Sign in to follow this  
CubsFanBudMan

Washington Nationals name dispute

Recommended Posts

Watching CC ( :flagcanada: ) and Icecap ( :flagcanada: ) going at it on this thread over the representation of the District of Columbia in the legislative branch of the US government might just be my highlight after years of lurking and posting as a member.

:unclesam: Here's the official word: "...The District is ruled "in all cases whatsoever" by the U.S. Congress, while nevertheless going unrepresented in that body... According to the U.S. Constitution, Washington, D.C. is under the direct jurisdiction of Congress. Congress has delegated various amounts of this authority to local government. Still, D.C. residents lack some representation that is enjoyed by residents of U.S. states.

Residents of the District vote for the President but do not have voting representation in Congress. Citizens of Washington are represented in the House of Representatives by a non-voting delegate (currently Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC At-Large)) who sits on committees and participates in debate but cannot vote. D.C. does not have representation in the Senate. Citizens of Washington, D.C. are thus unique in the world, as citizens of the capital city of every other country have the same representation rights as other citizens. Attempts to change this situation, including the proposed District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, have been unsuccessful." [courtesy: wikipedia.com]

Now as far as the name goes: "Senators" wasn't an official nickname for most of the first incarnation of the team - the owners called the team the Nationals through 1956. When that team moved to become the Twins, Washington's expansion franchise was officially nicknamed the Senators. I like 'em both, might as well give Nationals a try. And since they're winning with it, I don't see them changing anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
senators? sorry. dosnt fit, considering the fact that washington dc dosnt even have a senator of its own.

DC doesn't have A senator...it has 100 of them. Nice try though 'Cappy.

the district of columbia dosnt have a senator the represents the district itself.

That's because Senators represents States not Cities. All DC is just a city.

DC has a SENATE...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well all the Senators meet daily in Washington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bump... my explanation is at the top of the 2nd page of this thread; reading it would eliminate some of the confusion...

Can we move past DC's unique situation now? DC is governed by Congress, though it does not have its own Senator, and has a non-voting delegate in the House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dick Cheney (Or any current Vice President) is the president of the senate, and makes the tie-breaking vote in the case that the senate is deadlocked at 50-50. That would in theory give D.C. one potential vote. Sorry my first post was on something not about jerseys, logos, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is why we have a team in MLB named the "Devil Rays" also.

When the big push for MLB in the Tampa Bay area was going on, some low-life trailer-park dweller registered the names like Tampa Bay Thunder, etc., etc., in hopes that the new owner would pay him mucho bucks for the name. Sorta get rich quick. But Namoli refused to pay for a name and they ended up being called the Devil Rays. I read that he registered like 75 different variants to the Tampa Bay __________, St. Petersburg __________, Florida _________, and ended up with nothing.

Serves him right.

Thanks butthead.

( I would call him worse, but this is a family show.  :D )

Fans get a chance to name that team

He also said he will not pay anyone for the rights to a name, which seems to dismiss some of the names often suggested - Tampa Bay Thunder, Tampa Bay Thunderbolts, and Tampa Bay Tarpons. Area residents Teresa deArrigoitia and Tony Karcher registered trademarks for those names, as well as Tampa Bay Tornadoes, last year, and sold shirts with those names. Now, they want to sell Naimoli the rights to the names.

"The ownership group is going to spend a lot of money for a team and we aren't going to spend a lot of money plus one cent in order to buy a name from someone who ran up to the copyright office and invested $300," Naimoli said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
senators? sorry. dosnt fit, considering the fact that washington dc dosnt even have a senator of its own.

DC doesn't have A senator...it has 100 of them. Nice try though 'Cappy.

the district of columbia dosnt have a senator the represents the district itself.

That's because Senators represents States not Cities. All DC is just a city.

the district of columbia is just that: a district. the city is washington. its all the same space, but its just not a city. if it were just a city it would be a city in maryland.

:rolleyes:

You know Ottawa doesn't have a senator either.

Who the hell cares

ottawa isnt its own seperate entity though. its PART of ontario.

DC ain't a state either, like all the other places with senators are.

im not arguing weather dc should have senators or not. imo it shouldnt. but the team shouldnt be named after something that the city dosnt have.

