DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[Brittain33]

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.

It’s true the smallest states are pretty evenly split. I think the real problem is California, followed by New York. The biggest states are now either broadly competitive (FL, NC, TX, GA, PA) or pile up wasted votes for Democrats (CA, NY, IL aside from 2010).

[MT Treasurer]

For reference, this is where we currently are.

There's a small chance ceratin Rs vote for it but they are unlikely to do that unless it has already passed.

The lighter green means they have indicated support but aren't an official co-sponsor. Carper for instance is a sponsor and the one who has introduced the bill but is technically not a co-sponsor.

...Angus King? More likely that Susan Collins votes for this than King votes against it (esp. if he’s the deciding vote).

(not that Manchin's and Sinema's votes are really in doubt either, but King is even more absurd)

[Person Man]

For reference, this is where we currently are.

There's a small chance ceratin Rs vote for it but they are unlikely to do that unless it has already passed.

The lighter green means they have indicated support but aren't an official co-sponsor. Carper for instance is a sponsor and the one who has introduced the bill but is technically not a co-sponsor.

...Angus King? More likely that Susan Collins votes for this than King votes against it (esp. if he’s the deciding vote).

(not that Manchin's and Sinema's votes are really in doubt either, but King is even more absurd)

Having the votes for this is like having the votes for the tax cuts. This is the bare minimum major legislative item.

[ultraviolet]

Also can we make PR a state as well? I don't like how the focus has been on admitting DC yet PR is larger and encountered far more hardships in recent decades and also have voted for statehood on 3 separate occasions in the last decade.

I’m with you. PR deserves it more than DC

[MT Treasurer]

Having the votes for this is like having the votes for the tax cuts. This is the bare minimum major legislative item.

Yeah, I’d be shocked if this didn’t pass (obviously after the filibuster is nuked [de facto]) this year. Needless to say, DC is more likely to get admitted than PR.

[Canis]

Both DC and Puerto Rico absolutely deserve statehood, their American citizens with no representation in congress this shouldn't be controversial.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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

DC was also meant to be a few blocks of government buildings in which representatives would deliberate in and then go home.

The Constitution allows for ten miles square, not one mile square. I'll grant that the concerns that led the Founders to have a Federal district independent of any State are largely inapplicable now, but imagine if you will an alternate reality in which the Federal district was located inside Texas and Gov. Abbott had called out the Guard to ensure Trump got a second term.

[Dr. Arch]

Both DC and Puerto Rico absolutely deserve statehood, their American citizens with no representation in congress this shouldn't be controversial.

In a country with a moral compass, it shouldn't be.

The U.S. has such a longing to disenfranchise.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

[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.

[It’s so Joever]

Having the votes for this is like having the votes for the tax cuts. This is the bare minimum major legislative item.

Yeah, I’d be shocked if this didn’t pass (obviously after the filibuster is nuked [de facto]) this year. Needless to say, DC is more likely to get admitted than PR.

Hello Shocked, I am Lurker.

[brucejoel99]

I can't wait for the Republicans to filibuster this. If the nuclear option is gonna be invoked on anything, it'll be this.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

DC statehood should only happen via an amendment that repeals the 23rd amendment

[brucejoel99]

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.

DC statehood should only happen via an amendment that repeals the 23rd amendment

Statehood doesn't require an amendment, that'd be legally superfluous.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

DC statehood should only happen via an amendment that repeals the 23rd amendment

Statehood doesn't require an amendment, that'd be legally superfluous.

no but DC shouldn't get statehood until we can guarantee the remaining parts of DC gets 0 electoral votes

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

DC statehood should only happen via an amendment that repeals the 23rd amendment

Statehood doesn't require an amendment, that'd be legally superfluous.

The DC Voting Rights Amendment was the superior option, as it would have given the residents representation in Congress without relinquishing Congressional sovereignty over the entire district, but it went nowhere with only 16 States ratifying it during the seven years after it was sent to them in 1978.

I'd still prefer it to Statehood, but there's no reason to expect it would do any better if it were resubmitted to the States

[Jay 🏳️‍⚧️]

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.

DC statehood should only happen via an amendment that repeals the 23rd amendment

Statehood doesn't require an amendment, that'd be legally superfluous.

no but DC shouldn't get statehood until we can guarantee the remaining parts of DC gets 0 electoral votes

You and I both know that DC would never get statehood under those conditions. Every Republican-led state legislature would vote to reject DC statehood under those premises

[brucejoel99]

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.

DC statehood should only happen via an amendment that repeals the 23rd amendment

Statehood doesn't require an amendment, that'd be legally superfluous.

no but DC shouldn't get statehood until we can guarantee the remaining parts of DC gets 0 electoral votes

But Congress can already do that after the fact by just repealing the laws that enable the District's current participation in presidential elections. Legally speaking, a 23rd Amendment repeal isn't even required to ensure that the nominal federal district wouldn't have 3 EVs of its own, though it'd obviously still be preferred for efficiency's sake. Moreover, the statehood bill also contains provisions that would enable expedited consideration of an after-the-fact 23rd Amendment repeal in Congress anyway, as well as provisions that would allow any (presumably very few, if any at all) remaining residents of the federal district who aren't the President & their family (who are already legal residents of another state) to vote in the state/district in which they last resided (just like American expatriates abroad are already allowed to do in the status quo).

[MillennialModerate]

I can't wait for the Republicans to filibuster this. If the nuclear option is gonna be invoked on anything, it'll be this.

It would be nice if we can just get Sinema and Manchin on the the record here.

[7,052,770]

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.

DC statehood should only happen via an amendment that repeals the 23rd amendment

Statehood doesn't require an amendment, that'd be legally superfluous.

no but DC shouldn't get statehood until we can guarantee the remaining parts of DC gets 0 electoral votes

A simple act of Congress can do that.

[CookieDamage]

Republicans flailing in this thread lmfao

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Republicans flailing in this thread lmfao

All over the board.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Would Old School Republican just admit that he does not want DC to be a state because it will give Democrats a house and two senate seats.

[Virginiá]

no but DC shouldn't get statehood until we can guarantee the remaining parts of DC gets 0 electoral votes

Make it a state, give the remaining rump district's votes to the national popular vote winner, while telling Republicans that Democrats will support amending the constitution to remove those EVs.

It's a pretty simple and fair solution for a problem that can easily be fixed by a little bit of cooperation. Saying it shouldn't happen until the amendment is repealed is basically a backdoor way of denying DC statehood, since Republicans will never agree to that unless DC is already a state. This is because it is pretty clear from reading arguments from conservatives that the amendment is being used as some sort of argument that statehood by shrinking the district is unconstitutional.

[MillennialModerate]

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.

DC statehood should only happen via an amendment that repeals the 23rd amendment

Statehood doesn't require an amendment, that'd be legally superfluous.

no but DC shouldn't get statehood until we can guarantee the remaining parts of DC gets 0 electoral votes

It would never happen under those terms cause GOP led states would block it

Once statehood is a thing taking those electors back would be easier