DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If it get thru Filibuster, Murkowski proposes a law that will make Elenor Holmes Norton a Rep without the Senators with voting power, that would be a compromise

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

This really all depends on the Parliamentarian. If she allows the end-run, I doubt Manchin or Sinema will personally kill the bill. If she doesn't, I doubt they'll go for any end-run around her or agree to support her firing.

[Inmate Trump]

Bill passes house

Halfway home! It took 3 months from Biden's inauguration to get this far. I think July 22 is a great over/under for DC becoming the 51st state. July 4 would be a nice symbolic date, given the "taxation without representation" aspect of this issue.

Is there really any chance of it happening though?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

If it get thru Filibuster, Murkowski proposes a law that will make Elenor Holmes Norton a Rep without the Senators with voting power, that would be a compromise

that feels very unconstitutional.

[CookieDamage]

The inane takes in this thread...

[ibagli]

If it get thru Filibuster, Murkowski proposes a law that will make Elenor Holmes Norton a Rep without the Senators with voting power, that would be a compromise

that feels very unconstitutional.

I agree 100%, it violates the plain text of Article I, but the idea has been floating around for a while. There was a bill that almost passed in the Bush(?) administration that a bunch of bipartisan legal experts endorsed. Back in the bad old days, this cockamamie thing was the best Democrats were able to hope for though.

[7,052,770]

Bill passes house

Halfway home! It took 3 months from Biden's inauguration to get this far. I think July 22 is a great over/under for DC becoming the 51st state. July 4 would be a nice symbolic date, given the "taxation without representation" aspect of this issue.

Is there really any chance of it happening though?

One

Hundred

Percent



(Minus the chance that Democrats somehow lose control of a chamber over the next few months, so really high-99s)

[brucejoel99]

If it get thru Filibuster, Murkowski proposes a law that will make Elenor Holmes Norton a Rep without the Senators with voting power, that would be a compromise

that feels very unconstitutional.

That's because it would be, as career OLC officials unsuccessfully tried to explain to Eric Holder 12 years ago:

I agree 100%, it violates the plain text of Article I, but the idea has been floating around for a while. There was a bill that almost passed in the Bush(?) administration that a bunch of bipartisan legal experts endorsed.

It was introduced during W.'s administration, but it obviously went nowhere fast at that time, & then it was brought back in Obama's 1st term & passed through the Senate with filibuster-proof support, but with a Republican poison-pill attached that would've stripped the D.C. government of its authority over local gun control laws, so it died in the House. Career OLC officials in both the W. & Obama DOJs determined that it was very likely that the bill would be ruled unconstitutional, but the Solicitor General's office told Holder that they'd still defend if in court had it been passed & then presumably summarily challenged, which was good enough for him & the administration to publicly come out in support of its passage.

[7,052,770]

Even if this bill passed which it won't due to the Filibuster, SCOTUS can strike it down ACB or Kavanaugh or Alito or Gorsuch or Thomas aren't for this and they will put an injunction on sitting new Senators being sword in, pending Crt challenge

Incorrect.

What, SCOTUS HAS FINAL SAY OVER LAWS, OBAMACARE WAS CRT CHALLENGED, THEY CAN PUT AN INJUNCTION ON SORTING OF NEW SENATOR, ITS CALLED JUDICIAL REVIEW, BUT THE SENATE HASN'T PASSED IT

The Supreme Court will rule 9-0 that it's constitutional since they're keeping an unpopulated Federal District in place to meet constitutional requirements. I wonder if they'll fast track it like Bush v. Gore since DC's votes on legislation and appointments will be affecting things immediately.

[ibagli]

The court yeeting a whole state from the union would be a constitutional crisis unparalleled in living memory and thus an excellent test of the limits of judicial review, and I hope that if it comes down to it, the administration would make enough noise to scare the justices (or at least Roberts and Kavanaugh) away from the challenge.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Even if this bill passed which it won't due to the Filibuster, SCOTUS can strike it down ACB or Kavanaugh or Alito or Gorsuch or Thomas aren't for this and they will put an injunction on sitting new Senators being sword in, pending Crt challenge

Incorrect.

What, SCOTUS HAS FINAL SAY OVER LAWS, OBAMACARE WAS CRT CHALLENGED, THEY CAN PUT AN INJUNCTION ON SORTING OF NEW SENATOR, ITS CALLED JUDICIAL REVIEW, BUT THE SENATE HASN'T PASSED IT

On what grounds? There were admittedly problems with Obamacare that can be seen as unconstitutional. I fail to see that with DC statehood.

Congress has the constitutional right to add new states as it pleases so long as it is not erected within the Jurisdiction of any other state. The 23rd amendment grants DC representation within the electoral college as if it were a state and congress has the power to enforce that article. It does not disbar or say that DC cannot ultimately become a state.

There is no way the Courts rule this as unconstitutional unless they do so on a pure partisan ruling. Which just undermines the credibility of the court and creates the precedent that anything can be ruled unconstitutional or vice versa so long as you have the ideological majority.

