Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-presidential-line-of-succession/
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-presidential-line-of-succession/
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable >>narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-presidential-line-of-succession/
Clancy's _Debt of Honor_ might qualify.
On 8 Oct 2024 14:16:07 -0000, jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-presidential-line-of-succession/
I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not
actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace
their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the
advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the DoD
could be put back under civilian control.
On 10/8/24 08:55, Paul S Person wrote:
On 8 Oct 2024 14:16:07 -0000, jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-presidential-
line-of-succession/
I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not
actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace
their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by
electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the
advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the DoD
could be put back under civilian control.
The name escapes me at the moment but a very good story of an America and Earth under attack by the cosmos with a big meteoric storm.
It wiped out Washington DC and most of the Elected Federal officials.
However one lowly department heat is trying to help Mexico with its
problems and he survives. Returning to the USA via torturous routes as
Mexico in in bad shape from tsunamis he is kidnapped and held briefly
by the Government of Texas which of course is very wealth people.
He escapes with the help of African-American and eventually assumes
the office of president and helps to suppress the Neo-Confederacy and
and reunites the nation. There is more than one volume and lots of
action heroes, male and female. To the Best of My poor Recollection.
If anyone recognizes this story feel free to chime in.
On 10/8/2024 11:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On 8 Oct 2024 14:16:07 -0000, jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-presidential-line-of-succession/
I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not
actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace
their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by
electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the
advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the DoD
could be put back under civilian control.
IIRC, Congress is installed first, and they approve the
slate of electoral votes to declare the President. So Congress comes
first. That's what Trump was treasonously trying to disrupt on Jan 6.
On 10/9/2024 11:42 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:18:12 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/2024 11:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On 8 Oct 2024 14:16:07 -0000, jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote: >>>>
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces >>>>> a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-presidential-line-of-succession/
I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not
actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace
their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by
electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, say, >>>> one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the
advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the DoD >>>> could be put back under civilian control.
IIRC, Congress is installed first, and they approve the
slate of electoral votes to declare the President. So Congress comes
first. That's what Trump was treasonously trying to disrupt on Jan 6.
Which is corrrect, but has nothing to do with my very wild
speculations.
Or are you contemplating an off-year/out of season Presidential
election before a new President can be installed?
No, the regular Congress.
Here's the timeline: >https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2024-election-key-dates-beyond-election-day/
The new Congress is sworn in Jan 3, and counts the electoral
votes Jan 6.
Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 13:51:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/9/2024 11:42 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:18:12 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/2024 11:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:Which is corrrect, but has nothing to do with my very wild
On 8 Oct 2024 14:16:07 -0000, jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll)
wrote:
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession >>>>>>>
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces >>>>>>> a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable >>>>>>> narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-
presidential-line-of-succession/
I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not >>>>>> actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace >>>>>> their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by >>>>>> electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to,
say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the >>>>>> advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the >>>>>> DoD
could be put back under civilian control.
IIRC, Congress is installed first, and they approve the
slate of electoral votes to declare the President. So Congress comes >>>>> first. That's what Trump was treasonously trying to disrupt on Jan 6. >>>>
speculations.
Or are you contemplating an off-year/out of season Presidential
election before a new President can be installed?
No, the regular Congress.
Here's the timeline:
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2024-election-key-dates-beyond-
election-day/
The new Congress is sworn in Jan 3, and counts the electoral
votes Jan 6.
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.
Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.
On 10/10/2024 9:28 AM, William Hyde wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 13:51:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/9/2024 11:42 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:18:12 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/2024 11:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:Which is corrrect, but has nothing to do with my very wild
On 8 Oct 2024 14:16:07 -0000, jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll)
wrote:
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession >>>>>>>>
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces >>>>>>>> a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable >>>>>>>> narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-
presidential-line-of-succession/
I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not >>>>>>> actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace >>>>>>> their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by >>>>>>> electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, >>>>>>> say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the >>>>>>> advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the >>>>>>> DoD
could be put back under civilian control.
IIRC, Congress is installed first, and they approve the
slate of electoral votes to declare the President. So Congress comes >>>>>> first. That's what Trump was treasonously trying to disrupt on Jan 6. >>>>>
speculations.
Or are you contemplating an off-year/out of season Presidential
election before a new President can be installed?
