DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[rhg2052]

https://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/dc-statehood-gets-march-22-house-oversight-committee-hearing/I4RAYJUS6JF2RNEVJCM2KUBIHA/

Oversight Committee hearing on the Statehood bill to begin on 3/22

[brucejoel99]

https://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/dc-statehood-gets-march-22-house-oversight-committee-hearing/I4RAYJUS6JF2RNEVJCM2KUBIHA/

Oversight Committee hearing on the Statehood bill to begin on 3/22

Can't wait to see Jordan or Gosar or whomever calls dibs start shouting "2 dEmOcRaTiC sEnAtOrS" & "tHeRe'Ve AlWaYs BeEn FiFtY sTaRs On ThE fLaG!"

[Sir Mohamed]

https://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/dc-statehood-gets-march-22-house-oversight-committee-hearing/I4RAYJUS6JF2RNEVJCM2KUBIHA/

Oversight Committee hearing on the Statehood bill to begin on 3/22

At least something, but I expect this to be DOA in the senate. Unfortunately I have to add.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

https://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/dc-statehood-gets-march-22-house-oversight-committee-hearing/I4RAYJUS6JF2RNEVJCM2KUBIHA/

Oversight Committee hearing on the Statehood bill to begin on 3/22

At least something, but I expect this to be DOA in the senate. Unfortunately I have to add.

Depends on when/how much they push filibuster reform/abolition.

[brucejoel99]

https://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/dc-statehood-gets-march-22-house-oversight-committee-hearing/I4RAYJUS6JF2RNEVJCM2KUBIHA/

Oversight Committee hearing on the Statehood bill to begin on 3/22

At least something, but I expect this to be DOA in the senate. Unfortunately I have to add.

Depends on when/how much they push filibuster reform/abolition.

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

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

https://mobile.twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1372596210482176008

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

This is a reminder that Utah, Wyoming, and especially the division of the Dakotas were added for for republicans to have more seats and the state of Sequoia failed as they didn’t want what (was then) a democratic stronghold to be a state. Hawaii and Alaska were added as they thought they would balance out (which they basically have)

Statehood has always been a political tool, especially for republicans (albeit a party nothing like the current one). So anyone acting like that’s a terrible or unamerican to add states that would help democrats is just flat out wrong, there’s about nothing more American.

[7,052,770]

[7,052,770]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1374051310262046723


There just aren't any good arguments against DC statehood, so this is what Republicans are resorting to.

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1374043601085300738

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Ds have a 1/3 chance to push the Filibuster this Election cycle but due to the Senate map they have a 2/3 chance to kill Filibuster in 2023, pending we hold the House and we will, Mccarthy isn't Boehner or Ryan

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1374051310262046723


There just aren't any good arguments against DC statehood, so this is what Republicans are resorting to.

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1374043601085300738

I don’t know whether it’s worse if they believe it or not.

[Nyvin]

Zack Smith from Heritage Foundation has a take in Congress on why DC statehood isn't needed - The DC residents already impact Congress by having members of Congress drive by their yard signs and bumper stickers.  

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1374033974700478470

[Damocles]

“No taxation without representation”

[GP270watch]

 In other words, we don't want two more black senators who will likely be Democrats.

 Would be cool if conservatives could stop lying and just be that honest.

[Storr]

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?

[MasterJedi]

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

[Santander]

“No taxation without representation”

Not the same thing as DC statehood.

[Del Tachi]

“No taxation without representation”

Not the same thing as DC statehood.

Yeah, this is the most dishonest aspect of Democrats' whole "DC statehood" charade.

Congress could pass legislation allowing D.C. to have voting representation in the House and Senate without revoking Congressional control over the District.  Such control is necessary to ensure the Federal government doesn't have to operate under the undue influence of any state, which is a noble enough reason to oppose D.C. statehood on its merits.

As I have said before:

The reason D.C. should not be a state today is the same reason why it was created in the first place:  so that Congress and the Federal government would not be under the undue authority or influence of any state.  The constitutional principles of federalism and the separation of powers are fundamentally incompatible with D.C. statehood.  Federal actions and officials must be independent of state governments and not unduly bound by any state's particular laws.  One sovereign cannot live in the house of another.         

