About a year and a half ago, I wrote, “If a solution to D.C.'s lack of representation is really required (and I don't think it is), then I'd suggest that D.C. be given back to Maryland.”
Today, Eugene Volokh writes, “And the fairest remedy, I argue, is not to give D.C. residents two Senators, but rather to give them a say in the election of a neighboring state's (e.g., Maryland's) two Senators.”
When I wrote my original post, I thought my idea was unique. Maybe Eugene has been reading my blog?
IT HAS BEEN 29 YEARS SINCE MY LAST HISTORY CLASS BUT I SEEM TO REMEMBER THE MAIN PURPOSE BEHIND CREATING AN UNREPRESENTED D.C. WAS TO ALLEVIATE THE POTENTIAL,YET ALMOST CERTAIN,JEALOUSYS AND FEARS OF HAVING THE SEAT OF FEDERAL GOVT. CONSOLIDATED WITHIN A POTENTIALLY RIVAL STATE,ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE OUTCOME OF THE PROPOSED CONFEDERATION OF WILLING STATES.IF THIS IS SO,(AND I AM SURE SOMEONE WILL GLADLY LET ME KNOW IF NOT)THEN IT SEEMS TO ME THE QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT FAIRNESS BUT ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF ALLOWING REPRESENTATION IN TODAYS USA.
Posted by: ROGER S HATCHER | April 22, 2005 at 02:35 PM