No, the regular Congress.
Here's the timeline:
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2024-election-key-dates-beyond-
election-day/
The new Congress is sworn in Jan 3, and counts the electoral
votes Jan 6.
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.
Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.
the first place. ;)
If you are going to take out every elected official at the Federal level
and all the SC Justices then you have to hit a LOT more places than just
DC. Someone from the Cabinet or Congress is ALWAYS away from DC.
Taking them all out would require basically glassing every major city in
the country. Anything that's left after that is going to be little
fiefdoms scattered across the continent.
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
On 10/10/2024 9:28 AM, William Hyde wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 13:51:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/9/2024 11:42 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:18:12 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/2024 11:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:Which is corrrect, but has nothing to do with my very wild
On 8 Oct 2024 14:16:07 -0000, jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) >>>>>>>> wrote:
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession >>>>>>>>>
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces >>>>>>>>> a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable >>>>>>>>> narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-
presidential-line-of-succession/
I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not >>>>>>>> actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace >>>>>>>> their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by >>>>>>>> electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a >>>>>>>> President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military >>>>>>>> officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, >>>>>>>> say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The >>>>>>>> military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who >>>>>>>> outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the >>>>>>>> advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the >>>>>>>> DoD
could be put back under civilian control.
IIRC, Congress is installed first, and they approve the
slate of electoral votes to declare the President. So Congress comes >>>>>>> first. That's what Trump was treasonously trying to disrupt on Jan 6. >>>>>>
speculations.
Or are you contemplating an off-year/out of season Presidential
election before a new President can be installed?
No, the regular Congress.
Here's the timeline:
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2024-election-key-dates-beyond-
election-day/
The new Congress is sworn in Jan 3, and counts the electoral
votes Jan 6.
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and >>>> a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.
Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.
the first place. ;)
If you are going to take out every elected official at the Federal level >>and all the SC Justices then you have to hit a LOT more places than just >>DC. Someone from the Cabinet or Congress is ALWAYS away from DC.
Taking them all out would require basically glassing every major city in >>the country. Anything that's left after that is going to be little >>fiefdoms scattered across the continent.
That was a plot point in _Debt of Honor_, where the attack was timed
such that the vast majority of elected officials in the line of
succession were at the Capitol.
On 10/10/2024 9:28 AM, William Hyde wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 13:51:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/9/2024 11:42 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:18:12 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/2024 11:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:Which is corrrect, but has nothing to do with my very wild
On 8 Oct 2024 14:16:07 -0000, jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) >>>>>>> wrote:
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession >>>>>>>>
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces >>>>>>>> a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable >>>>>>>> narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-
presidential-line-of-succession/
I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not >>>>>>> actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace >>>>>>> their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by >>>>>>> electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, >>>>>>> say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the >>>>>>> advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the >>>>>>> DoD
could be put back under civilian control.
IIRC, Congress is installed first, and they approve the
slate of electoral votes to declare the President. So Congress comes >>>>>> first. That's what Trump was treasonously trying to disrupt on Jan 6. >>>>>
speculations.
Or are you contemplating an off-year/out of season Presidential
election before a new President can be installed?
No, the regular Congress.
Here's the timeline:
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2024-election-key-dates-beyond-
election-day/
The new Congress is sworn in Jan 3, and counts the electoral
votes Jan 6.
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.
Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.
the first place. ;)
If you are going to take out every elected official at the Federal level
and all the SC Justices then you have to hit a LOT more places than just
DC. Someone from the Cabinet or Congress is ALWAYS away from DC.
Taking them all out would require basically glassing every major city in
the country. Anything that's left after that is going to be little
fiefdoms scattered across the continent.
But you missed the Cabinet (the Secretaries are in the line of
succession). And, in the resulting confusion, a few well-planned hits
would take out the stragglers.
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:44:41 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
Someone from the Cabinet or Congress is ALWAYS away from DC.
But you missed the Cabinet (the Secretaries are in the line of
succession).
On 10/11/2024 8:38 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:44:41 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
Someone from the Cabinet or Congress is ALWAYS away from DC.
But you missed the Cabinet (the Secretaries are in the line of
succession).
No, I didn't.
