DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[brucejoel99]

It won’t matter if the GOP filibusters.

This can still be filibustered, right?

[brucejoel99]

Statehood time, motherf**kers:

https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1353736555496665090

[brucejoel99]

I can't wait for the Republicans to filibuster this. If the nuclear option is gonna be invoked on anything, it'll be this.

[brucejoel99]

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

The founding fathers didn't know it would one day have 700,000 people literally in a "taxation without representation" situation.

Every single founding father would support this bill if they were somehow still alive. Every single one of them was strongly motivated by "taxation without representation."

Also, while we have wisely kept at the end expanded the basic legal rights and Liberties are founding fathers established in the Bill of Rights, pretty much everything the founders established regarding voting rights we have wisely jettisoned over the centuries. DC is "not meant to be a state" the same way non landowners weren't supposed to vote, non-whites weren't supposed to vote, women weren't supposed to vote, Senators weren't supposed to be elected popularly rather than by state legislators, presidents and vice presidents were meant to be elected on the same ticket, 18 for 20 year olds for men to vote, and DC wasn't supposed to have any vote for the Electoral College Etc. Every one of these changes from what the founders "meant to be" was unquestionably for the better of our society and as a functioning democracy.

Seriously, unless one can literally say that they are both fine with 700000 Americans being denied representation while enduring Taxation, and can come up with a cognisable reason why the actual District can't be limited to a few blocks of essential government buildings such as the White House and Capitol, there is not a single worthwhile non partisan ( i. E. Republican) basis to opposed DC statehood.

Than the new capitol should have 0 electoral votes

It will, as soon as the 23rd Amendment is repealed.

DC statehood should only happen via an amendment that repeals the 23rd amendment

Statehood doesn't require an amendment, that'd be legally superfluous.

[brucejoel99]

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

The founding fathers didn't know it would one day have 700,000 people literally in a "taxation without representation" situation.

Every single founding father would support this bill if they were somehow still alive. Every single one of them was strongly motivated by "taxation without representation."

Also, while we have wisely kept at the end expanded the basic legal rights and Liberties are founding fathers established in the Bill of Rights, pretty much everything the founders established regarding voting rights we have wisely jettisoned over the centuries. DC is "not meant to be a state" the same way non landowners weren't supposed to vote, non-whites weren't supposed to vote, women weren't supposed to vote, Senators weren't supposed to be elected popularly rather than by state legislators, presidents and vice presidents were meant to be elected on the same ticket, 18 for 20 year olds for men to vote, and DC wasn't supposed to have any vote for the Electoral College Etc. Every one of these changes from what the founders "meant to be" was unquestionably for the better of our society and as a functioning democracy.

Seriously, unless one can literally say that they are both fine with 700000 Americans being denied representation while enduring Taxation, and can come up with a cognisable reason why the actual District can't be limited to a few blocks of essential government buildings such as the White House and Capitol, there is not a single worthwhile non partisan ( i. E. Republican) basis to opposed DC statehood.

Than the new capitol should have 0 electoral votes

It will, as soon as the 23rd Amendment is repealed.

DC statehood should only happen via an amendment that repeals the 23rd amendment

Statehood doesn't require an amendment, that'd be legally superfluous.

no but DC shouldn't get statehood until we can guarantee the remaining parts of DC gets 0 electoral votes

But Congress can already do that after the fact by just repealing the laws that enable the District's current participation in presidential elections. Legally speaking, a 23rd Amendment repeal isn't even required to ensure that the nominal federal district wouldn't have 3 EVs of its own, though it'd obviously still be preferred for efficiency's sake. Moreover, the statehood bill also contains provisions that would enable expedited consideration of an after-the-fact 23rd Amendment repeal in Congress anyway, as well as provisions that would allow any (presumably very few, if any at all) remaining residents of the federal district who aren't the President & their family (who are already legal residents of another state) to vote in the state/district in which they last resided (just like American expatriates abroad are already allowed to do in the status quo).

[brucejoel99]

100% chance this will go to the Supreme Court.

And pass easily. Congress can make the federal district the size and shape it wants, and admit new states at its own will.

Lol... are you sure about that

Yes. So long as the new state itself doesn't include the "seat of government," there wouldn't be a constitutional issue.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution says the following concerning the creation of new states:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

As for the seat of government, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 says the following:

[Congress shall have power...] To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

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.

With all the Constitution requires being that the seat of government not exceed 10 square miles & that it - & the appointment manner of its presidential electors - be under the control of Congress, there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting Congress from shrinking the federal district to just the basics, with the surrounding area containing all of the actual people becoming a full-on state, & I don't see why at least 5 justices (e.g., Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, & uber-textualist-even-when-it-helps-the-liberals Gorsuch) wouldn't agree.

[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.

[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.

[brucejoel99]

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.

Okay OSR, Congress has already provided for a guarantee that the remaining parts of DC will get 0 EVs. So are you okay with DC getting statehood now?

[brucejoel99]

If DC statehood happens , then Georgia gets Maine ruled , then other things happen .

Just merge Maryland and DC together

What part of MARYLAND DOESNT WANT THAT is so hard to understand?

You act as if they care about the right to self-determination, be it MD's or DC's. They don't. If they did, then they'd have to be okay with the possibility of having to accept there being 2 more Democratic Senators, & they'll never be okay with that.

[brucejoel99]

Is there a way DC gets 2 senators without becoming a state?

The D.C. Voting Rights Amendment being resurrected from the dead & ratified. Short of that, any method which would purport to grant D.C. full congressional representation that's not statehood would be blatantly unconstitutional.

[brucejoel99]

Is there a way DC gets 2 senators without becoming a state?

It would take a constitutional amendment and might even need to get over the entrenched clause. Practically impossible.

