DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The one thing you can never replace.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I think most reds avatar are lying to themselves when they say they are not politically motivated in supporting DC and PR statehood so strongly. It's obvious that adding them would essentially guarantee an extra four Democratic senators, and no one is without this knowledge. When you advocate their statehood as a means to balance out the Senate, that is completely politically motivated. There was a lot less vocal support for statehood when Democrats were winning tons of senate seats in small, rural states and seemed to have a strong structural advantage in the Senate.  Adding states to change what is likely a temporary Republican structural advantage in the Senate is misguided. There are strong arguments for admitting both PR and DC, but they are not slam dunk, which is why adding them appears so politically motivated.

Having a distinct capital area with different functions than other provinces/administrative areas is very common. That is what DC is. Now, they should definitely be represented in the House. The Senate, however, exists specifically for the states. Admitting them as a state and ensuring senate representation is a different matter. I'm not sure the capital area should be in any specific state, and thus have Senate representation, although they should be represented in the House

For Puerto Rico, the case for statehood is weaker. For one, they are pretty autonomous in their governance and do not pay federal taxes. Thus is there isn't the no taxation without representation argument for them. They did just have their statehood referendum pass, but it did so with 52% of the vote. Only about 20% of the island's population voted for statehood, and about 28% of registered voters. I don't know what the threshold should be, but PR seems much too divided on statehood to be admitted. Perhaps a majority of RVs should be needed, or 60% or 66.7% support in a referendum, but 52% support in a 54% turnout election is simply not enough for a drastic change in governance like statehood. It should require consensus. When Democrats are much more enthusiastic about admitting PR as a state than PR itself, then it appears to be politically motivated.

I think “it’s bigger than 2 states and 80% of the population wants to be one” is pretty much a slam dunk for me.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I think most reds avatar are lying to themselves when they say they are not politically motivated in supporting DC and PR statehood so strongly. It's obvious that adding them would essentially guarantee an extra four Democratic senators, and no one is without this knowledge. When you advocate their statehood as a means to balance out the Senate, that is completely politically motivated. There was a lot less vocal support for statehood when Democrats were winning tons of senate seats in small, rural states and seemed to have a strong structural advantage in the Senate.  Adding states to change what is likely a temporary Republican structural advantage in the Senate is misguided. There are strong arguments for admitting both PR and DC, but they are not slam dunk, which is why adding them appears so politically motivated.

Having a distinct capital area with different functions than other provinces/administrative areas is very common. That is what DC is. Now, they should definitely be represented in the House. The Senate, however, exists specifically for the states. Admitting them as a state and ensuring senate representation is a different matter. I'm not sure the capital area should be in any specific state, and thus have Senate representation, although they should be represented in the House

For Puerto Rico, the case for statehood is weaker. For one, they are pretty autonomous in their governance and do not pay federal taxes. Thus is there isn't the no taxation without representation argument for them. They did just have their statehood referendum pass, but it did so with 52% of the vote. Only about 20% of the island's population voted for statehood, and about 28% of registered voters. I don't know what the threshold should be, but PR seems much too divided on statehood to be admitted. Perhaps a majority of RVs should be needed, or 60% or 66.7% support in a referendum, but 52% support in a 54% turnout election is simply not enough for a drastic change in governance like statehood. It should require consensus. When Democrats are much more enthusiastic about admitting PR as a state than PR itself, then it appears to be politically motivated.

I think “it’s bigger than 2 states and 80% of the population wants to be one” is pretty much a slam dunk for me.

The larger population argument misses some of the reason why Wyoming is a state. Wyoming is geographically vast despite having a small population. Appending it to Montana would've created a state perhaps too large to manage during the 1800s. Wyoming needed to be a separate state to have a functional government. DC would be by far the smallest state geographically; there's no difficulty in governance like the one that Wyoming would've had if it was part of a different state. Admitting a extremely geographically small and pretty small in terms of population state would be a new precedent. Small pop states are either extremely large, geographically isolated, or were created hundreds of years ago. None of these things apply to DC. If anything it should be annexed by Maryland. Elevating it to statehood wouldn't be the best government. It should either be annexed by MD or VA or remain a distinct capital area.

1. DC has a higher population than Vermont, which you have hitherto ignored. Why not make Vermont join up with New Hampshire or New York while you’re at it?

2. DC was created hundreds of years ago.

3. Words cannot express the contempt I feel for people who throw around “just become part of Maryland!” I don’t know if it’s rational of me, but to me it immediately demonstrates that someone has spent very little time actually thinking about the issue, because nobody in either DC or Maryland wants that at all.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Something tells me that if progressives decided not to push for Puerto Rico to get statehood, a lot of the people saying we only want it for the senators and that the margin in the referendum was too thin would suddenly start clamoring that we’re just scared of them electing Republicans.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

And you are lying to yourself when you say you aren’t politically motivated against DC statehood.
Yeah I admit it, we want DC statehood for the senators, deal with it, your side is far worse and this is payback for your destruction of the country. I don’t care how you feel.

