Do you support DC statehood?

[Del Tachi]

Statehood:  No
Voting representation in the House:  Yes
Voting representation in the Senate:  No

[Del Tachi]

Literally everyone knows the ONLY reason anyone wants to push for DC statehood today is because it would guarantee more safe D seats. Claiming otherwise is just being dishonest.

There are many, many reasons to support DC statehood and only one reason to oppose it. Are you sure you want to call other people dishonest?

There are many, many reasons to oppose DC statehood in principle lol

All of the "many, many" reasons Democrats have for supporting it now, they also had for supporting it in 2009-11 when they had a trifecta, or in the 1990s, or whenever.  This is only the latest episode in the running Democratic gig that is let’s-reshape-institutions-that-make-us-lose

[Del Tachi]

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.  It's 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.   

[Del Tachi]

Literally everyone knows the ONLY reason anyone wants to push for DC statehood today is because it would guarantee more safe D seats. Claiming otherwise is just being dishonest.

There are many, many reasons to support DC statehood and only one reason to oppose it. Are you sure you want to call other people dishonest?

There are many, many reasons to oppose DC statehood in principle lol

All of the "many, many" reasons Democrats have for supporting it now, they also had for supporting it in 2009-11 when they had a trifecta, or in the 1990s, or whenever.  This is only the latest episode in the running Democratic gig that is let’s-reshape-institutions-that-make-us-lose

It's cute that you say that. There was a vote in 1993, and every year since then it's been proposed but never voted on. At the time of the 1993 votes, Democrats had held the House for about 40 years and the Senate for the overwhelming majority of that time. And you seem to be conveniently forgetting that the Senate used to actually care about rules, so there was a filibuster option that Democrats no longer need to worry about.

I don't think you understood my point.  Since 1993, Democrats have held Democratic trifectas twice (for a  total of four years.)  Why wasn't D.C. statehood a priority for them then?  After all, the arguments advanced by self-righteous D.C. statehood proponents would equally apply.  Does it maaaaaaaybe have something to with the fact your party now thinks it's pretty f[inks]ed in the Senate?

[Del Tachi]

For those who oppose DC statehood, what's your realistic (i.e. not some shooting the moon solution like a constitutional amendment giving it non-statehood statehood or retrocession which vigorously opposed by Maryland and DC)?

I don’t think increasing the size of the House to give DC voting congressmen would be controversial.  All Americans should have representation in the House, the Senate is a different matter though. 

[Del Tachi]

LOL, the only reason anyone opposes it is because it will send Democrats to Congress.

No fewer than 5 posters in this thread (only two of who were Republicans) have suggested the federal status of D.C. is important as a separation of powers issue.  The national capital being under the administration of the federal government is a model replicated around the world.  It takes a special type of partisan hackery to always paint your opposition in the least flattering light possible. 

We would support DC statehood even if it were a Republican area, because the principle that all Americans should be represented in Congress [unless they explicitly don't want to be, like American Samoa] rises over everything. I also support statehood for Puerto Rico and Guam, even though those 2 states are rarely going to be 100% Democratic in Congress.

Oh please, Harry.  Cut it out with the sanctimonious bull.  It takes absolutely zero conviction to say what you would do in a hypothetical situation.  If Washington, D.C. was a Republican-leaning city on the Kansas high plains, liberals would simply justify opposing its admission as a state on the grounds that it would further exacerbate the population imbalance inherent in the U.S. Senate.  Admitting D.C. as it stands presents the same problem and even though it's recently become very popular for liberals to deride the one state, one vote nature of the Senate they overlook the very argument they make in favor of the partisan advantage the "Douglass Commonwealth" could deliver.   

If you want to be consistent, fix the Senate and then address D.C. statehood. 

[Del Tachi]

No fewer than 5 posters in this thread (only two of who were Republicans) have suggested the federal status of D.C. is important as a separation of powers issue.  The national capital being under the administration of the federal government is a model replicated around the world.  It takes a special type of partisan hackery to always paint your opposition in the least flattering light possible.

This from Del Tachi of all people, who proudly describes himself as a hack who "carries water" for Trump even though he knows he's an idiot and admits he sees politics merely as a game who he wants Republicans to win. You present yourself in the least flattering light - I don't have to do anything.

Everyone carries water for their team.  Why else would you call yourself "a Democrat?"  However, this doesn't mean there aren't well-contrived, principled arguments in support of partisan political goals.  The fact that you can't see this about both sides just proves you're a juvenile-level partisan hack.

Oh please, Harry.  Cut it out with the sanctimonious bull.  It takes absolutely zero conviction to say what you would do in a hypothetical situation.

I would support DC statehood regardless of how they vote. If North Dakota or somewhere were just a territory and wanted to be a state, I would support its admission. I can't speak for anyone else, but it's a safe bet that a lot more liberals think like I do than the reverse. If DC leaned Republican, 100% of Republicans would gladly support its admission (and would've done so years ago), with enough liberal support to call it "bipartisan."

Once again, it's beyond easy for you to say this when there's absolutely zero, real-world political consequences to consider.  You believing in your heart of hearts that the good, principled Democrats would act this way is also historically unprecedented.  Even during the relatively bipartisan era of the 1950s, Alaska and Hawaii (our two newest states) had to be admitted together as part of a partisan balancing act.     

[Del Tachi]

Oh, and just for the record, DC's position of having no representation at all in the national legislature is not common around the world by any stretch of the imagination

But representation in the national legislature is a completely different question than incorporation of the national capital as a sovereign, federal entity (i.e., a state), and there's no reason that two are even tangentially related except for Democrats' wishes to gain partisan advantage as quickly and easily as possible.

LOL, the only reason anyone opposes it is because it will send Democrats to Congress.

No fewer than 5 posters in this thread (only two of who were Republicans) have suggested the federal status of D.C. is important as a separation of powers issue.  The national capital being under the administration of the federal government is a model replicated around the world.  It takes a special type of partisan hackery to always paint your opposition in the least flattering light possible. 

Uh, no it is not?

Most federal countries actually do give their capital city full home rule and full representation in their Congress. Most of the time it is through "statehood in all but name"; although statehood period is far from uncommon.

(1) Under federal statue, D.C. already has home rule.
(2) "Statehood" as a concept varies significantly from country to country, so any apples-to-apples comparison of the relative rights and privileges between Federal districts around the world starts off on pretty unstable footing.  Just at first glance I see that Argentina, Australia, Malaysia, Nigeria and Venezuela have levels of incorporation for their national capitals less than that of their federal states or provinces, the question of representation notwithstanding.  You could enlarge this list to include a lot of Federal capitals around the world with diminished sovereignty or direct Federal input into their local affairs, but you'd be including a lot of unique, full-of-asterisks type relationships that would be hard to understand without really delving into the constitutional nuances of countries I don't know a lot about.

Would you accept a Constitutional amendment that reinforced DC's home rule and gave them 1 Rep and 2 Senators? If not, why shouldn't DC have the same representation?

I would accept a constitutional amendment expanding the size of the House to give D.C. and other U.S. territories voting representation in the House commensurate with their populations (i.e., they could grow and shrink based on the Census.)  However, I would not support D.C. getting senators because in principle the U.S. Senate represents not individual citizens but the sovereign interests of the several States, which D.C. is and should not be among.  I don't think the Senate should be a "one man, one vote" kind of body so I'm find with D.C. being excluded.

I would, however, be open to some kind of constitutional revision maybe shrinking some of the exclusive powers enjoyed by the Senate, such as having Presidential executive and judicial appointments approved by a bicameral committee of legislators as opposed to the full Senate.