DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[brucejoel99]

I actually agree that, in an ideal world, DC should just be merged into Maryland. In an ideal world, we'd also split California and Texas into 3 to 5 new states and change quite a bit more about the structure of the US government. But in the world of actually-achievable things, making DC a state is the clear way forward.

That being said, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think the reconciliation route is plausible, and nuking the filibuster remains a tall order. Still, glad dems are putting it on the agenda.

Why?

Because reconciliation is explicitly meant for taxing and spending policy items. Now, there is some legitimate wiggle room in terms of what constitutes such an item (on things like increasing the minimum wage, for example, or introducing a public option - those aren't just revenue or expenditures, but they can be argued to bear a clear connection to them) but using it for something as far-reaching as statehood broadens it to the point of meaninglessness.

Yeah, this is my main issue with statehood-(& really anything that doesn't explicitly concern taxing-&-spending)-via-reconciliation: if we've already reached the point where that's legitimately being discussed, then it makes no sense to not just nuke the filibuster at that point. Doing so creates a lot less procedural headaches & would be a lot more legislatively efficient.

[CookieDamage]

I actually agree that, in an ideal world, DC should just be merged into Maryland. In an ideal world, we'd also split California and Texas into 3 to 5 new states and change quite a bit more about the structure of the US government. But in the world of actually-achievable things, making DC a state is the clear way forward.

That being said, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think the reconciliation route is plausible, and nuking the filibuster remains a tall order. Still, glad dems are putting it on the agenda.

Why?

Because reconciliation is explicitly meant for taxing and spending policy items. Now, there is some legitimate wiggle room in terms of what constitutes such an item (on things like increasing the minimum wage, for example, or introducing a public option - those aren't just revenue or expenditures, but they can be argued to bear a clear connection to them) but using it for something as far-reaching as statehood broadens it to the point of meaninglessness.

That may be why its an imperfect or unwise course of action, but why is it implausible?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I actually agree that, in an ideal world, DC should just be merged into Maryland. In an ideal world, we'd also split California and Texas into 3 to 5 new states and change quite a bit more about the structure of the US government. But in the world of actually-achievable things, making DC a state is the clear way forward.

That being said, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think the reconciliation route is plausible, and nuking the filibuster remains a tall order. Still, glad dems are putting it on the agenda.

Why?

Because reconciliation is explicitly meant for taxing and spending policy items. Now, there is some legitimate wiggle room in terms of what constitutes such an item (on things like increasing the minimum wage, for example, or introducing a public option - those aren't just revenue or expenditures, but they can be argued to bear a clear connection to them) but using it for something as far-reaching as statehood broadens it to the point of meaninglessness.

That may be why its an imperfect or unwise course of action, but why is it implausible?

I mean, it's implausible for the purpose of getting DC statehood. It's not implausible to get things like the 1.9T stimulus, far from it.

[CookieDamage]

I actually agree that, in an ideal world, DC should just be merged into Maryland. In an ideal world, we'd also split California and Texas into 3 to 5 new states and change quite a bit more about the structure of the US government. But in the world of actually-achievable things, making DC a state is the clear way forward.

That being said, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think the reconciliation route is plausible, and nuking the filibuster remains a tall order. Still, glad dems are putting it on the agenda.

Why?

Because reconciliation is explicitly meant for taxing and spending policy items. Now, there is some legitimate wiggle room in terms of what constitutes such an item (on things like increasing the minimum wage, for example, or introducing a public option - those aren't just revenue or expenditures, but they can be argued to bear a clear connection to them) but using it for something as far-reaching as statehood broadens it to the point of meaninglessness.

That may be why its an imperfect or unwise course of action, but why is it implausible?

I mean, it's implausible for the purpose of getting DC statehood. It's not implausible to get things like the 1.9T stimulus, far from it.

