DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[Virginiá]

Yeah, I find it very pig-headed when people say Democrats only want to ban gerrymandering, expand voting and admit new states for partisan gain. Democrats themselves are the ones who tanked a naked effort to enshrine partisan gerrymandering into the NJ constitution, and they willingly passed a redistricting commission amendment (albeit a flawed one) in Virginia. Note that in NJ the pressure came from actual Democratic activists. And Democrats do push for expanded voting options even in states where it doesn't really benefit them (West Virginia).

The fact is, Democratic activist/voter base has a large "good government" faction that genuinely cares about free and fair elections, even when it doesn't benefit them. This sometimes clashes with the endless ambition of politicians who would rather win at any cost, but it's still there. You can't really say the same for the Republican Party, who have people who care about fairness but not nearly as many nor influential as the faction(s) that just want to win no matter what they have to do. It's the reason why every 2 years when they either lose power in a state they control or gain control for the first time, they immediately start changing the rules post-election to try and abolish whatever voting service benefited Democrats the most. The 2021 legislative sessions are flush with these kinds of brazen power plays.

[MillennialModerate]

If Democrats don't use their raw power to push this through while in the majority then they've learned nothing over the last 2 decades and don't have their own constituents backs.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Is there a way DC gets 2 senators without becoming a state?

It would take a constitutional amendment and might even need to get over the entrenched clause. Practically impossible.

I never considered the potential equal suffrage implications, but now that I think about it, yeah, I'm sure some butthurt right-winger would've made a court case about it had the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment ever been ratified.

Each State would still have the same number of Senators, and the provision was clearly intended to prevent the Senate being switched to some other form of apportionment.  I think it would survive any court challenge and if not, Statehood would remain an option.  However, politically, there's zero chance of the Amendment being revived by Congress, let alone ratified by the States. (At most, I could see perhaps Manchin insisting a revival be tried first, with him supporting DC Statehood if not enough Republicans agreed to resend it to the States.)

[MillennialModerate]

Is there a way DC gets 2 senators without becoming a state?

It would take a constitutional amendment and might even need to get over the entrenched clause. Practically impossible.

I never considered the potential equal suffrage implications, but now that I think about it, yeah, I'm sure some butthurt right-winger would've made a court case about it had the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment ever been ratified.

Each State would still have the same number of Senators, and the provision was clearly intended to prevent the Senate being switched to some other form of apportionment.  I think it would survive any court challenge and if not, Statehood would remain an option.  However, politically, there's zero chance of the Amendment being revived by Congress, let alone ratified by the States. (At most, I could see perhaps Manchin insisting a revival be tried first, with him supporting DC Statehood if not enough Republicans agreed to resend it to the States.)

A fair compromise would have been: The national capital gets 3 electoral votes, 1 Senator and 2 House members. It would save the GOP from 1 Dem Senator and give the capital the representation. I’d be in favor of a bill that said STATEHOOD becomes official on this date if this amendment wasn’t adopted sooner.

Of course none of that will happen but hey

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Is there a way DC gets 2 senators without becoming a state?

It would take a constitutional amendment and might even need to get over the entrenched clause. Practically impossible.

I never considered the potential equal suffrage implications, but now that I think about it, yeah, I'm sure some butthurt right-winger would've made a court case about it had the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment ever been ratified.

Each State would still have the same number of Senators, and the provision was clearly intended to prevent the Senate being switched to some other form of apportionment.  I think it would survive any court challenge and if not, Statehood would remain an option.  However, politically, there's zero chance of the Amendment being revived by Congress, let alone ratified by the States. (At most, I could see perhaps Manchin insisting a revival be tried first, with him supporting DC Statehood if not enough Republicans agreed to resend it to the States.)

A fair compromise would have been: The national capital gets 3 electoral votes, 1 Senator and 2 House members. It would save the GOP from 1 Dem Senator and give the capital the representation. I’d be in favor of a bill that said STATEHOOD becomes official on this date if this amendment wasn’t adopted sooner.