On 10/10/2024 9:28 AM, William Hyde wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 13:51:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/9/2024 11:42 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:18:12 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/2024 11:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:Which is corrrect, but has nothing to do with my very wild
On 8 Oct 2024 14:16:07 -0000, jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) >>>>>>> wrote:
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession >>>>>>>>
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces >>>>>>>> a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable >>>>>>>> narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-
presidential-line-of-succession/
I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not >>>>>>> actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace >>>>>>> their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by >>>>>>> electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, >>>>>>> say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the >>>>>>> advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the >>>>>>> DoD
could be put back under civilian control.
IIRC, Congress is installed first, and they approve the
slate of electoral votes to declare the President. So Congress comes >>>>>> first. That's what Trump was treasonously trying to disrupt on Jan 6. >>>>>
speculations.
Or are you contemplating an off-year/out of season Presidential
election before a new President can be installed?
No, the regular Congress.
Here's the timeline:
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2024-election-key-dates-beyond-
election-day/
The new Congress is sworn in Jan 3, and counts the electoral
votes Jan 6.
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.
Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.
the first place. ;)
If you are going to take out every elected official at the Federal level
and all the SC Justices then you have to hit a LOT more places than just
DC. Someone from the Cabinet or Congress is ALWAYS away from DC.
Taking them all out would require basically glassing every major city in
the country. Anything that's left after that is going to be little
fiefdoms scattered across the continent.
You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote inI also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.
Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.
the first place. ;)
Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/10/2024 9:28 AM, William Hyde wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and >>>> a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.
Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.
the first place. ;)
As I understand it a number of people in Georgetown and other
settlements in what became DC were rather unhappy with their loss of
voting rights.
When I lived in DC someone published a few letters from the time as part
of the movement to enfranchise the residents of DC.
Do ANY of America's allies have a federal district? I know Canada, the
UK France and Germany don't - anybody who does? (Australia I think
does but who else?)
Chris Buckley wrote:
It certainly was when I lived there.
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
decades,
Only plans that will never come to fruition.
but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland
Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for
the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing >something.
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris Buckley wrote:
It certainly was when I lived there.
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
decades,
Only plans that will never come to fruition.
but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland
Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for
the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing >>something.
The plans they have been promoting basically give residents the opportunity to
vote as part of adjacent states, meaning that their votes will make far
less difference than if they were able to vote a restricted representative
to congress themselves. Which is why nobody in DC, no matter what party, likes that program, even though it's better than nothing.
--scott
Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-10-11, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/10/2024 9:28 AM, William Hyde wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and >>>>>> a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.
Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.
the first place. ;)
As I understand it a number of people in Georgetown and other
settlements in what became DC were rather unhappy with their loss of
voting rights.
When I lived in DC someone published a few letters from the time as part >>> of the movement to enfranchise the residents of DC.
The issue in DC has not been about being able to vote for a long time.
It certainly was when I lived there.
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
decades,
Only plans that will never come to fruition.
but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland
Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for
the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing something.
On 10/15/2024 8:35 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-10-14, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris Buckley wrote:
It certainly was when I lived there.
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for >>>>> decades,
Only plans that will never come to fruition.
but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland >>>>> in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland
Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for >>>> the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing
something.
The plans they have been promoting basically give residents the >opportunity to
vote as part of adjacent states, meaning that their votes will make far
less difference than if they were able to vote a restricted representative >>> to congress themselves. Which is why nobody in DC, no matter what party, >>> likes that program, even though it's better than nothing.
--scott
DC will basically get its own Representative if it joins Maryland, but
you're right they would share Senators with the rest of Maryland.
But I see no evidence for your claim that Republicans would not like
that program; I would guess overall they would support it (but no
factual evidence to support my case either.) They would get to vote,
and the possibility that DC would become a state with 2 Democratic
senators would be gone.
Just throwing in the fact that Wyoming has fewer people than DC,
but does get two Senators and a Comgresswoman.
pt
Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-10-14, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-10-11, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/10/2024 9:28 AM, William Hyde wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in >>>>>> the first place. ;)
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established, >>>>>>>> probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and >>>>>>>> a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure. >>>>>>>Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.
As I understand it a number of people in Georgetown and other
settlements in what became DC were rather unhappy with their loss of >>>>> voting rights.
When I lived in DC someone published a few letters from the time as part >>>>> of the movement to enfranchise the residents of DC.