[Inmate Trump]

Bill passes house

Halfway home! It took 3 months from Biden's inauguration to get this far. I think July 22 is a great over/under for DC becoming the 51st state. July 4 would be a nice symbolic date, given the "taxation without representation" aspect of this issue.

Is there really any chance of it happening though?

One

Hundred

Percent



(Minus the chance that Democrats somehow lose control of a chamber over the next few months, so really high-99s)

I thought Democrats need 60 votes in the Senate to make it happen?

I mean, unless they somehow do away with the filibuster before then.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Unless the filibuster gets removed or modified, DC Statehood is unfortunately not going to pass the Senate.

Also, Manchin is non-committal/undecided on DC Statehood. Sinema has been silent on this as well.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

There is a far bigger chance of the Supreme Court picking a nuclear-level fight over court-packing than there is over DC statehood.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There is a far bigger chance of the Supreme Court picking a nuclear-level fight over court-packing than there is over DC statehood.

Never underestimate Rs on Constitutional challenges and you have a 6/3 Crt, but HR1 and concealed weapons ban, Thomas already said he is ready to jump in on those cases, due to Citizen United and he wants to affirm Gun rights

If Rs weren't gonna overturn any Progressive legislation why would Crt packing be brought up

[CookieDamage]

Unless the filibuster gets removed or modified, DC Statehood is unfortunately not going to pass the Senate.

Also, Manchin is non-committal/undecided on DC Statehood. Sinema has been silent on this as well.

There's a case that DC statehood doesn't require filibuster

[Inmate Trump]

Unless the filibuster gets removed or modified, DC Statehood is unfortunately not going to pass the Senate.

Also, Manchin is non-committal/undecided on DC Statehood. Sinema has been silent on this as well.

There's a case that DC statehood doesn't require filibuster

What’s the case?

I want it to happen, I just don’t see it.

[Canis]

Bill passes house

Did Any D's vote against it or anr Rs vote for it or was it just across party lines?

[CookieDamage]

Bill passes house

Did Any D's vote against it or anr Rs vote for it or was it just across party lines?

What I've read is that it was Party line

[Canis]

Hm Reps will try really hard to fillabuster this but I think Senate D's know that if they don't want to solely rely on Manchin or Sinema's vote to get anything done getting this passed is their number one priority so I expect the next several weeks to have a pretty length battle in the senate with R's doing everything they can to delay and stop a vote on it.

[CookieDamage]

Hm Reps will try really hard to fillabuster this but I think Senate D's know that if they don't want to solely rely on Manchin or Sinema's vote to get anything done getting this passed is their number one priority so I expect the next several weeks to have a pretty length battle in the senate with R's doing everything they can to delay and stop a vote on it.

Dems absolutely need to treat this like a priority. Sinema and Manchin might very well support this in order to have more freedom to vote as they wish on things, and 2 more seats helps keep them in the majority.

Furthermore, I wouldn't be shocked to see them modify the filibuster if its needed to make DC a state. Some of yall take every word they say as gospel.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Unless the filibuster gets removed or modified, DC Statehood is unfortunately not going to pass the Senate.

Also, Manchin is non-committal/undecided on DC Statehood. Sinema has been silent on this as well.

There's a case that DC statehood doesn't require filibuster

What’s the case?

I want it to happen, I just don’t see it.

The Democrats can override the filibuster on grounds that admitting states to the union is not an act of legislation. That way they can get DC statehood with 51 voters while keeping the fillibuster to appease people Sinema and Manchin.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Unless the filibuster gets removed or modified, DC Statehood is unfortunately not going to pass the Senate.

Also, Manchin is non-committal/undecided on DC Statehood. Sinema has been silent on this as well.

There's a case that DC statehood doesn't require filibuster

What’s the case?

I want it to happen, I just don’t see it.

The Democrats can override the filibuster on grounds that admitting states to the union is not an act of legislation. That way they can get DC statehood with 51 voters while keeping the fillibuster to appease people Sinema and Manchin.

The problem is that that would likely require overriding the parliamentarian. Manchin has been mixed enough I think he wouldn't be the deciding vote against, but that other one?

[CookieDamage]

Unless the filibuster gets removed or modified, DC Statehood is unfortunately not going to pass the Senate.

Also, Manchin is non-committal/undecided on DC Statehood. Sinema has been silent on this as well.

There's a case that DC statehood doesn't require filibuster

What’s the case?

I want it to happen, I just don’t see it.

The Democrats can override the filibuster on grounds that admitting states to the union is not an act of legislation. That way they can get DC statehood with 51 voters while keeping the fillibuster to appease people Sinema and Manchin.

The problem is that that would likely require overriding the parliamentarian. Manchin has been mixed enough I think he wouldn't be the deciding vote against, but that other one?

If Sinema was facing the prospects of being the ONLY dem to oppose DC statehood she would rethink. With the filibuster and min wage thing she was joined by other Dems opposing it. But if she's the only one opposing DC statehood the hellfire unleashed upon her would be so intense and singular.

[TDAS04]

I would have preferred just making DC part of Maryland, but I certainly would have voted for this bill, as denying the residents of DC representation is shameful (especially when they have to pay federal taxes).

The Republican opposition to this bill is yet another example of putting partisanship ahead of democracy.