How is it implausible though? especially if we have enough votes.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I actually agree that, in an ideal world, DC should just be merged into Maryland. In an ideal world, we'd also split California and Texas into 3 to 5 new states and change quite a bit more about the structure of the US government. But in the world of actually-achievable things, making DC a state is the clear way forward.

That being said, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think the reconciliation route is plausible, and nuking the filibuster remains a tall order. Still, glad dems are putting it on the agenda.

Why?

Because reconciliation is explicitly meant for taxing and spending policy items. Now, there is some legitimate wiggle room in terms of what constitutes such an item (on things like increasing the minimum wage, for example, or introducing a public option - those aren't just revenue or expenditures, but they can be argued to bear a clear connection to them) but using it for something as far-reaching as statehood broadens it to the point of meaninglessness.

That may be why its an imperfect or unwise course of action, but why is it implausible?

I mean, it's implausible for the purpose of getting DC statehood. It's not implausible to get things like the 1.9T stimulus, far from it.

How is it implausible though? especially if we have enough votes.

If we don't have enough votes to kill the filibuster, I highly doubt that we have enough votes to overrule the Parliamentarian (which you'd need to do to apply reconciliation to DC statehood). If anything, the latter seems like a much more serious step.

[CookieDamage]

I actually agree that, in an ideal world, DC should just be merged into Maryland. In an ideal world, we'd also split California and Texas into 3 to 5 new states and change quite a bit more about the structure of the US government. But in the world of actually-achievable things, making DC a state is the clear way forward.

That being said, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think the reconciliation route is plausible, and nuking the filibuster remains a tall order. Still, glad dems are putting it on the agenda.

Why?

Because reconciliation is explicitly meant for taxing and spending policy items. Now, there is some legitimate wiggle room in terms of what constitutes such an item (on things like increasing the minimum wage, for example, or introducing a public option - those aren't just revenue or expenditures, but they can be argued to bear a clear connection to them) but using it for something as far-reaching as statehood broadens it to the point of meaninglessness.

That may be why its an imperfect or unwise course of action, but why is it implausible?

I mean, it's implausible for the purpose of getting DC statehood. It's not implausible to get things like the 1.9T stimulus, far from it.

How is it implausible though? especially if we have enough votes.

If we don't have enough votes to kill the filibuster, I highly doubt that we have enough votes to overrule the Parliamentarian (which you'd need to do to apply reconciliation to DC statehood). If anything, the latter seems like a much more serious step.

Pretty sure overruling the parliamentarian is a simple majority vote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I actually agree that, in an ideal world, DC should just be merged into Maryland. In an ideal world, we'd also split California and Texas into 3 to 5 new states and change quite a bit more about the structure of the US government. But in the world of actually-achievable things, making DC a state is the clear way forward.

That being said, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think the reconciliation route is plausible, and nuking the filibuster remains a tall order. Still, glad dems are putting it on the agenda.

Why?

Because reconciliation is explicitly meant for taxing and spending policy items. Now, there is some legitimate wiggle room in terms of what constitutes such an item (on things like increasing the minimum wage, for example, or introducing a public option - those aren't just revenue or expenditures, but they can be argued to bear a clear connection to them) but using it for something as far-reaching as statehood broadens it to the point of meaninglessness.

That may be why its an imperfect or unwise course of action, but why is it implausible?

I mean, it's implausible for the purpose of getting DC statehood. It's not implausible to get things like the 1.9T stimulus, far from it.

How is it implausible though? especially if we have enough votes.

If we don't have enough votes to kill the filibuster, I highly doubt that we have enough votes to overrule the Parliamentarian (which you'd need to do to apply reconciliation to DC statehood). If anything, the latter seems like a much more serious step.

Pretty sure overruling the parliamentarian is a simple majority vote.

AS IS ABOLISHING THE FILIBUSTER

What are you even arguing about at this point?!?