The issue in DC has not been about being able to vote for a long time.
It certainly was when I lived there.
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
decades,
Only plans that will never come to fruition.
but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland
Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for
the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing
something.
Baloney!
Reality.
Look it up. It's not popular in Maryland.
First, both DC and Maryland are heavily Democratic;
Quite irrelevant.
The voters of Maryland do not want to share their
senators with the people of DC.
If we come to the point where Maryland accepts the deal, but DC does
not, then there's an end of it as far as I am concerned. But as the
people of DC have been without legislative representation for over 200
years, I don't think they should be required to wait until MD changes
it's mind.
There's no reason DC has to be a state. It's just that making it a
state or joining it with MD would not require a constitutional amendment.
But it would be easy to formulate, if not pass, another solution. The district will have voting house members in proportion to its population
(one at the moment and probably forever) and one senator.
Nothing would change in the US except that the people of DC would have
some voting power, albeit less than the people of Vermont or Wyoming,
both with smaller populations. But then the senate is inherently undemocratic anyway. Not nearly as undemocratic as ours, but
undemocratic all the same.
Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-10-15, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:From the Washington Post, in 2019:
Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-10-14, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-10-11, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:It certainly was when I lived there.
Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/10/2024 9:28 AM, William Hyde wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in >>>>>>>> the first place. ;)
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established, >>>>>>>>>> probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains andWithout, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure. >>>>>>>>>
As I understand it a number of people in Georgetown and other
settlements in what became DC were rather unhappy with their loss of >>>>>>> voting rights.
When I lived in DC someone published a few letters from the time as part
of the movement to enfranchise the residents of DC.
The issue in DC has not been about being able to vote for a long time. >>>>>
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for >>>>>> decades,
Only plans that will never come to fruition.
but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland >>>>>> in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland
Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for >>>>> the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing >>>>> something.
Baloney!
Reality.
Look it up. It's not popular in Maryland.
Please give your citations.
"The Post-U. Md. poll finds Marylanders oppose making the District a new county in their state, a plan called “retrocession,” by 57 percent to 36 percent. There is little variation depending on political party, with majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents all opposed."
Other polls can be found supporting this. It's not hard to find.
First, both DC and Maryland are heavily Democratic;
Quite irrelevant.
The issue is an intensely political issue.
If we can't rise above politics on an issue of fundamental rights, what
are we?
To make my position clear:
Reunion with Maryland would be fair. Whether or not the citizens of DC
want it, it can be done.
They can justly claim equal status with other
cities of the same size, but not special status. However, better
special status than continued disenfranchisement.
But it cannot be done without the approval of Maryland, which we do not
have. And given the nature of senatorial representation, I can see why
they do not want to dilute their vote, even if the residents of DC are
fellow democrats, at least for now.
My proposal below, which I acknowledged would be difficult to pass, is
merely an example of what could be done without statehood, or reunion.
It is not and does not claim to be the best possible resolution.
Speaking as an outsider, I prefer it to statehood.
Actually, I should not be calling it "my" proposal, as I see I have been anticipated by 220 years:
" In 1801, Augustus Woodward, writing under the name Epaminondas, wrote
a series of newspaper articles in the National Intelligencer proposing a constitutional amendment that would read, "The Territory of Columbia
shall be entitled to one Senator in the Senate of the United States; and
to a number of members in the House of Representatives proportionate to
its population."
I think we can agree that since neither the current Democratic or
Republican parties existed in 1801, neither can be faulted for the
failure to act at that time.
I do wonder what he meant by that pen name. Epaminondas was the Theban general who overthrew Spartan power. I don't see the analogy.
The people of Georgetown objected to their losing the franchise in 1800.
Two hundred and twenty years would seem like time enough to remedy
that complaint.
From the Washington Post, in 2019:
"The Post-U. Md. poll finds Marylanders oppose making the District a new >county in their state, a plan called “retrocession,” by 57 percent to 36 >percent. There is little variation depending on political party, with >majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents all opposed."
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
From the Washington Post, in 2019:
"The Post-U. Md. poll finds Marylanders oppose making the District a new >county in their state, a plan called “retrocession,” by 57 percent to 36 >percent. There is little variation depending on political party, with >majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents all opposed."