It’s going to be so hilarious if you people add DC (and maybe even PR) and still lose the Senate in 2022. The next R trifecta is going to be glorious beyond words.

What, glorious like the last one that did practically nothing?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I’m gonna be mad if the actual name ends up being “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth”. There’s no state of Chicago, Illinois or “State of Boston, Commonwealth of Massachusetts”.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

And do Puerto Rico too.

Unlike Puerto Rico, you can arguably do DC through reconciliation depending on how cute you want to get with the Senate rules.

What is actually required to make both states?

I was under the impression that if voters in the district/territory voted in favor of statehood, and if a simple majority in the House and Senate agreed, that was all it took.  What else has to happen?

(Apologies if I'm showing my stupidity.)

The Puerto Rico government which is currently anti-statehood has to draft a constitution and everything.

The Puerto Rico government is pro-statehood. Or at least the governor is.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I've thought about it, and it's actually not so much the small states that are the problem for Senate Democrats. Yes, Wyoming, Idaho and the Dakotas are all solidly Republican. But Democrats are dominant in small states like Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island and Hawaii.

The real problem for them is that they keep falling short in Florida and North Carolina, and have largely lost the ability to compete in medium-sized states like Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana. If Bill Nelson had reached out to Hispanics or Cal Cunningham hadn't had his affair, there would be a lot fewer calls for DC statehood.

We get it, Republicans love to project their own slimy and undemocratic impulses onto Democrats.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

DC is not meant to be a state , just merge the residential parts of it with Maryland . If you really wanna make that part a state get rid of the 23rd amendment

The founding fathers didn't know it would one day have 700,000 people literally in a "taxation without representation" situation.

Every single founding father would support this bill if they were somehow still alive. Every single one of them was strongly motivated by "taxation without representation."

Also, while we have wisely kept at the end expanded the basic legal rights and Liberties are founding fathers established in the Bill of Rights, pretty much everything the founders established regarding voting rights we have wisely jettisoned over the centuries. DC is "not meant to be a state" the same way non landowners weren't supposed to vote, non-whites weren't supposed to vote, women weren't supposed to vote, Senators weren't supposed to be elected popularly rather than by state legislators, presidents and vice presidents were meant to be elected on the same ticket, 18 for 20 year olds for men to vote, and DC wasn't supposed to have any vote for the Electoral College Etc. Every one of these changes from what the founders "meant to be" was unquestionably for the better of our society and as a functioning democracy.

Seriously, unless one can literally say that they are both fine with 700000 Americans being denied representation while enduring Taxation, and can come up with a cognisable reason why the actual District can't be limited to a few blocks of essential government buildings such as the White House and Capitol, there is not a single worthwhile non partisan ( i. E. Republican) basis to opposed DC statehood.

Than the new capitol should have 0 electoral votes

It will, as soon as the 23rd Amendment is repealed.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Republicans flailing in this thread lmfao

All over the board.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

100% chance this will go to the Supreme Court.

And pass easily. Congress can make the federal district the size and shape it wants, and admit new states at its own will.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

100% chance this will go to the Supreme Court.

And pass easily. Congress can make the federal district the size and shape it wants, and admit new states at its own will.

Lol... are you sure about that

What part of that do you disagree with?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

In a 50/50 Senate, each individual senator has a unique motivation to not add new members to the body.  That's not going to be lost on Sinema, Manchin, Collins or Murkowski, especially.

I don’t doubt that Manchin and Sinema are aware that Democrats are
more likely to lose seats than not in the next midterm. This would likely give them even more power during the rest of Biden’s term.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Does anyone else think Douglass Commonwealth sounds forced?  I'm fine with Douglass or even Commonwealth of Douglass but the current thing just doesn't sound great to my ears.  Of course, I'd support DC statehood no matter what they decided to call it.

Douglass Commonwealth is great. “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth” sucks. My boyfriend mocked me for being concerned about that and I hope he’s right but as of now I believe that’s the name in the bill.

[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”

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I hope that once this passes they have a referendum to take “Washington” out of the official name.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

If she votes against statehood arguing that it needs the filibuster (it doesnt), she'll be seeing her 39% approval rating plummet even further.

I don't think she'd vote against statehood, just the procedural steps.

There’s no way statehood happens without the procedural steps.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Keep thinking that it doesn't require the lifting of the Fillibuster I am honestly waiting to know

You don't know everything, otherwise you would be on TV not on Atlas making comments

Literally among the strangest comments I've ever read...

Frankly, one of OC’s more coherent contributions. Filibuster is inevitable.