[CookieDamage]

I actually agree that, in an ideal world, DC should just be merged into Maryland. In an ideal world, we'd also split California and Texas into 3 to 5 new states and change quite a bit more about the structure of the US government. But in the world of actually-achievable things, making DC a state is the clear way forward.

That being said, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think the reconciliation route is plausible, and nuking the filibuster remains a tall order. Still, glad dems are putting it on the agenda.

Why?

Because reconciliation is explicitly meant for taxing and spending policy items. Now, there is some legitimate wiggle room in terms of what constitutes such an item (on things like increasing the minimum wage, for example, or introducing a public option - those aren't just revenue or expenditures, but they can be argued to bear a clear connection to them) but using it for something as far-reaching as statehood broadens it to the point of meaninglessness.

That may be why its an imperfect or unwise course of action, but why is it implausible?

I mean, it's implausible for the purpose of getting DC statehood. It's not implausible to get things like the 1.9T stimulus, far from it.

How is it implausible though? especially if we have enough votes.

If we don't have enough votes to kill the filibuster, I highly doubt that we have enough votes to overrule the Parliamentarian (which you'd need to do to apply reconciliation to DC statehood). If anything, the latter seems like a much more serious step.

Pretty sure overruling the parliamentarian is a simple majority vote.

AS IS ABOLISHING THE FILIBUSTER

What are you even arguing about at this point?!?

Calm down boo. First of all, abolishing the filibuster has been a hard no for Manchin/Sinema for a while now, but it's hardly the same as overruling a person most of this country has never heard of. Neither have indicated any hostility towards DC statehood, and I'm assuming they aren't gonna suddenly flip flop if DC statehood relies on reconciliation/overruling the parliamentarian.

What are YOU arguing over? or are you just being contrarian/ doom and gloom for the heck of it?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I actually agree that, in an ideal world, DC should just be merged into Maryland. In an ideal world, we'd also split California and Texas into 3 to 5 new states and change quite a bit more about the structure of the US government. But in the world of actually-achievable things, making DC a state is the clear way forward.

That being said, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think the reconciliation route is plausible, and nuking the filibuster remains a tall order. Still, glad dems are putting it on the agenda.

Why?

Because reconciliation is explicitly meant for taxing and spending policy items. Now, there is some legitimate wiggle room in terms of what constitutes such an item (on things like increasing the minimum wage, for example, or introducing a public option - those aren't just revenue or expenditures, but they can be argued to bear a clear connection to them) but using it for something as far-reaching as statehood broadens it to the point of meaninglessness.

That may be why its an imperfect or unwise course of action, but why is it implausible?

I mean, it's implausible for the purpose of getting DC statehood. It's not implausible to get things like the 1.9T stimulus, far from it.

How is it implausible though? especially if we have enough votes.

If we don't have enough votes to kill the filibuster, I highly doubt that we have enough votes to overrule the Parliamentarian (which you'd need to do to apply reconciliation to DC statehood). If anything, the latter seems like a much more serious step.

Pretty sure overruling the parliamentarian is a simple majority vote.

AS IS ABOLISHING THE FILIBUSTER

What are you even arguing about at this point?!?

Calm down boo. First of all, abolishing the filibuster has been a hard no for Manchin/Sinema for a while now, but it's hardly the same as overruling a person most of this country has never heard of. Neither have indicated any hostility towards DC statehood, and I'm assuming they aren't gonna suddenly flip flop if DC statehood relies on reconciliation/overruling the parliamentarian.

What are YOU arguing over? or are you just being contrarian/ doom and gloom for the heck of it?

You're the one who started this argument, so I don't know how I can be the contrarian here.

You just don't seem to understand that overruling the parliamentarian is not a minor step. The parliamentarian is an employee of the Senate who's there to be a neutral arbiter of the rules that the Senate has given itself. Changing the rules is one thing - a majority of Senators can legitimately do that. Overruling the parliamentarian is more than changing the rules - it's basically the Senate deciding there are no rules at all. It's a big f**king deal. Not even Mitch tried to f**k with that process (we forgot it now but the parliamentarian did kick out a bunch of extraneous bullsh*t that the GOP was trying to tack on to the tax bill). If killing the filibuster is the nuclear option, this is the end-of-the-world device. It's a very bad idea and not something that any Democrat should support - and it's obviously not something Manchin and Sinema would actually support.