Turning the seat of the federal government into an unpopulated enclave of some new state is no better a solution.    The everyday needs of the Federal government for utilities, roads, safety and transportation could be choked and snarled by a "Douglass Commonwealth" unhappy with some Federal (in)action.  It would be a "plenary power" of any state formed out of D.C. to interfere with these essential services and exert undue control over the functioning of the federal government.  Maybe the new state would never seek to act this way, but it wouldn't have to be intentional for it to inhibit the functioning of our federal government.  The Douglass Commonwealth could (like many Democrat-run cities) simply wreck the city budget, amass huge amounts of municipal debt, resultingly hallow out local police/schools/infrastructure and leave the Federal government to operate in an unsafe, decrepit shell of a formerly great national capital.  Exclusive control of D.C. by the federal government is the only option that preempts either of these scenarios.   

If admitted, the Douglass Commonwealth would be grossly unlike any other state in our nation, either historically or today.  The federal government is not a visitor upon D.C., the city has grown up around and entirely dependent on it.  It has no identifiable history or economy other than surviving off Federal tax receipts.  It is only 5 percent the size of Rhode Island.  Its 100% urban population would not be home to a single farmer or miner.  As a state, D.C. would be the richest yet have one of the highest poverty rates, simultaneously the most educated yet with the worst high school graduation rates.  Admitting D.C. as a state does not improve upon what some proponents of the idea claim as the great failing of our U.S. Senate - there it would elevate a small, idiosyncratic enclave to the same level of huge, diverse states home to tens of millions.   

All this being said, I'm sympathetic to permanent D.C. residents who want voting representation in Congress.  I'd support adding additional seats so that D.C. (and Puerto Rico and other territories, FWIW) can have voting rights in the House commensurate with their population.   

[Storr]

“No taxation without representation”

Not the same thing as DC statehood.

I'd be fine if DC was given the representation in Congress it would receive if it were a state (2 senators and one representative), while still remaining a federal district. It already has its own local government (which of course is given its powers and authority by Congress) that in HB51 is simply renamed the state government. My point being that since DC didn't require statehood to achieve local governance or even electoral college votes, Congressional representation sans statehood doesn't seen too far fetched.

[politics_king]

In other words, we don't want two more black senators who will likely be Democrats.

 Would be cool if conservatives could stop lying and just be that honest.

The White Patriarchy is slowly being dismantled but it's picked up a lot of steam over the last few years to get rid of it. The people who support the patriarchy are losing their minds over it because this is the last time they'll have control of the federal government. "Minority" rule is over. People want real representatives for the whole country and pass legislation that works for everyone, not just for you know...

[Badger]

“No taxation without representation”

Not the same thing as DC statehood.

Yeah, this is the most dishonest aspect of Democrats' whole "DC statehood" charade.

Congress could pass legislation allowing D.C. to have voting representation in the House and Senate without revoking Congressional control over the District.  Such control is necessary to ensure the Federal government doesn't have to operate under the undue influence of any state, which is a noble enough reason to oppose D.C. statehood on its merits.

As I have said before:

The reason D.C. should not be a state today is the same reason why it was created in the first place:  so that Congress and the Federal government would not be under the undue authority or influence of any state.  The constitutional principles of federalism and the separation of powers are fundamentally incompatible with D.C. statehood.  Federal actions and officials must be independent of state governments and not unduly bound by any state's particular laws.  One sovereign cannot live in the house of another.         

Turning the seat of the federal government into an unpopulated enclave of some new state is no better a solution.    The everyday needs of the Federal government for utilities, roads, safety and transportation could be choked and snarled by a "Douglass Commonwealth" unhappy with some Federal (in)action.  It would be a "plenary power" of any state formed out of D.C. to interfere with these essential services and exert undue control over the functioning of the federal government.  Maybe the new state would never seek to act this way, but it wouldn't have to be intentional for it to inhibit the functioning of our federal government.  The Douglass Commonwealth could (like many Democrat-run cities) simply wreck the city budget, amass huge amounts of municipal debt, resultingly hallow out local police/schools/infrastructure and leave the Federal government to operate in an unsafe, decrepit shell of a formerly great national capital.  Exclusive control of D.C. by the federal government is the only option that preempts either of these scenarios.   

