enforced," he continued.
Various senators complained of the show of force, decrying the use of tear gas and questioning the need for police to dramatically burst through windows when doors remained a useable alternative. "This is too much," stated Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). "I mean, did they have to use those blinding grenades?"
District officials defended the raid as necessary to fight crime in the District, which has been on the rise in recent months. "If a 16-year-old can't be out at 10:30 on a weeknight, why should Senate staffers get to buy cigarettes and not pay taxes on them?" asked Williams after reviewing the scene.
Unlikely, but hilarious to imagine. But seriously, though -- should products sold in the Capitol and its surrounding buildings have to abide by local tax laws? They are within the boundaries of the District, after all, and we do face an annual deficit based on the federal government's presence here...
|
No. If District law doesn't have jurisdiction, then District law doesn't have jurisdiction.
And in my opinion that's just dumb.
What I'm most surprised about is that they're still selling butts in the Senate these days. I remember hearing someone observe that it was more acceptable to be gay than a smoker in most government work places.
Wow, can you buy by the carton in the Senate stores? Or are you limited to a pack at a time?
Seems like it could be a real good tourist incentive, like those cheap cigs places in SC along I-95.
But for what logical reason would District law not have jurisdiction over retail sales in House and Senate office buildings? Just because the area is patrolled by the Capitol Police rather than the MPD? Does it apply to all federal properties in DC, or just those on the Hill? Do tourists pay DC sales tax in the Capitol Building gift shop (presuming there is one)?
This article seems to imply that no one is paying the District sales tax on anything they purchase within the Capitol/office building complex. Does that include the 10% meal tax, too? It seems like we're talking about at least tens of thousands of dollars per year in lost income, if not much more.
Um, so can just anyone walk in from the street and buy cheap smokes in any of these shops? If so, would someone please be kind enough to provide some addresses and business hours, before the loophole is closed?
Lots of things appear to not apply to Congress (Executive branch has some fun exceptions too).
But then, lots of people already knew this... welcome to the bandwagon!
The feds and their minions treat the city like their own fiefdom. In every little thing- from taxes to ballot counting to where one can park their bike on The Hill- they have little respect for our laws.
But Mark, DC is quite literally their own fiefdom. They merely allow us to think we have laws of our own, but it's all a mirage. They could install a duck as our mayor (or better yet, a certain panda?), and there's pretty much nothing we could do about it.
But that's all beside the point. I think this is more a question of federal land. Do you have to pay the cig tax on air force bases, etc.?
yes, anyone can walk in off the streets and buy smokes here. there is a sundry shop in the basement floor of the Hart Senate Office Building.
they also sell chips, soda and visene.
Under which legal jurisdiction do Capitol properties come for other laws, such as those covering crime, or public health and safety?
I'd vote for a duck for mayor.
Well, lobbyists aren't paying 5.75 percent sales tax on their bribes, so I can't see how this is different.
This exact situation actually happened on the Narragansett Indian Reservation in 2003. The state decided to raid the tribal smokeshop--despite it being a tribal business on reservation land--for selling tobacco untaxed by the State. The same reason tribes can sell tobacco free from state taxes is the same reason DC can't tax Congress: one sovereign can not tax another.
I should also say that the raid spurred a large jurisdictional fight that still continues.
Local taxation does not apply to the federal government. The reasoning is that local taxation has the ability to destroy federal supremacy. This is a legal principle almost 200 years old. It started with McCulloch v. Maryland and has continued. This case has a good background on state/federal taxation: http://opinions.1dca.org/written/opinions2005/7-18-05/03-3570.pdf
It seems like there is a lot of case law here and the issue isn't that simple. Of course, it's all moot because if they wanted, the Congress could just declare certain entities not subject to various DC taxes.
Doesn't he mean "flouting" not "flaunting" the law?
I see DCPS as Congress' little experiment in socialist living...
That settles it, Rees, you have my vote.
Indeed, DCist James. From the OAD:
USAGE Flaunt and flout may sound similar but they have different meanings. Flaunt means ‘display ostentatiously,’ as in: tourists who liked to flaunt their wealth, while flout means ‘openly disregard (a rule or convention),’ as in | new recruits growing their hair and flouting convention. It is a common error, since probably around the 1940s, to use flaunt when flout is intended, as in | the young woman had been flaunting the rules and regulations.
That settles it, Rees, you have my vote.
I saw the Rees post last night, it was the first one I had ever seen. Crazy, crazy $hit man!!