Of course none of that will happen but hey

The Constitution is very clear, that regardless of population or size a State gets 2 Senators, not just 1, it's unconstitutional to just give DC only 1 Senator. DC has the same population as WY or AK


This business of DC has to pass due to Constitutional Amendment is inaccurate, every state were territories and we're only admitted due to if it supported slavery or not pending which Prez we had

[MillennialModerate]

Is there a way DC gets 2 senators without becoming a state?

It would take a constitutional amendment and might even need to get over the entrenched clause. Practically impossible.

I never considered the potential equal suffrage implications, but now that I think about it, yeah, I'm sure some butthurt right-winger would've made a court case about it had the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment ever been ratified.

Each State would still have the same number of Senators, and the provision was clearly intended to prevent the Senate being switched to some other form of apportionment.  I think it would survive any court challenge and if not, Statehood would remain an option.  However, politically, there's zero chance of the Amendment being revived by Congress, let alone ratified by the States. (At most, I could see perhaps Manchin insisting a revival be tried first, with him supporting DC Statehood if not enough Republicans agreed to resend it to the States.)

A fair compromise would have been: The national capital gets 3 electoral votes, 1 Senator and 2 House members. It would save the GOP from 1 Dem Senator and give the capital the representation. I’d be in favor of a bill that said STATEHOOD becomes official on this date if this amendment wasn’t adopted sooner.

Of course none of that will happen but hey

The Constitution is very clear, that regardless of population or size a State gets 2 Senators, not just 1, it's unconstitutional to just give DC only 1 Senator. DC has the same population as WY or AK


This business of DC has to pass due to Constitutional Amendment is inaccurate, every state were territories and we're only admitted due to if it supported slavery or not pending which Prez we had

The amendment would keep DC from being a state but as the nations capital it would get 1 Senator sand 2 members of the House. To equal its 3 electoral votes.

If a non state can be given electoral votes then it can be given congressional representation if an amendment was adopted by 2/3rds of the states

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Columbia isn't even a reference to Columbus.  Columbia is a woman, she was used in "goddess of the new land" type imagery before the Statue of Liberty came along and became our new favorite gal.

The name originally came from Columbus, because the land was originally named after Columbus.  As is the entire country of Colombia.  But DC is not named after Columbus.

This is Columbia:

I'm not sure "flee in terror before the giant industrializing mightiness of our manifest destiny" is exactly a positive message these days. I mean, yes, it's better than "guy who got removed from power by colonial Spain for being too vicious and corrupt". Columbia is certainly part of America's history, but I can equally see why one wouldn't want to name a new state after her.

[7,052,770]

Is there a way DC gets 2 senators without becoming a state?

It would take a constitutional amendment and might even need to get over the entrenched clause. Practically impossible.

I never considered the potential equal suffrage implications, but now that I think about it, yeah, I'm sure some butthurt right-winger would've made a court case about it had the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment ever been ratified.

Each State would still have the same number of Senators, and the provision was clearly intended to prevent the Senate being switched to some other form of apportionment.  I think it would survive any court challenge and if not, Statehood would remain an option.  However, politically, there's zero chance of the Amendment being revived by Congress, let alone ratified by the States. (At most, I could see perhaps Manchin insisting a revival be tried first, with him supporting DC Statehood if not enough Republicans agreed to resend it to the States.)

A fair compromise would have been: The national capital gets 3 electoral votes, 1 Senator and 2 House members. It would save the GOP from 1 Dem Senator and give the capital the representation. I’d be in favor of a bill that said STATEHOOD becomes official on this date if this amendment wasn’t adopted sooner.

Of course none of that will happen but hey

That's not remotely "fair" and seems to be something you just made up. Americans living in DC should be represented in Congress just like any other American, not overrepresented in the House and underrepresented in the Senate.

[pppolitics]

Dc statehood is unconstitutional.

Focus on Puerto rico.

What's your evidence that "Dc statehood is unconstitutional"?