[CookieDamage]

I actually agree that, in an ideal world, DC should just be merged into Maryland. In an ideal world, we'd also split California and Texas into 3 to 5 new states and change quite a bit more about the structure of the US government. But in the world of actually-achievable things, making DC a state is the clear way forward.

That being said, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think the reconciliation route is plausible, and nuking the filibuster remains a tall order. Still, glad dems are putting it on the agenda.

Why?

Because reconciliation is explicitly meant for taxing and spending policy items. Now, there is some legitimate wiggle room in terms of what constitutes such an item (on things like increasing the minimum wage, for example, or introducing a public option - those aren't just revenue or expenditures, but they can be argued to bear a clear connection to them) but using it for something as far-reaching as statehood broadens it to the point of meaninglessness.

That may be why its an imperfect or unwise course of action, but why is it implausible?

I mean, it's implausible for the purpose of getting DC statehood. It's not implausible to get things like the 1.9T stimulus, far from it.

How is it implausible though? especially if we have enough votes.

If we don't have enough votes to kill the filibuster, I highly doubt that we have enough votes to overrule the Parliamentarian (which you'd need to do to apply reconciliation to DC statehood). If anything, the latter seems like a much more serious step.

Pretty sure overruling the parliamentarian is a simple majority vote.

AS IS ABOLISHING THE FILIBUSTER

What are you even arguing about at this point?!?

Calm down boo. First of all, abolishing the filibuster has been a hard no for Manchin/Sinema for a while now, but it's hardly the same as overruling a person most of this country has never heard of. Neither have indicated any hostility towards DC statehood, and I'm assuming they aren't gonna suddenly flip flop if DC statehood relies on reconciliation/overruling the parliamentarian.

What are YOU arguing over? or are you just being contrarian/ doom and gloom for the heck of it?

You're the one who started this argument, so I don't know how I can be the contrarian here.

You just don't seem to understand that overruling the parliamentarian is not a minor step. The parliamentarian is an employee of the Senate who's there to be a neutral arbiter of the rules that the Senate has given itself. Changing the rules is one thing - a majority of Senators can legitimately do that. Overruling the parliamentarian is more than changing the rules - it's basically the Senate deciding there are no rules at all. It's a big f**king deal. Not even Mitch tried to f**k with that process (we forgot it now but the parliamentarian did kick out a bunch of extraneous bullsh*t that the GOP was trying to tack on to the tax bill). If killing the filibuster is the nuclear option, this is the end-of-the-world device. It's a very bad idea and not something that any Democrat should support - and it's obviously not something Manchin and Sinema would actually support.

It's such an end of the world device... that it was already done before... in 1975... so there's absolutely precedent thus it's ridiculous to imply its something apocalyptic.

Also there's no guarantee the parliamentarian would be opposed to it since DC's budget falls under the federal government and as such it can be very well tacked onto a larger bill.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, I guess we'll just have to find out. Have fun with that.

I don't know what the 1975 instance pertained to, but I somehow doubt it's remotely comparable to what we're talking about here.

[CookieDamage]

Well, I guess we'll just have to find out. Have fun with that.

I don't know what the 1975 instance pertained to, but I somehow doubt it's remotely comparable to what we're talking about here.

The parliamentarian was overruled, so whatever the issue was, such an action isn't as bad as you are dooming it out to be. It seems you are reading the minds of Manchin, Sinema, and the Parliamentarian though so I guess everyone else is wrong and you are right.

[emailking]

I agree that if a Senator had reached the point of declaring DC statehood is a tax and spend bill, then they're mostly likely for nuking the filibuster anyway at that point.

