DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[7,052,770]

Congress could pass legislation allowing D.C. to have voting representation in the House and Senate without revoking Congressional control over the District. 

I’m pretty sure that’s not true and that you’d need a Constitutional amendment. But either way,  no GOP member of congress has actually proposed any such thing. So it seems pretty disingenuous to say, “why are democrats ramming through statehood instead of this great compromise we’re not actually offering?” when the GOP position is, in fact, that DC residents should have NO representation.

A resolution to amend the Constitution is a piece of legislation before Congress.

And there is at least one Republican in the Senate who supports giving D.C. voting representation in the House.

And 0 senators. The taxpaying American citizens who live in DC (as is the case in any other part of America) deserve to have their interests represented in both Houses of Congress, and anything less than that is a non-starter. We should not have any second class citizens.

[Santander]

Congress could pass legislation allowing D.C. to have voting representation in the House and Senate without revoking Congressional control over the District.  

I’m pretty sure that’s not true and that you’d need a Constitutional amendment. But either way,  no GOP member of congress has actually proposed any such thing. So it seems pretty disingenuous to say, “why are democrats ramming through statehood instead of this great compromise we’re not actually offering?” when the GOP position is, in fact, that DC residents should have NO representation.

A resolution to amend the Constitution is a piece of legislation before Congress.

And there is at least one Republican in the Senate who supports giving D.C. voting representation in the House.

And 0 senators. The taxpaying American citizens who live in DC (as is the case in any other part of America) deserve to have their interests represented in both Houses of Congress, and anything less than that is a non-starter. We should not have any second class citizens.

So the 23rd Amendment shouldn't have been passed because it only addressed part of the DC taxation without representation issue?

[7,052,770]

Congress could pass legislation allowing D.C. to have voting representation in the House and Senate without revoking Congressional control over the District.  

I’m pretty sure that’s not true and that you’d need a Constitutional amendment. But either way,  no GOP member of congress has actually proposed any such thing. So it seems pretty disingenuous to say, “why are democrats ramming through statehood instead of this great compromise we’re not actually offering?” when the GOP position is, in fact, that DC residents should have NO representation.

A resolution to amend the Constitution is a piece of legislation before Congress.

And there is at least one Republican in the Senate who supports giving D.C. voting representation in the House.

And 0 senators. The taxpaying American citizens who live in DC (as is the case in any other part of America) deserve to have their interests represented in both Houses of Congress, and anything less than that is a non-starter. We should not have any second class citizens.

So the 23rd Amendment shouldn't have been passed because it only addressed part of the DC taxation without representation issue?

It was that or nothing then. If it were "House vote or nothing" today, I'd take the House vote, but all signs point to full statehood happening this year, so why even entertain less?

[CookieDamage]

I wish Sinemuh and Manchin would signal how they feel about this. I guess they're holding their cards to their chests

[7,052,770]

I wish Sinemuh and Manchin would signal how they feel about this. I guess they're holding their cards to their chests

0% chance either of them derail it. It's happening.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I wish Sinemuh and Manchin would signal how they feel about this. I guess they're holding their cards to their chests

0% chance either of them derail it. It's happening.

Unless it’s filibustered...

[brucejoel99]

I wish Sinemuh and Manchin would signal how they feel about this. I guess they're holding their cards to their chests

0% chance either of them derail it. It's happening.

Unless it’s filibustered...

"I raise a point of order that the vote on cloture under rule XXII for all Acts of Admission is by majority vote."

[American2020]

So when do you expect the DC statehood will happen ?

Q2 2021 ?
Q3 2021 ?
Q4 2021 ?
2022 ?
Beyond 2022 ?

[7,052,770]

I wish Sinemuh and Manchin would signal how they feel about this. I guess they're holding their cards to their chests

0% chance either of them derail it. It's happening.

Unless it’s filibustered...

It won't be. DC will be a state using whatever method or trick helps the grandstanders sleep at night.

[ultraviolet]

I wish Sinemuh and Manchin would signal how they feel about this. I guess they're holding their cards to their chests

0% chance either of them derail it. It's happening.

I guess this the Bevin to your IceSpear, the Georgia to your MM. I hope you’re right but…

[Del Tachi]

So are Republicans going to support this amendment?  Because if they aren't, what is the point? The primary reason statehood via shrinking the district is being pushed is because no alternatives have enough support to pass.

The point is that the unique status of our Federal District should not be changed absent an affirmative Constitutional supermajority and ratification by the three-fourths of the several States.  This is the same way D.C. was given presidential electors.  If there isn't such a majority then pro-statehood advocates need to do a better job of winning the debate.   

They are criticizing it because Democrats will win those seats. Few, if any, Republicans are going out of their way to sympathize with the situation DC residents find themselves, representation-wise.

No, they are making the point that Democrats' sudden interest in D.C. statehood is a naked partisan power play.  Democrats cared not about "taxation without representation" when they had trifectas in 1993-95 or 2009-11, and there is little doubt Democrats' interest in this stems from the difficult math they perceive in keeping a working Senate majority long term.