[GeneralMacArthur]

I'm not sure "flee in terror before the giant industrializing mightiness of our manifest destiny" is exactly a positive message these days. I mean, yes, it's better than "guy who got removed from power by colonial Spain for being too vicious and corrupt". Columbia is certainly part of America's history, but I can equally see why one wouldn't want to name a new state after her.

This is just a famous painting that includes her, not the sum total of what she is.

I just don't see the point in renaming DC, which is what it's been called in every historical document and every piece of media for 230 years.  It's annoying and confusing, and "Douglass Commonwealth" is particularly dumb because there's no historical reason to call it a commonwealth, they just chose the name because it starts with "C".

And the effort seems to be mostly driven by misinformation about DC being (directly) named after Columbus.  In fact this misinformation is so widespread that it's literally in the header to Columbus' Wikipedia article:

Many landmarks and institutions in the Western Hemisphere bear his name, including the country of Colombia and the District of Columbia.

While the Washington D.C. Wikipedia article has the correct information:

The same day, the federal district was named Columbia (a feminine form of "Columbus"), which was a poetic name for the United States commonly in use at that time.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'm not sure "flee in terror before the giant industrializing mightiness of our manifest destiny" is exactly a positive message these days. I mean, yes, it's better than "guy who got removed from power by colonial Spain for being too vicious and corrupt". Columbia is certainly part of America's history, but I can equally see why one wouldn't want to name a new state after her.

This is just a famous painting that includes her, not the sum total of what she is.

I just don't see the point in renaming DC, which is what it's been called in every historical document and every piece of media for 230 years.  It's annoying and confusing, and "Douglass Commonwealth" is particularly dumb because there's no historical reason to call it a commonwealth, they just chose the name because it starts with "C".

And the effort seems to be mostly driven by misinformation about DC being (directly) named after Columbus.  In fact this misinformation is so widespread that it's literally in the header to Columbus' Wikipedia article:

Many landmarks and institutions in the Western Hemisphere bear his name, including the country of Colombia and the District of Columbia.

While the Washington D.C. Wikipedia article has the correct information:

The same day, the federal district was named Columbia (a feminine form of "Columbus"), which was a poetic name for the United States commonly in use at that time.

you’re literally quoting Wikipedia telling you that Columbia is “a feminine form of Columbus” my dude

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

“maybe we should drop the name Columbia because Columbus was a bad person” “um ackshually Columbia is the female representation of [a certain WASP vision of] the country who is herself named after Columbus so it’s fine”

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Rs would be opposed to any new Representation of an outside territory, they would get 67 votes.

Again will Ernst, Daines Rick Scott, vote to give new Representation to DC, no

[Badger]

Dc statehood is unconstitutional.

Focus on Puerto rico.

What's your evidence that "Dc statehood is unconstitutional"?

Our resident qanon Karen read it on the internet!

[Not Me, Us]

“maybe we should drop the name Columbia because Columbus was a bad person” “um ackshually Columbia is the female representation of [a certain WASP vision of] the country who is herself named after Columbus so it’s fine”

This. Columbia represents white supremacy, imperialism, and the genocide of the indigenous people of North America, and we should not be naming our capital after her.

[ultraviolet]

“maybe we should drop the name Columbia because Columbus was a bad person” “um ackshually Columbia is the female representation of [a certain WASP vision of] the country who is herself named after Columbus so it’s fine”

This. Columbia represents white supremacy, imperialism, and the genocide of the indigenous people of North America, and we should not be naming our capital after her.

Sorry but this is just ridiculous. The hate people have for historical figures is completely unfair. The United States wouldn’t exist with “Columbia” so it makes sense to name the capital after her despite everything

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

“maybe we should drop the name Columbia because Columbus was a bad person” “um ackshually Columbia is the female representation of [a certain WASP vision of] the country who is herself named after Columbus so it’s fine”

This. Columbia represents white supremacy, imperialism, and the genocide of the indigenous people of North America, and we should not be naming our capital after her.

Sorry but this is just ridiculous. The hate people have for historical figures is completely unfair. The United States wouldn’t exist with “Columbia” so it makes sense to name the capital after her despite everything

She’s not gonna sleep with you.