That's a different plan: that is the complete return of DC to MD which
will involve now state control over DC. Nobody likes that plan, and it
is disliked for reasons that go far beyond voting.
--scott
In article <vepagj$4ib$1@panix2.panix.com>,
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
From the Washington Post, in 2019:
"The Post-U. Md. poll finds Marylanders oppose making the District a new >> >county in their state, a plan called “retrocession,? by 57 percent to 36
percent. There is little variation depending on political party, with
majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents all opposed."
That's a different plan: that is the complete return of DC to MD which
will involve now state control over DC. Nobody likes that plan, and it
is disliked for reasons that go far beyond voting.
--scott
The proposal I remember seeing was reducing the District to the Mall and
the Federal Triangle (including all of the Congressional office
buildings, the Supreme Court building and, of course, the White House
which would be the only residence in the District). Everything else
would be in Maryland.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:43:42 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <vepagj$4ib$1@panix2.panix.com>,
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
From the Washington Post, in 2019:
"The Post-U. Md. poll finds Marylanders oppose making the District a new >> >county in their state, a plan called “retrocession,? by 57 percent to >> >36
percent. There is little variation depending on political party, with
majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents all opposed."
That's a different plan: that is the complete return of DC to MD which
will involve now state control over DC. Nobody likes that plan, and it
is disliked for reasons that go far beyond voting.
--scott
The proposal I remember seeing was reducing the District to the Mall and >the Federal Triangle (including all of the Congressional office
buildings, the Supreme Court building and, of course, the White House
which would be the only residence in the District). Everything else
would be in Maryland.
So only the President, the First Lady, and any of their offspring who
were old enough and still living with them would be unable to vote
(for a Senator or Representative [1]).
Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-10-16, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-10-15, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:From the Washington Post, in 2019:
Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-10-14, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-10-11, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:It certainly was when I lived there.
Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/10/2024 9:28 AM, William Hyde wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established, >>>>>>>>>>>> probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains andWithout, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans. >>>>>>>>>>>
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure. >>>>>>>>>>>
the first place. ;)
As I understand it a number of people in Georgetown and other >>>>>>>>> settlements in what became DC were rather unhappy with their loss of >>>>>>>>> voting rights.
When I lived in DC someone published a few letters from the time as part
of the movement to enfranchise the residents of DC.
The issue in DC has not been about being able to vote for a long time. >>>>>>>
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for >>>>>>>> decades,
Only plans that will never come to fruition.
but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want >>>>>>>> to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland >>>>>>>> in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland
Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for >>>>>>> the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing >>>>>>> something.
Baloney!
Reality.
Look it up. It's not popular in Maryland.
Please give your citations.
"The Post-U. Md. poll finds Marylanders oppose making the District a new >>> county in their state, a plan called “retrocession,” by 57 percent to 36
percent. There is little variation depending on political party, with
majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents all opposed."
Other polls can be found supporting this. It's not hard to find.
That seems like an insignificant barrier to overcome,
More polls asking different questions can be found. If you want to.
given all the
publicity in the previous years was about alternatives (the DC statehood
referendum). It's pretty close but especially insignificant when
you consider the polls indicate only 20% support for retrocession
among DC residents. Maryland residents are almost twice as much in
favor of it as DC residents!
I don't understand why you consider Maryland resident support, who don't
get to vote on the issue, is more important than DC resident support, who
do get to vote on the issue.
Can Maryland be compelled to take DC back? I'd be very surprised if
that were so.
Can the federal government compel states to change their borders? How interesting that would be.
Do the voters of DC actually have any legal rights in this?
And note that all of this is about Maryland actually re-annexing DC.
The much more likely proposal (and the one the Republicans keep
suggesting) is for DC residents to be able to vote as Maryland residents,
but otherwise remain separate.
That would equally dilute their voting power.
First, both DC and Maryland are heavily Democratic;
Quite irrelevant.
The issue is an intensely political issue.
If we can't rise above politics on an issue of fundamental rights, what
are we?
To make my position clear:
Reunion with Maryland would be fair. Whether or not the citizens of DC
want it, it can be done.
??? It can't be done without the citizens of DC approving
As above, I'd be interested in the legal basis for this. They were not
asked to approve when the district was formed.
Article one, section eight, gives congress power over DC. Congress
regularly overturns laws passed by the city.