If admitted, the Douglass Commonwealth would be grossly unlike any other state in our nation, either historically or today.  The federal government is not a visitor upon D.C., the city has grown up around and entirely dependent on it.  It has no identifiable history or economy other than surviving off Federal tax receipts.  It is only 5 percent the size of Rhode Island.  Its 100% urban population would not be home to a single farmer or miner.  As a state, D.C. would be the richest yet have one of the highest poverty rates, simultaneously the most educated yet with the worst high school graduation rates.  Admitting D.C. as a state does not improve upon what some proponents of the idea claim as the great failing of our U.S. Senate - there it would elevate a small, idiosyncratic enclave to the same level of huge, diverse states home to tens of millions.   

All this being said, I'm sympathetic to permanent D.C. residents who want voting representation in Congress.  I'd support adding additional seats so that D.C. (and Puerto Rico and other territories, FWIW) can have voting rights in the House commensurate with their population.   

While I could live with DC being granted congressional representation without statehood - - but let's make it clear, the former is what Republicans truly oppose and fear-- but it would still be unjust. Congress has effed-up and overridden local Democratic rule in decision-making more times than one can count in a grotesquely heavy-handed way. Having Yokel congressman completely alien to the culture and values of DC residence is abhorrent to the concept of local democracy.

Ignoring the sputtering about debt-ridden democratic-run municipalities-- the entire West Coast, Rocky Mountain metropolises, and much of the Eastern Corridor all say hello, or at least they would if they decided to move to someplace with a far lower standard of living like Mississippi - - your concerns about a dc-based State entity somehow snarling the role of Congress it's not entirely misplaced. However, I submit the risk is limited enough that it is unbalanced by the repeated denial of local governance. DC's and entire employment, economy, and infrastructure is inherently closely tied to Northern Virginia and the Maryland suburbs of DC. If either of those democratic-run governments decided to engage in your hypothetical retaliation against unfavorable action by a republican Congress, it might not be able to do so quite to the same extent of Douglas Commonwealth, but the effect would be severe and well established. Given the population and other growth of the district, its current borders of trying to provide a buffer against state government hey intimidation an interference is already an insufficiently sized anachronism.

Besides, if you really are so concerned about those people turning Olive DC into some modern-day Detroit - - yeah, DC was known as a murder capital for some years, but it's incredible how much of that violence is concentrated on the Eastern Anacostia Shore neighborhoods-- then hollow out an actual District of Columbia with ongoing Capitol Police Protection for a about a square kilometer or so around the National Mall, White House, Congress, Etc. If you REALLY fear the encroachment of those types on to the federal government's essential Services, give the district its own fire department, sanitation department, and sewer system. Hardly a waste considering a typical small-town municipality has such full-time services.

Again, the hypothetical Easley surmountable issue of supposed state government intimidation of the federal government does not begin to outweigh The Chronic wrongheaded interference of local Affairs by Father Knows Best minded congressional committees.

[SteveRogers]

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.

[Del Tachi]

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.

[ProudModerate2]

Oh yes, but of course.
Those yardsigns are great and true representation.

[Virginiá]

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.

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. Republicans in Congress have brought this up on numerous occasions:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/mcconnell-seems-to-call-the-prospect-of-dc-statehood-f...

“They plan to make the District of Columbia a state — that would give them two new Democratic senators — Puerto Rico a state, that would give them two more new Democratic senators

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/22/dumbing-down-dc-statehood-debate/

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) suggestively asked D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) where she would place “the ideological makeup of D.C. relative to other cities in the country. Is it slightly Democratic, very Democratic, very Republican?” Foxx, as with virtually anyone with even a passing knowledge of our country’s politics, knows the answer.

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.

Simply put, Republicans are not willing to do anything that will give Democrats extra Senators, regardless if the broader issue is the right thing to do. That is how you end up with actual statehood, because it's the only option left.