<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>DCist: Does Obama Support Statehood More than Most D.C. Voting Rights Activists?</title>
<link>http://dcist.com/2008/12/11/does_obama_supports_statehood_more.php</link>
<description>All comments for Does Obama Support Statehood More than Most D.C. Voting Rights Activists?</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>2008 Aaron Morrissey</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:50:04 -0500</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
<managingEditor>cruelmisnomer@gmail.com</managingEditor>
<webMaster>cruelmisnomer@gmail.com</webMaster>
<ttl>60</ttl>
<item>
<title>citizenW</title>
<link>http://dcist.com/2008/12/11/does_obama_supports_statehood_more.php#comment-1541552</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://dcist.com/2008/12/11/does_obama_supports_statehood_more.php#comment-1541552</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:48:02 -0500</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;The &quot;gold standard&quot; for residents of the fifty states is that they get to grant (or withhold) their consent to how they are governed by voting for five national officeholders:  President, Vice- President, an House Representative, and two Senators.  That same right for DC denizens to vote for those five national offices, plus a substantial degree of DC autonomy (such as limiting the legislative authority of Congress over the District &quot;in all cases whatsoever&quot; to matters of compelling national interest, such as those that could garner super-majorities in both houses) would go a long way to meeting the bedrock principle that &quot;just [ie, legitimate] power derives from the consent of the governed.&quot;  Full statehood would not be essential if the above reforms were made (IMHO).&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>run_for_the_hills</title>
<link>http://dcist.com/2008/12/11/does_obama_supports_statehood_more.php#comment-1540209</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://dcist.com/2008/12/11/does_obama_supports_statehood_more.php#comment-1540209</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:21:01 -0500</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;A District by any other name would smell as sweet.

it&apos;s an unpopular idea nationally, and Republicans would do everything in their power to stop it 
suck it, congressional minority&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>mlswanso3470</title>
<link>http://dcist.com/2008/12/11/does_obama_supports_statehood_more.php#comment-1539908</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://dcist.com/2008/12/11/does_obama_supports_statehood_more.php#comment-1539908</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:42:54 -0500</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;I&apos;m probably the only DC resident who feels this way but I think that making DC &apos;just another one of the states&apos; will take something away from the identity of the District. What will we be? The State of the District of Columbia? The State of Columbia? We sure can&apos;t be The State of Washington, that&apos;s already taken! 

I whole-heartedly feel we should have all proper and equal representation in government just like the states, but I think we should remain a neutral district as it was intended to be upon its founding. Becoming a state will reduce our standing as America&apos;s Capital and make us nothing more than the smallest state (in land size) and the jerks that made everyone buy a new US flag with 51 stars on it, just because we felt selfish.

Give us voting representation, or let us out of Federal taxation, I&apos;m all for that! I&apos;m all for Congress keeping their big nose out of our business... but I&apos;m NOT for completely uprooting the principle idea behind the DISTRICT of Columbia! We&apos;re not a state, we&apos;re better then a state, so let&apos;s act like it!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