The voting rights act of 2007, which would have given some justice by allowing DC (and Utah, just to keep the political balance) a seat in the house did not pass a republican filibuster in the senate, gaining only
57 votes.
A similar bill in 2009 did pass the senate, but only with a republican amendment requiring DC to abandon all gun-control legislation. It died
in the house.
I am not as sanguine about the republicans' good intentions as are you.
On 2024-10-17, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Do the voters of DC actually have any legal rights in this?
Yes, but exactly where and when the line is drawn hasn't been legally
tested. One of the only Constitutional requirements for a state to be approved is that it has to be governed by the consent of its citizens (republican form of government). In practice, this has meant voting
for becoming a state in those questionable cases. Examples include
1) the Virginia retrocession, which had to not only be approved by the Virginia legislature but also the citizens of Virginia side DC (which at
the time meant white male residents since the major purpose of the Virginia retrocession was to preserve slavery in that area),
2) The Puerto Rico statehood. US Congress is currently attempting to work towards a "binding referendum" for Puerto Rico that has to be approved
before Congress will vote on statehood.
On 10/19/2024 8:04 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-10-17, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:As I recall it is the residents of Puerto Rico that have, many times,
Do the voters of DC actually have any legal rights in this?
Yes, but exactly where and when the line is drawn hasn't been legally
tested. One of the only Constitutional requirements for a state to be
approved is that it has to be governed by the consent of its citizens
(republican form of government). In practice, this has meant voting
for becoming a state in those questionable cases. Examples include
1) the Virginia retrocession, which had to not only be approved by the
Virginia legislature but also the citizens of Virginia side DC (which at
the time meant white male residents since the major purpose of the
Virginia
retrocession was to preserve slavery in that area),
2) The Puerto Rico statehood. US Congress is currently attempting to work
towards a "binding referendum" for Puerto Rico that has to be approved
before Congress will vote on statehood.
voted down becoming a state. Which makes me wonder what the real point
of that proposed "binding referendum" is.
On 10/19/24 09:37, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/19/2024 8:04 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-10-17, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:As I recall it is the residents of Puerto Rico that have, many times,
Do the voters of DC actually have any legal rights in this?
Yes, but exactly where and when the line is drawn hasn't been legally
tested. One of the only Constitutional requirements for a state to be
approved is that it has to be governed by the consent of its citizens
(republican form of government). In practice, this has meant voting
for becoming a state in those questionable cases. Examples include
1) the Virginia retrocession, which had to not only be approved by the
Virginia legislature but also the citizens of Virginia side DC (which at >>> the time meant white male residents since the major purpose of the
Virginia
retrocession was to preserve slavery in that area),
2) The Puerto Rico statehood. US Congress is currently attempting to
work
towards a "binding referendum" for Puerto Rico that has to be approved
before Congress will vote on statehood.
voted down becoming a state. Which makes me wonder what the real
point of that proposed "binding referendum" is.
I recall the same results but maybe the mood on PR has
changed and after disasters they might appreciate the increase
in Representation.
On 10/19/2024 8:04 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-10-17, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:As I recall it is the residents of Puerto Rico that have, many times,
Do the voters of DC actually have any legal rights in this?
Yes, but exactly where and when the line is drawn hasn't been legally
tested. One of the only Constitutional requirements for a state to be
approved is that it has to be governed by the consent of its citizens
(republican form of government). In practice, this has meant voting
for becoming a state in those questionable cases. Examples include
1) the Virginia retrocession, which had to not only be approved by the
Virginia legislature but also the citizens of Virginia side DC (which at
the time meant white male residents since the major purpose of the Virginia >> retrocession was to preserve slavery in that area),
2) The Puerto Rico statehood. US Congress is currently attempting to work
towards a "binding referendum" for Puerto Rico that has to be approved
before Congress will vote on statehood.
voted down becoming a state. Which makes me wonder what the real point
of that proposed "binding referendum" is.
Chris Buckley wrote:
Can Maryland be compelled to take DC back? I'd be very surprised if
that were so.
The Maryland *legislature* gets to vote on DC; the *residents* don't.
So Maryland cannot be compelled to take DC back.
The *DC residents* do get to vote.
Do you have any evidence that their vote is binding? The constitution
seems to be pretty clear that the federal government can do what it
wants with DC.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 58:51:13 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,461 |
| Posted today: | 1 |