Define Irony: Two Canadians fighting over US states and senators

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they don't let DC have a senator because it's poor and minority and would vote liberal...they might have to allow a black senator!

and what's so wrong with that?

i'm a resident of the dc metro area and i have several friends who work for the nats right now. they've told me that the same folks that were praying for mlb to move the expos to washington are now constantly complaining to stadium/team employees about a number of petty problems.

why can't you be satisfied, people? you got the frickin team, and now you're complaining about an uncomfortable seat? how about not going to the game? how about moving your fat ass over to an empty seat in the upper deck (and there are plenty of them at rfk)? although these folks are in the minority of the fans who regularly attend nats games, they obviously drive me frickin nuts here.

what's interesting though is that the real baseball fans - the knowledgable, well-spirited fans previously seen in baltimore - have stopped making the trip up on I-95 and started going to nationals games. if you went to orioles games back in the day (1998 and earlier) like me, you should remember fans starting their own chants without the help of little jingles or music. you should recall people actually paying attention to the games. it almost brings me to tears when i think back and realize that was the way orioles baseball at camden yards used to be.

now, the only folks who attend o's games don't come so much for the game itself. college kids and those from previous generations come for the $7.50 beers, who then try to see who can get intoxicated the quickest. then there are the people from america's lower-class - they've got their day off from their job over at the dump, so they stop in for a beer, boog's bbq, and a breather. lastly, there are the parents who schlep their kids all the way from home just to see the oriole bird (who is infinite times better than the nats' blob-of-a-mascot, screech). i've just had enough. :down:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Watching CC ( :flagcanada: ) and Icecap ( :flagcanada: ) going at it on this thread over the representation of the District of Columbia in the legislative branch of the US government might just be my highlight after years of lurking and posting as a member.

:unclesam: Here's the official word: "...The District is ruled "in all cases whatsoever" by the U.S. Congress, while nevertheless going unrepresented in that body... According to the U.S. Constitution, Washington, D.C. is under the direct jurisdiction of Congress. Congress has delegated various amounts of this authority to local government. Still, D.C. residents lack some representation that is enjoyed by residents of U.S. states.

Residents of the District vote for the President but do not have voting representation in Congress. Citizens of Washington are represented in the House of Representatives by a non-voting delegate (currently Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC At-Large)) who sits on committees and participates in debate but cannot vote. D.C. does not have representation in the Senate. Citizens of Washington, D.C. are thus unique in the world, as citizens of the capital city of every other country have the same representation rights as other citizens. Attempts to change this situation, including the proposed District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, have been unsuccessful." [courtesy: wikipedia.com]

Now as far as the name goes: "Senators" wasn't an official nickname for most of the first incarnation of the team - the owners called the team the Nationals through 1956. When that team moved to become the Twins, Washington's expansion franchise was officially nicknamed the Senators. I like 'em both, might as well give Nationals a try. And since they're winning with it, I don't see them changing anytime soon.

The 1959 Washington jersey has "Senators" on both the home and away. So was the official name changed in 1956 to "Senators" and THEN that team left in 1960 to become the Twins?

BTW all this crap about D.C. not having a Senator and therefore shouldnt be named "Senators" is just the Washington mayors' bullcrap excuse because he personally doesnt like the name Washington Senators. The arguments of no Pirates in Pittsburgh, no Cubs in Chicago, no Giants in San Francisco, etc is perfect argument against the pseudologic of his argument. WASHINGTON SENATORS all the way, as it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan of either the NATIONALS or SENATORS name.

But I can live with either one. What really needs to go is the atrociously boring logo the Nats are using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think it's time to let the "DC doesn't have a Senator" thing die.

The original Senators were called the Senators by the fans for a very long time. Nicknames were very unofficial and could change regularly until the middle of the 20th century. They weren't always exclusive (the Phillies were called "Phillies" and "Blue Jays" at the same time in the 1940s).

So even though the original franchise was officially called "Nationals" for some time, they were also the Senators. Eventually the team adopted "Senators" officially, and added it to their uniforms. This was before they moved to Minnesota - the first "Twins" script was modeled after the "Senators" script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which, like many, was inspired by the Dodger script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about that. I'd call it more of a generic athletic script than an homage to the Dodgers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, VitaminD, you are very well instructed. With your words, the dispute ended.

Ah, the former Nationals/Senators (today the Twins) had a nickname NATS from Senators and Nationals.

People in Washington since '20 or '30 called popularly them Senators or Nats but the franchise didn't change officially the nickname until 1956.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if I missed it among the arguement, but the reason why the Nationals won't ever be called the Senators is because the Texas Rangers still own exclusive rights to the name since they moved from DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ever"? Pish posh.

That can be fixed easily enough. After all, the Rangers got the name from the original Senators. They only used it for ten years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only one solution: Rename the team the Washington Non-Voting Members Of The House Of Representatives. Now if the Canadians will kindly give us our government back... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A group claims that MLB doesn't own the name "Washington Nationals":

AP story

And depending on when they got trademark rights, they just might.

One thing that is in play when it comes to trademarks is use. MLB hadn't used "Washington Nationals" for anything from 1971 until probably about July 2004. In such cases, any trademark right they may have had to the name, registered or otherwise, would've expired because MLB failed to use it in a commercial manner.

If that group, or any other, got the trademark rights and actually used them during that period and is still using them, its possible that MLB's going to have to settle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you non-political types don't get is that the lack of House and Senate representation is a MAJOR issue amongst the political class of the District. Poo-poo it all you want, but they don't have "No Taxation Without Representation" on their license plates for nothing. Some (pretty powerful) people get pretty steamed when the subject comes up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this