[GeneralMacArthur]

So do away with the filibuster for the purposes of installing new state.

I don't like it, but if Mitch is gonna do it for adding new Supreme Court justices, we can do it for adding new states.  Just get rid of one big rule every cycle until the entire Senate is just the House with fewer members.

[jimrtex]

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?

[jimrtex]

Let Washington voters participate in Maryland federal and state elections just as they did before 1801.

This is no different than how other federal enclaves are treated. Just because the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over various other areas with residential population does not mean the residents are not citizens of that state.

Why start there? Let's also merge MS and AL or WV and VA like it was BACK IN 1801.

MS nor AL are federal enclaves.

Alabama is required to permit residents of federal enclaves in the state to vote in Alabama elections. This is also true for Virginia.

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the capital district to not be a part of some state. It is no different than a military base.

Congress could make the whole of a district a national historical park, with permission for current residents to maintain residence in their lifetime, or until they choose to move to another state.

[brucejoel99]

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?

Not who you were replying to, & these are admittedly a few years old, but the most recent poll of District residents on the matter showed only 21% in support of retrocession, while the most recent poll of Maryland residents on the matter showed only 28% in support of retrocession, with 44% opposed. Not to mention, both the DC & Maryland governments have expressed their opposition to the idea.

[YE]

Didn’t the GOP fire/overrule the parliamentarian during the Bush years?

[jimrtex]

100% chance this will go to the Supreme Court.

On what grounds? Even if they made the entirety of the Federal district into a new State, it would be Constitutional. The Constitution only specifies that there may be a Federal district, not that there must be one.

Even if there were some provision that was being violated, who would have standing to sue?  The Supreme Court will deny cert.

There is no requirement that the federal district be permanent, or that the seat of government be in a federal district. Move the capital to a more central location, and the current district would automatically retrocede based on Maryland's conditional grant.

The federal government would maintain jurisdiction over any federal property.

Congress should rotate, and federal facilities can be dispersed. The Supreme Court can meet in seats of the Appeals Courts (will Douglass Commonwealth be moved into the 4th Circuit?)

[jimrtex]

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?

Not who you were replying to, & these are admittedly a few years old, but the most recent poll of District residents on the matter showed only 21% in support of retrocession, while the most recent poll of Maryland residents on the matter showed only 28% in support of retrocession, with 44% opposed. Not to mention, both the DC & Maryland governments have expressed their opposition to the idea.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_MD_42216.pdf

Interestingly, Blacks were slightly favorable to annexation, and residents of Baltimore were overwhelmingly in favor. Suburbanites both Baltimore and Washington were the most unfavorable. There may be latent racism at play.

[ibagli]

And as for the 23rd Amendment, it explicitly leaves the power of appointing the District's presidential electors to Congress "as Congress may direct," so if the DC statehood bill as currently proposed were to be enacted & the federal district were to become merely the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, & the handful of other federal office buildings adjacent to the National Mall, Congress could literally just direct that those 3 EVs not be cast at all, thus removing any potential constitutional issues emanating from there.

If the Carper bill is the same as HR51 from the last Congress (the text isn't published yet), that's actually already included:

SEC. 223. Repeal of law providing for participation of seat of government in election of President and Vice-President.

(a) In general.—Chapter 1 of title 3, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by striking section 21; and

(2) in the table of sections, by striking the item relating to section 21.

(b) Effective date.—The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect upon the date of the admission of the State into the Union, and shall apply to any election of the President and Vice-President taking place on or after such date.

Edit: It is the same.

[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.

[pppolitics]

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.

Democrats should introduce Dakota Reunion act.

[Brittain33]

Has Dusty Johnson met Dick Swett?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Waste of time.

Over 700,000 DC residents, or at least close to 90% of them, wholeheartedly disagree.

I meant it's not happening.  I'll be proven correct.