🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <25185@oasys.dt.navy.mil> mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill) writes:
>In dc.general, dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey) writes:
>>
>>Drug use by the mayor will not destroy the district.  A serious
>>disregard for the law IS destroying the district.
>
>Yes.  I said that I thought so.  However, is that sufficient
>reason to deny representation in the House and the Senate to 
>a large population of taxpaying Americans who happen to be
>born on a portion of land between Maryland and Virginia, 
>who fight and die for this country?

In principle, you are correct.  In reality, those people hold
the power of statehood in their hands, and they are going to 
have a certain set of conditions that they want to see met before
they make it happen.  The government of the district, and the 
people of the district must understand this, and work accordingly,
if they are going to have it happen.  This is not justice, or 
fairness, or right, but it is reality.  If you want real results,
rather than going down in flames with a good cause that is a 
failure, then you have to play by the reality rules.  

>Perhaps if the *entire*
>district had voted for Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, 
>Khomeni, or David Duke, we would have reason to check the
>water supply ;).  But let us not use the primary victory of
>Marion Barry, in one ward, to justify the denial of basic
>representation due an American.

I, for one, am not doing that.  Barry is just a symptom.  The
DC government seems to make way over its allotment of stupid
decisions, and in general does not act like it is smart enough
or mature enough to be given statehood, and the powers and 
responsibilities that are part of that.  

An interesting possibility is that if the territory that the
federal government is based upon becomes a State, the federal 
government may choose to garrison that area with Military in
order to guard against a coup.  The DC area is actually quite 
devoid of active combat units (compared to most any other 
capital city in the world).

>Recall that
>our founding fathers had little respect for the law.

This is absolutely incorrect, though often stated.  They 
had great respect for a just law, but they held that an 
unjust law should be opposed.  The constitution puts the 
lie to the theory that they had little respect for the 
law, in that the constitution is the framework for society
under a just and flexible system of law.

>Recall the Boston Tea Party (vandalism, theft),  taring
>and feathering (assault), and armed rebellion against
>the government!  A little crack looks like a very trivial
>think against that backdrop, speaking in terms of
>respect for law that is.

Ah, armed rebellion against the government.  The founders 
even provide for that in the constitution, realizing that 
if a government ever is in power that is no longer representative
of the people, and that government refuses to obey the 
dictates of the constitution, that the government must then 
answer to the people directly.  That is the intent of the 
statement "...to defend the constitution against all enemies,
foreign and domestic" and the Second Ammendment right to keep
and bear arms.  Note that the President does not swear to 
defend the government; the oath is sworn to defend the 
constitution. 

In any case, the whole Barry question should be, why do the 
people support this guy?  

Doug
-- 
Doug Humphrey              doug@access.digex.com               +1 301 220 2020
Digital Express Group, 6006 Greenbelt Road #228, Greenbelt, Maryland 20770 USA
Express Access Online Communications for Washington/Baltimore:  info@digex.com
       Login as "new": Washington 301-220-0462, Baltimore 410-766-1855