DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[Roronoa D. Law]

DC is not meant to be a state , just merge the residential parts of it with Maryland . If you really wanna make that part a state get rid of the 23rd amendment

Should Mexico City not be a state because it used to be in a similar position as DC?

[Roronoa D. Law]

Would Old School Republican just admit that he does not want DC to be a state because it will give Democrats a house and two senate seats.

[Roronoa D. Law]

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.

[Roronoa D. Law]

I would be open to the idea of PR statehood, but DC should in no scenario be admitted as a state. This is just a powergrab.

Why don't we merge DC with Iowa.

[Roronoa D. Law]

So far the GOP rhetoric against it has been so ignorant like rising crime despite crime rising everywhere else, population requirements despite already passing two states in population, or the idea that there is no car dealership in which there is one. It clear they have no messaging strategy for the public sphere or in the courts other than "if DC is made a state it will elect Democrats". Right now the only thing Republicans have to hang on to is Manchin. The fact that he hasn't definitely come out against statehood other than joking that he supports adding DC to WV suggests his position is not enough to secure Republicans' nervousness.

[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.

[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.

[Roronoa D. Law]

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.

Wait why would you like DC to be a part of Maryland? DC has been separated from Maryland for over 200 years.

[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.

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?

I think it'd be a similar procedure to when they invoked the nuclear option for judicial nominees, eliminating it for statehood bills, but leaving it in place for other legislation.

Presidential appointments are addressed in Article II, Section 2 while admission of new states is addressed in Article VI, Section 3. So in theory B can exist if A exists since both powers are outlined outside of Article I which defines Congress legislative powers.

[Roronoa D. Law]

https://news.yahoo.com/swing-state-dems-come-against-122820450.html


Here is an important development, swing state D's come out against Crt packing Bennett, CCM and KELLY, even if New states are added keep it at 9 even if DC Statehood is added

D's are stick with 9, I think some would argue against Crt packing due to Federalize LGBT rights

Not to derail the thread, since this is supposed to be about DC, but this is exactly why Democrats are pussies once they're in power.  Republicans would've already packed the court by now, if the situation were reversed.

Say what you will about McConnell, but he knows how to work the system.  He does it better than any Democrat I've ever seen, because every single Democrat caves in the end.

The Democrats have a problem with fixing a problem until it's has become a major problem. Democrats right now don't think they have a Senate problem because they control the Senate right now.

Democrats also have a problem of wanting to virtue signal to a crowd of voters that don't exist. They overplay the size of the Republican base and they constantly find themselves romanticizing with the New Deal Coalition. When New Deal was passed nearly a century ago. Most of them are dead, voting Republicans, or traditional liberals. But Democrats especially Biden have a problem with trying to pander to the good ol boys. 

[Roronoa D. Law]

I’m amazed at how many people even on supposedly well-informed sites like this actually think Manchin and Sinema are conservatives, and nothing more than attention whores who will toe the party line when needed. Sure, they might make a stink about it, but they haven’t killed anything yet.

Manchin killed Tanden's nomination.

Pretty sure Sanders was against her nomination as well. Manchin just came out in front of it because it allowed him to be against one of Biden's nominee.

[Roronoa D. Law]

What is Manchin even talking. A constitutional amendment isnt needed to create a state because it is already gives congress the power to create a new state.

 If Manchin wants to have this debate then I demand we have a constitutional amendment on the legitimacy of every state except the original 13. Why is there 2 Dakotas, is West Virginia even legitimate, and why did we pay for Florida?