But on the other hand, it feels all funny to get up in arms about giving people representation in the government. It’s kinda like being wrong for the right reasons, you know?

As for myself, I’m a pretty solid supporter of having just fifty states. It’s a nice, round number. I memorized all their names and capitals when I was a kid, and I think I even remember most of them. Plus, have you seen the Army Institute of Heraldry’s just-in-case 51-star flag? It’s just ugly. Of course, I bet my parents felt the same way about the move from 48 to 49.

Should we be also looking to Sen. Reid to also propose an additional 10 senators as well for these 5 new “states”. Hmmm, that would seem to make votes in the Senate instantly veto proof, now doesnt it?

You now the thing is, getting into the union is easy, but getting out - as the states in the former confederacy will certainly agree - is not so easy. Id advise the residence of those places to be careful what they wish for. PR for example enjoys all the benefits of statehood, but it also enjoys the benefits of not being a state as well. Minimum wage laws and OSHA come to mind(witness the recent pelosi-star kist tuna dilemma). If that were to change, it might upset more than a few things for the people of those place, and I dont mean votes on the floor.

I say if you want to come into the union, then do so. DC is out of the question- (im not sure people should even be allowed to live there), but the rest of those candidates becoming full states is fine by me. I suspect however the residence therein might feel a bit different about it.

This does seem to be historys first example of ‘representation without taxation’.