[CookieDamage]

Any actual news on the progression of this bill?

[brucejoel99]

Any actual news on the progression of this bill?

Not since Carper introduced the Senate companion to Norton's House bill, & probably not for at least another ~2 months, given that the COVID relief reconciliation package will be taking up all of the oxygen & legislative focus in the meantime.

[MillennialModerate]

Any actual news on the progression of this bill?

Not since Carper introduced the Senate companion to Norton's House bill, & probably not for at least another ~2 months, given that the COVID relief reconciliation package will be taking up all of the oxygen & legislative focus in the meantime.

By the time it sees the floor we will have lost the majority.

Mark my words. We will not get either statehood this year.

I could reverse jinx it a million times, offer all the bets in the world - it’s clear this isn’t a priority for leadership. If only Dem leadership was a little more ruthless - they could take a thing or two from the con artists in GOP leadership

[brucejoel99]

Any actual news on the progression of this bill?

Not since Carper introduced the Senate companion to Norton's House bill, & probably not for at least another ~2 months, given that the COVID relief reconciliation package will be taking up all of the oxygen & legislative focus in the meantime.

By the time it sees the floor we will have lost the majority.

Mark my words. We will not get either statehood this year.

I could reverse jinx it a million times, offer all the bets in the world - it’s clear this isn’t a priority for leadership. If only Dem leadership was a little more ruthless - they could take a thing or two from the con artists in GOP leadership

k

[7,052,770]

Any actual news on the progression of this bill?

Not since Carper introduced the Senate companion to Norton's House bill, & probably not for at least another ~2 months, given that the COVID relief reconciliation package will be taking up all of the oxygen & legislative focus in the meantime.

By the time it sees the floor we will have lost the majority.

Mark my words. We will not get either statehood this year.

I could reverse jinx it a million times, offer all the bets in the world - it’s clear this isn’t a priority for leadership. If only Dem leadership was a little more ruthless - they could take a thing or two from the con artists in GOP leadership

Schumer hasn't personally called MM to give the exact timetable for the bill, therefore it's not a priority and won't happen...

[lfromnj]

Any actual news on the progression of this bill?

Not since Carper introduced the Senate companion to Norton's House bill, & probably not for at least another ~2 months, given that the COVID relief reconciliation package will be taking up all of the oxygen & legislative focus in the meantime.

By the time it sees the floor we will have lost the majority.

Mark my words. We will not get either statehood this year.

I could reverse jinx it a million times, offer all the bets in the world - it’s clear this isn’t a priority for leadership. If only Dem leadership was a little more ruthless - they could take a thing or two from the con artists in GOP leadership

Can I get the $50 dollars this time?

[brucejoel99]

Any actual news on the progression of this bill?

Not since Carper introduced the Senate companion to Norton's House bill, & probably not for at least another ~2 months, given that the COVID relief reconciliation package will be taking up all of the oxygen & legislative focus in the meantime.

By the time it sees the floor we will have lost the majority.

Mark my words. We will not get either statehood this year.

I could reverse jinx it a million times, offer all the bets in the world - it’s clear this isn’t a priority for leadership. If only Dem leadership was a little more ruthless - they could take a thing or two from the con artists in GOP leadership

Can I get the $50 dollars this time?

Nah, I already called dibs again!

DC statehood vote when?

$100 to a member of this board if DC (or PR) statehood passes in 2021.

It’s all I want. It makes a Democratic agenda more likely for years to come.

Dibs, again.

[CookieDamage]

Any actual news on the progression of this bill?

Not since Carper introduced the Senate companion to Norton's House bill, & probably not for at least another ~2 months, given that the COVID relief reconciliation package will be taking up all of the oxygen & legislative focus in the meantime.

By the time it sees the floor we will have lost the majority.

Mark my words. We will not get either statehood this year.

I could reverse jinx it a million times, offer all the bets in the world - it’s clear this isn’t a priority for leadership. If only Dem leadership was a little more ruthless - they could take a thing or two from the con artists in GOP leadership

you are literally always wrong.