But the fact remains that there are now people without representation. And that the founders also recognized they would not know everything, and allowed for changes to their documents and visions as growth required. Their original rallying cry was no taxation without representation, no?
As I recall from long-ago school, that is true. Which is why I asked whose idea it was for people to move into an area where they would have no representation and therefore no say? Was it a matter of convenience or desperation? And on whose part? History needs to know for accuracy.
Honestly, I am no expert on DC history, but we have precedent elsewhere - every other territory outside the original 13 had settlers move in and go through a process of applying for statehood through which they acquired representation.
In DC's case, I believe Congress directly controls most of the matter so the citizens cannot do the same. Thus - they did the same as any other state but old bylaws and such have them beholden to Congress. The Senate does not want +2D. Neither party, mind you.
It seems like I have some reading and looking-up to do. Thanks for your answers. They give me a place to start looking.
I appreciate the honest exchange. So used to bad faith and name calling.