DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[Brittain33]

Guys. The debate over DC statehood is over. Republicans have very sound reasons of self-interest and power to not want to admit DC as a state and give its 700,000 citizens democratic representation. They refused to consider it or compromise when they held power so recognize proposed compromises for what they are, Hail Marys in a very rare time of weakness for our structurally overrepresented friends. There is no point in debating any longer. Either Dems will do it or they won’t in 2021 now that they have the power to do it. Republicans who just argued on the floor of Congress why the votes of Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Detroit are inherently invalid simply do not believe that the people of Washington deserve equal representation with rural white Americans and everything else is noise.

The “reckoning” on DC statehood came on Nov. 3 and Jan. 5 and debate is concluded.

[Brittain33]

We have two individual threads on DC and PR statehood and a thread about Manchin wanting new states where you make literally the same argument that you do in this new thread you started. There’s no need to flood the zone with arguments why Washington’s 700,000 citizens aren’t deserving of equal representation with rural white Americans, three existing threads are enough. Either the Dem trifecta is going to do it or not.

[Brittain33]

This is an interesting idea, but we may need to merge the Dakotas as well. I’ll start a new thread with a new survey for this proposal.

[Brittain33]

It’s politically advantageous to Democrats and it’s the right thing to do for balancing our democracy and for equal rights. The two are not exclusive.

The problem Republicans have is that there are no valid arguments, assuming you believe in democracy and equal rights, for opposing it. That’s why their arguments are purely transactional and about a zero sum game for representation, and disregard ethics or constitutional values.

[Brittain33]

What’s critical here: our system is slanted against Democrats through gerrymandering and Senate apportionment, so necessarily any reform which makes our system more democratic and inclusive and balanced will also benefit the Democratic Party.

That’s an indictment of current conditions, not an argument against reform or its advocates.

[Brittain33]

What’s critical here: our system is slanted against Democrats through gerrymandering and Senate apportionment, so necessarily any reform which makes our system more democratic and inclusive and balanced will also benefit the Democratic Party.

That’s an indictment of current conditions, not an argument against reform or its advocates.

What's critical as well: Republicans having a temporary advantage in senate apportionment is not sufficient reason to add states. This has been going on 5-10 years at most. Perhaps if it lasted 50 years it might, but not at the moment.

That’s right that it’s not sufficient, but it has the additional merits of bringing equal federal representation and rights to the 700,000 taxpaying, war-fighting, hard-working Americans of the district (which has been a separate entity for over 200 years) and bringing Puerto Rico out of a political purgatory that had it in a demographic and economic death spiral before the hurricane hit. It’s also important to bring balance not for partisan reasons, but for cities to have the kind of representation rural areas take for granted. So many good reasons to make this reform.

[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).

[Brittain33]

It’s a bad look to have the Republican alternative, the D.C.-Maryland Reunion act, be sponsored and introduced by the rep from South Dakota. What an own goal! You needed someone from Texas or Florida to do that, preferably a minority.

[Brittain33]

Has Dusty Johnson met Dick Swett?

[Brittain33]

I don't oppose DC statehood and it is ultimately up to that jurisdiction to decide. Some other options include it remaining a federal district or be absorbed into Maryland by revoking the 23rd Amendment.

I think Puerto Rico should become a state first. 

Maryland doesn't want to absorb DC.

DC does not want to be absorbed into Maryland.

How do you know?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Washington,_D.C._statehood_referendum

It’s also the position of their elected representative in the House.

[Brittain33]

Self-government is as important a goal for DC residents as Senate representation.

[Brittain33]

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.

It’s super awkward but no one’s ever going to say it out loud, only DC.

[Brittain33]

Republicans seeing small-d democracy and equal representation as an illegitimate “power grab” is at the heart of our current governing crisis. If you don’t see Democratic majorities and diverse populations as equally worthy of power, you’ll embrace violence and voter suppression.

[Brittain33]

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.

This is another funny thing about this debate.  Many Democrats (including this particular red avatar) will talk out of both sides of their head about how the Senate is an undemocratic body that flagrantly violates the "one man, one vote" principle while simultaneously arguing that a small, unpopulated exclave should be thrown into the mix to only further exacerbate this inequality.   

There’s no debate. By the principles both parties subscribe to about democracy and American citizenship, D.C. should be a state. There’s a frozen negotiation where Republicans refuse to act on those principles out of self-interest and come up with other reasons to obscure this reluctance.

[Brittain33]

What moron decided to call it "State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth"?

I dunno.
The convention would be to call it Columbi

Columbus is a hugely controversial figure, who is especially unpopular among the very liberal population of DC, so it makes sense they wouldn't want to call it that. Plus, calling it Douglass Commonwealth lets them keep the DC abbreviation. I just don't understand why it couldn't just be called Douglass Commonwealth, rather than the very stupid Washington, Douglass Commonwealth.

Presumably to also let them keep using "Washington" for the presumable litany of purposes which they currently use it for that would perhaps be too administratively &/or logistically disruptive to change.

But the city is called Washington. If the state was called simply Douglass Commonwealth, then you could say Washington, DC like we do now.

You could, but the official usage would still be used in, well, official settings and cause confusion. The new senators would be the senators from Douglas Commonwealth.

[Brittain33]

It would be good if people read the article instead of just the headline.

Manchin's reason for opposing it is that he doesn't think legislation is a constitutional solution, not because he wants to vote no, unless I missed it. That leaves the door open to Schumer and others making the case that it is, likely with hearings. This is potentially laying the path for him to change his mind later. 

[Brittain33]

It would be good if people read the article instead of just the headline.

Manchin's reason for opposing it is that he doesn't think legislation is a constitutional solution, not because he wants to vote no, unless I missed it. That leaves the door open to Schumer and others making the case that it is, likely with hearings. This is potentially laying the path for him to change his mind later. 

I read the article. Keep making excuses for Manchin.

What choice do I have? I have to live in hope. If he wanted to say DC Statehood was a non-starter and he'd never support it, he could have. I know this could well end in tears.

[Brittain33]

It would be good if people read the article instead of just the headline.

Manchin's reason for opposing it is that he doesn't think legislation is a constitutional solution, not because he wants to vote no, unless I missed it. That leaves the door open to Schumer and others making the case that it is, likely with hearings. This is potentially laying the path for him to change his mind later. 

No one actually believes that DC statehood is unconstitutional. Claims that it is are exclusively of the ‘I don’t want to do it, but can’t say why in public’ variety.

It's not necessary that he believes what he said on the radio show.

[Brittain33]

It would be good if people read the article instead of just the headline.

Manchin's reason for opposing it is that he doesn't think legislation is a constitutional solution, not because he wants to vote no, unless I missed it. That leaves the door open to Schumer and others making the case that it is, likely with hearings. This is potentially laying the path for him to change his mind later. 

You're reaching.

True, but so are 100% Doomers. Truth lies somewhere in between.