[Del Tachi]

And 0 senators. The taxpaying American citizens who live in DC (as is the case in any other part of America) deserve to have their interests represented in both Houses of Congress, and anything less than that is a non-starter. We should not have any second class citizens.

This is another funny thing about this debate.  Many Democrats (including this particular red avatar) will talk out of both sides of their head about how the Senate is an undemocratic body that flagrantly violates the "one man, one vote" principle while simultaneously arguing that a small, unpopulated exclave should be thrown into the mix to only further exacerbate this inequality.   

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Can we revoke Wyoming statehood then? Less people, no reason for it to be a state. Merge it with Colorado.

Wyoming has 'real' Americans in it.

[7,052,770]

And 0 senators. The taxpaying American citizens who live in DC (as is the case in any other part of America) deserve to have their interests represented in both Houses of Congress, and anything less than that is a non-starter. We should not have any second class citizens.

This is another funny thing about this debate.  Many Democrats (including this particular red avatar) will talk out of both sides of their head about how the Senate is an undemocratic body that flagrantly violates the 'one man, one vote' principle while simultaneously arguing that a small, unpopulated exclave should be thrown into the mix to only further exacerbate this inequality.   

If Americans living in the current 50 states get representation in the Senate, so should Americans living in DC. It's really not that hard of a concept.

Ideally, we would reform the Senate to allocate seats by population, but it's incredibly unlikely that will ever happen. In the meantime, we can increase the fairness even if we can't maximize it. Again, not that hard of a concept, and one that I doubt you're sincerely struggling to grasp.



ETA - I've never "talk out of both sides of their head about how the Senate is an undemocratic body that flagrantly violates the "one man, one vote" principle," as for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph, I don't think it's productive. Yes, I do think the Senate ought to be apportioned differently, but of my many soapboxes (we all know I'm a fan of those), this is not one of them. But I guess you're not one to let facts get in the way of narrative these days, sadly.

[Badger]

Congress could pass legislation allowing D.C. to have voting representation in the House and Senate without revoking Congressional control over the District. 

I’m pretty sure that’s not true and that you’d need a Constitutional amendment. But either way,  no GOP member of congress has actually proposed any such thing. So it seems pretty disingenuous to say, “why are democrats ramming through statehood instead of this great compromise we’re not actually offering?” when the GOP position is, in fact, that DC residents should have NO representation.

A resolution to amend the Constitution is a piece of legislation before Congress.

And there is at least one Republican in the Senate who supports giving D.C. voting representation in the House.

Oooh. One whole member of Congress!!

Steve Roger's point remains unassailed.

[GALeftist]

And 0 senators. The taxpaying American citizens who live in DC (as is the case in any other part of America) deserve to have their interests represented in both Houses of Congress, and anything less than that is a non-starter. We should not have any second class citizens.

This is another funny thing about this debate.  Many Democrats (including this particular red avatar) will talk out of both sides of their head about how the Senate is an undemocratic body that flagrantly violates the "one man, one vote" principle while simultaneously arguing that a small, unpopulated exclave should be thrown into the mix to only further exacerbate this inequality.   

Having one underpopulated state counteract another only exacerbates the inequality in the academic sense (i.e. there are now 50 states whose residents effectively have more power in the Senate than Californian voters as opposed to 49), but I suspect that that's not a priority for most people and it's not even really a concern for me, to be honest. The Senate's unique place in Article Five means that it might be impossible to reform even with a constitutional amendment, so I suspect it's sticking around until the proletarian revolution comes to pass, and consequently there will always be population imbalances between states. Like I said, this makes the institution undemocratic in a theoretical sense, but if there's nothing to be done about it short of revolution there's no point even really talking about it. The undemocratic aspects of the Senate I am more concerned about is A. that many Americans don't have a say in it at all and B. that California and New York are functionally Democratic vote sinks which make it very hard for Democratic voters to have their voices heard in the Senate. DC statehood would lessen both of those issues, so I support it.

[Badger]

So are Republicans going to support this amendment?  Because if they aren't, what is the point? The primary reason statehood via shrinking the district is being pushed is because no alternatives have enough support to pass.

The point is that the unique status of our Federal District should not be changed absent an affirmative Constitutional supermajority and ratification by the three-fourths of the several States.  This is the same way D.C. was given presidential electors.  If there isn't such a majority then pro-statehood advocates need to do a better job of winning the debate.   

They are criticizing it because Democrats will win those seats. Few, if any, Republicans are going out of their way to sympathize with the situation DC residents find themselves, representation-wise.

No, they are making the point that Democrats' sudden interest in D.C. statehood is a naked partisan power play.  Democrats cared not about "taxation without representation" when they had trifectas in 1993-95 or 2009-11, and there is little doubt Democrats' interest in this stems from the difficult math they perceive in keeping a working Senate majority long term.

Utter unadulterated bullsh**t.

[7,052,770]

So are Republicans going to support this amendment?  Because if they aren't, what is the point? The primary reason statehood via shrinking the district is being pushed is because no alternatives have enough support to pass.

