DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[Former President tack50]

“No taxation without representation”

Not the same thing as DC statehood.

Yeah, this is the most dishonest aspect of Democrats' whole "DC statehood" charade.

Congress could pass legislation allowing D.C. to have voting representation in the House and Senate without revoking Congressional control over the District.  Such control is necessary to ensure the Federal government doesn't have to operate under the undue influence of any state, which is a noble enough reason to oppose D.C. statehood on its merits.

As I have said before:

snip

Ok, then why aren't Republicans offering DC 2 Senators and a House Rep with genuine voting rights? (or better yet, a constitutional amendment for that purpose; though both routes could be done simultaneously)

As for the argument, somehow every federal country in the world aside from the US (and Australia) manages to have their seat of government as part of one state without any issues, from Buenos Aires city in Argentina to Ottawa in Canada to Land Berlin in Germany.

[Former President tack50]

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.   

Having one underpopulated state counteract another only exacerbates the inequality in the academic sense (i.e. there are now 50 states whose residents effectively have more power in the Senate than Californian voters as opposed to 49), but I suspect that that's not a priority for most people and it's not even really a concern for me, to be honest. The Senate's unique place in Article Five means that it might be impossible to reform even with a constitutional amendment, so I suspect it's sticking around until the proletarian revolution comes to pass, and consequently there will always be population imbalances between states. Like I said, this makes the institution undemocratic in a theoretical sense, but if there's nothing to be done about it short of revolution there's no point even really talking about it. The undemocratic aspects of the Senate I am more concerned about is A. that many Americans don't have a say in it at all and B. that California and New York are functionally Democratic vote sinks which make it very hard for Democratic voters to have their voices heard in the Senate. DC statehood would lessen both of those issues, so I support it.

If I am not mistaken, while the apportionment of the Senate is "set in stone and perpetuity"; its functions are not.

So in theory a "standard" constitutional amendment would be enough to turn the Senate into an American version of the House of Lords (or other similar useless upper chambers like say, the Canadian Senate), a completely powerless institution that can be easily overruled by the House.

[ultraviolet]

https://twitter.com/im_sorry_wtf/status/1374202740092506116

Trump would have won this state by roughly 10,000 votes in 2020. Who would’ve thought WV and DC would be our next swing states!

[Person Man]

https://twitter.com/im_sorry_wtf/status/1374202740092506116

Trump would have won this state by roughly 10,000 votes in 2020. Who would’ve thought WV and DC would be our next swing states!

That would be wild. I might actually be OK with this. It would at least slightly deal with our problem with the senate being slightly gerrymandered against Democrats. Still probably not good enough.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Manchin will fall in line, I'm not worried about this.

[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.

[SteveRogers]

"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?

[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.

[7,052,770]

"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.

[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.

[Badger]

So are Republicans going to support this amendment?  Because if they aren't, what is the point? The primary reason statehood via shrinking the district is being pushed is because no alternatives have enough support to pass.

The point is that the unique status of our Federal District should not be changed absent an affirmative Constitutional supermajority and ratification by the three-fourths of the several States.  This is the same way D.C. was given presidential electors.  If there isn't such a majority then pro-statehood advocates need to do a better job of winning the debate.  

They are criticizing it because Democrats will win those seats. Few, if any, Republicans are going out of their way to sympathize with the situation DC residents find themselves, representation-wise.

No, they are making the point that Democrats' sudden interest in D.C. statehood is a naked partisan power play.  Democrats cared not about "taxation without representation" when they had trifectas in 1993-95 or 2009-11, and there is little doubt Democrats' interest in this stems from the difficult math they perceive in keeping a working Senate majority long term.

Utter unadulterated bullsh**t.

Once again, I have a hard time seeing how anyone would ever pay for your representation in court lol  

Because I spot bulsh**t readily and call it out on it in plain truthful terms. I don't give a ridiculous argument from the opposing side any more respect then it's ridiculousness deserves. And because of that, I win.

Also, see my Sig. Jefferson was right , and your post is exhibit a of his point.

[Horus]

Hopefully Eleanor Holmes Norton will be able to cast a vote on the House floor by year's end.

[tarrant]

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.

[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.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

"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.

Resident of DC don't just want statehood because they want a few more Democratic Senators.  They actually want self-rule.

[ultraviolet]

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.

Chill dude, it’s his 7th post in 14 years

[rhg2052]

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.

In what world does the state of Virginia ever agree to this?

[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.

[rhg2052]

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.

You say this as if everyone who lives in DC is just there temporarily or moved there by choice. It's a city of 700,000 people, many of whom have livelihoods that have nothing to do with the federal government and many of whom have families that have lived in DC for generations. Telling them that if they want a say in their governance, they need to uproot their lives and move somewhere else is completely anti-democratic.

The founders who wrote the Constitution did not have a good track record in making sure that every person would be represented in government, and establishing a capital city whose residents by definition do not have a voice in Congress was part of their incredibly flawed system. They were wrong to do this, and their error should be corrected as soon as possible.

[Badger]

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.

Chill dude, it’s his 7th post in 14 years

That doesn't mean it's still not a terrible idea.

[7,052,770]

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.

Chill dude, it’s his 7th post in 14 years

That doesn't mean it's still not a terrible idea.

If the people in those counties wanted to join Douglass and the rest of Virginia approved it, I would be fine with it. But neither of those things appear to even be close to true.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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

[brucejoel99]

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

Even if that were within the realm of possibility (it's not), it'd probably take another Act of Congress to codify such a referendum result.

[MasterJedi]

So what are the actual odds of this passing? Haven't been fully paying attention to it.

[rhg2052]

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

Even if that were within the realm of possibility (it's not), it'd probably take another Act of Congress to codify such a referendum result.

Wouldn't it? Didn't Rhode Island just have a referendum to ditch "and Providence Plantations" from its official name last year?