DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[Santander]

“No taxation without representation”

Not the same thing as DC statehood.

[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?

[Santander]

"Solving" the taxation without representation issue by making DC a state is like "solving" it by exempting DC residents from federal taxation and keeping the status quo. Highly cynical, and it doesn't even have the benefit of being cute like the tax exemption.

For that matter, it's like "solving" school shootings by closing down schools.

[Santander]

"Solving" the taxation without representation issue by making DC a state is like "solving" it by exempting DC residents from federal taxation and keeping the status quo. Highly cynical, and it doesn't even have the benefit of being cute like the tax exemption.

For that matter, it's like "solving" school shootings by closing down schools.

Again, there might be measures short of statehood that could solve the taxation without representation issue, but the GOP doesn’t actually want to negotiate a compromise on this issue, so why should the residents of DC have to wait any longer when statehood is the quickest, easiest path to representation?

The easiest way to solve the problem is to exempt DC residents, a miniscule drop in the bucket in federal revenue, from federal taxation. Why not do that? Clearly, Democrats have an agenda here, too.

Funny thing is, if that actually happened (obviously it would not), DC would immediately become by far the hottest place to move to in America. People would rather have no taxation and no representation than taxation and representation.

[Santander]

"Solving" the taxation without representation issue by making DC a state is like "solving" it by exempting DC residents from federal taxation and keeping the status quo. Highly cynical, and it doesn't even have the benefit of being cute like the tax exemption.

For that matter, it's like "solving" school shootings by closing down schools.

DC voted to become a state, overwhelmingly. This isn't just some scheme we made up without consulting the Americans living there.

The opinions of a jurisdiction's residents have never, and should never, have any constitutional validity over admission to statehood. Indirectly, through representative democracy, the opinions of the voters of the already-admitted states are the only thing that matters. Sure, a referendum provides a mandate for that jurisdiction's leaders to advocate for statehood, but if they're asking people the wrong question to begin with, it doesn't really prove anything.

[Santander]

So I have an interesting possible compromise...  

If Virginia were to secede Arlington County and Alexandria back to DC, that would push Virginia back to being purplish and give the GOP a shot at their senate seats again.

Doubt they would agree, but I wish it was possible.

That is the worst proposal I have ever heard of.

[Santander]

"Solving" the taxation without representation issue by making DC a state is like "solving" it by exempting DC residents from federal taxation and keeping the status quo. Highly cynical, and it doesn't even have the benefit of being cute like the tax exemption.

For that matter, it's like "solving" school shootings by closing down schools.

DC voted to become a state, overwhelmingly. This isn't just some scheme we made up without consulting the Americans living there.

The opinions of a jurisdiction's residents have never, and should never, have any constitutional validity over admission to statehood. Indirectly, through representative democracy, the opinions of the voters of the already-admitted states are the only thing that matters. Sure, a referendum provides a mandate for that jurisdiction's leaders to advocate for statehood, but if they're asking people the wrong question to begin with, it doesn't really prove anything.

It is true that according to the very sparse wording in the text of US Constitution, only Congress really matters in admitting new states.

But in practice, the opinion of the jurisdiction's residents absolutely matter.  First, every state has been required to ratify a state constitution prior to admission.  This was done in 1949 in Hawaii and 1956 in Alaska.  

And most recently, Congress has required a final referendum of the new state's residents before their Admission Act takes effect.  In the case of Alaska in 1958 and Hawaii in 1959, these referenda were held a few months after Congress passed the admission act.

In the case of possible Puerto Rico statehood, this side of things remains somewhat unresolved.
But the 2016 DC referendum approved of both statehood and the proposed state constitution by an 86%-14% margin.

I agree with most of what you said, but DC is not Hawaii, Alaska, or Puerto Rico though. DC was established to serve the States to conduct their collective business, not to serve the people who happened to take up residence within its boundaries. It is, to my mind, unreasonable to interpret this as meaning just a collection of federal buildings that cannot function to any extent on their own, rather than the city of Washington itself, which grew alongside the federal government to serve the needs of a growing country. So on this question, I don't think the opinions of DC residents matter at all.