The point is that the unique status of our Federal District should not be changed absent an affirmative Constitutional supermajority and ratification by the three-fourths of the several States.  This is the same way D.C. was given presidential electors.  If there isn't such a majority then pro-statehood advocates need to do a better job of winning the debate.   

They are criticizing it because Democrats will win those seats. Few, if any, Republicans are going out of their way to sympathize with the situation DC residents find themselves, representation-wise.

No, they are making the point that Democrats' sudden interest in D.C. statehood is a naked partisan power play.  Democrats cared not about "taxation without representation" when they had trifectas in 1993-95 or 2009-11, and there is little doubt Democrats' interest in this stems from the difficult math they perceive in keeping a working Senate majority long term.

Utter unadulterated bullsh**t.

To use his own words, he's "carrying water"

[Del Tachi]

So are Republicans going to support this amendment?  Because if they aren't, what is the point? The primary reason statehood via shrinking the district is being pushed is because no alternatives have enough support to pass.

The point is that the unique status of our Federal District should not be changed absent an affirmative Constitutional supermajority and ratification by the three-fourths of the several States.  This is the same way D.C. was given presidential electors.  If there isn't such a majority then pro-statehood advocates need to do a better job of winning the debate.   

They are criticizing it because Democrats will win those seats. Few, if any, Republicans are going out of their way to sympathize with the situation DC residents find themselves, representation-wise.

No, they are making the point that Democrats' sudden interest in D.C. statehood is a naked partisan power play.  Democrats cared not about "taxation without representation" when they had trifectas in 1993-95 or 2009-11, and there is little doubt Democrats' interest in this stems from the difficult math they perceive in keeping a working Senate majority long term.

Utter unadulterated bullsh**t.

Once again, I have a hard time seeing how anyone would ever pay for your representation in court lol 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

DC Statehood is to get back at Rs for the Obstructing of Merrick Garland, we have lived under Conservative Crts since 1970 and under this dark money campaign finance reform

We need a Crt that will do away with Dark money and have comprehensive background checks for all gun owners, 40 yrs we have lived under Conservatives

The Rs launched Gingrich Revolution due to fact they didn't like 40 yrs of D control of Congress

We need free financing of Election like Europe does
I know Del Chi don't see it that way but Ds do

Rs elected Trump and that's why they are in the Minority had they elected Rubio or Ryan or Jeb, they would have ,2T

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I may not be able to send voting representatives to Congress, but at least they can see my yard signs while driving to work.
By this logic should we even have elected representatives at all? If they can, as well as the body's agenda, be influenced by signs and bumper stickers alone, why not have the President appoint all members of Congress?

Forgo elections and instead force politicians to read every yard sign in america before any vote in congress

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I may not be able to send voting representatives to Congress, but at least they can see my yard signs while driving to work.
By this logic should we even have elected representatives at all? If they can, as well as the body's agenda, be influenced by signs and bumper stickers alone, why not have the President appoint all members of Congress?

Forgo elections and instead force politicians to read every yard sign in america before any vote in congress

Really would give those Atlas yard sign counts a new meaning.

[Brittain33]

And 0 senators. The taxpaying American citizens who live in DC (as is the case in any other part of America) deserve to have their interests represented in both Houses of Congress, and anything less than that is a non-starter. We should not have any second class citizens.

This is another funny thing about this debate.  Many Democrats (including this particular red avatar) will talk out of both sides of their head about how the Senate is an undemocratic body that flagrantly violates the "one man, one vote" principle while simultaneously arguing that a small, unpopulated exclave should be thrown into the mix to only further exacerbate this inequality.   

There’s no debate. By the principles both parties subscribe to about democracy and American citizenship, D.C. should be a state. There’s a frozen negotiation where Republicans refuse to act on those principles out of self-interest and come up with other reasons to obscure this reluctance.

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/im_sorry_wtf/status/1374202740092506116

[Virginiá]

[...]

No, they are making the point that Democrats' sudden interest in D.C. statehood is a naked partisan power play.  Democrats cared not about "taxation without representation" when they had trifectas in 1993-95 or 2009-11, and there is little doubt Democrats' interest in this stems from the difficult math they perceive in keeping a working Senate majority long term.

Issues take time to win over support. And for DC, there was an attempt made in 2009-2010 but it was not given the attention it deserved then, like dozens of other issues important to rank and file Democrats. There was also an attempt to amend the constitution back in the 1970s, and it passed Congress and was ratified by 16 states.

Democrats aren't going to win this "debate" with contemporary Republicans because your party has made it abundantly clear that it only cares about who fills those new Senate seats. Personally, I'm not really interested in a debate anymore. When it comes to voting rights in general, I already know where the Republican Party stands. They make their position clear every 2 years after a federal election, where they get to work changing the rules to try and mitigate losses. Today's GOP is singularly obsessed with maximizing their electoral potential via any means necessary, so the idea that there is any sort of "debate" to be had is laughable. This is why Democrats should just do it anyway. If Republicans are can't get over it, go dissolve Texas into 5 states or something. Either way, let us please not pretend there is any kind of "debate" to be had.