I never considered the potential equal suffrage implications, but now that I think about it, yeah, I'm sure some butthurt right-winger would've made a court case about it had the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment ever been ratified.

[brucejoel99]

If DC statehood happens , then Georgia gets Maine ruled , then other things happen .

Why would those things be connected? If Georgia Republicans think that "Maine-ruling" Georgia is in their best interest, they'll do it.

It’s called both sides using this as leverage against each other to make sure the other thing doesn’t happen .

Have you ever heard about this crazy notion of just doing the right thing?

The right thing is making sure neither thing happen

In no universe does making sure the people of D.C. remain unrepresented in Congress constitute "the right thing." Jesus.

[brucejoel99]

I’ve heard talk that passing the stimulous even with just Dem votes might not happen until as late as MARCH?!? The fact things are moving so slow on something like that... tells me that it’s clearly evident neither statehood is happening. It just isn’t.

The Lahey health scare should have been a giant wake up call. But clearly everything is moving at a snails pace. And before someone tells me that’s how legislating works: they rammed through a Supreme Court justice in about two seconds. So they could do it if they wanted too.

No, I'm very much gonna tell you that that's how legislating works, because it is, given that reconciliation isn't exactly a process which can just be rammed through in "2 seconds" (which was actually 39 days, for scale): first a budget resolution has to be written-up (which is what's happening as we speak) & then pass in both chambers, then the reconciliation bill itself has to be written-up & passed in both chambers, but before the Senate can do their part in passing it, they're obligated to hold a time-consuming amendment vote-a-rama, during which literally hundreds of amendments have to be voted on. Getting the COVID stimulus passed through the reconciliation process was always gonna be a time-consuming process. It took 6 months for the GOP to try & use the reconciliation process to repeal Obamacare (which failed), & then another 6 months to successfully use it to get their tax cuts. The fact that the Democrats will get it done this time in just ~70 days (as compared to ACB having been confirmed in 39, which you equate to "2 seconds") is a testament to how fast things are moving. If ACB was confirmed in "2 seconds," then this stimulus is being passed in 3.5.

[brucejoel99]

I’ve heard talk that passing the stimulous even with just Dem votes might not happen until as late as MARCH?!? The fact things are moving so slow on something like that... tells me that it’s clearly evident neither statehood is happening. It just isn’t.

The Lahey health scare should have been a giant wake up call. But clearly everything is moving at a snails pace. And before someone tells me that’s how legislating works: they rammed through a Supreme Court justice in about two seconds. So they could do it if they wanted too.

No, I'm very much gonna tell you that that's how legislating works, because it is, given that reconciliation isn't exactly a process which can just be rammed through in "2 seconds" (which was actually 39 days, for scale): first a budget resolution has to be written-up (which is what's happening as we speak) & then pass in both chambers, then the reconciliation bill itself has to be written-up & passed in both chambers, but before the Senate can do their part in passing it, they're obligated to hold a time-consuming amendment vote-a-rama, during which literally hundreds of amendments have to be voted on. Getting the COVID stimulus passed through the reconciliation process was always gonna be a time-consuming process. It took 6 months for the GOP to try & use the reconciliation process to repeal Obamacare (which failed), & then another 6 months to successfully use it to get their tax cuts. The fact that the Democrats will get it done this time in just ~70 days (as compared to ACB having been confirmed in 39, which you equate to "2 seconds") is a testament to how fast things are moving. If ACB was confirmed in "2 seconds," then this stimulus is being passed in 3.5.

Didn’t realize they had to go through a ridiculous amount of votes such as that. Just seems that time moves slow on things that matter and on GOP wish lists it just breezes through

It took 6 months for the GOP to try & use the reconciliation process to repeal Obamacare (which failed), & then another 6 months to successfully use it to get their tax cuts.

[brucejoel99]

Peak Harry/Brucejoel/Badger: We must pass DC statehood, it’s a matter of equal representation! We would tooootally want to admit a GOP territory if they were underrepresented! This is certainly not about the Democratic senators we have said we wanted, no sireee!”

Don't project your hackery onto others.

[brucejoel99]

Peak Harry/Brucejoel/Badger: We must pass DC statehood, it’s a matter of equal representation! We would tooootally want to admit a GOP territory if they were underrepresented! This is certainly not about the Democratic senators we have said we wanted, no sireee!”

Don't project your hackery onto others.

Right...you are being driven primarily by morality and not partisan desires.

...

Yes. It's really not that hard of a concept to understand for people who aren't hacks, but you're practically the king of hacks, so it's obvious why you just can't get that through your head.

[brucejoel99]

I believe that the rule normally is that every new state gets one congressman when they are first admitted regardless of population and they expand Congress by that amount: and then when the next census happens the calculation is based on 435 again and so one state would lose a Congressman if DC was admitted: and more would lose out if Puerto Rico was added since they would get a fair few because of their population.  Don't quote me on the first bit of that though: they might give them the number they'd get if they were included in that Census and then expand Congress temporarily.

Yeah, that's how it worked for AK & HI, but it's a bit more complicated this time around than it was with them. The D.C. statehood bill is relatively straightforward, as it'd permanently increase the House to 436, so it'd get 1 representative upon admission, & then during the next redistricting, it'd receive whatever it's proportionally entitled to out of 436: so, still 1.

However, the most recent P.R. statehood bill is where it gets complicated. Upon admission, the whole state would temporarily have just 1 representative, then at the next regularly-scheduled House elections, it'd get the same amount that the state closest to it in population currently has (CT's 5), before getting whatever it's proportionally entitled to out of the permanent size at the next redistricting (so, 435 for now, or 436 if DC has been admitted by then).

So, if DC & PR were both simultaneously admitted tomorrow, there'd be a temporary increase to 437 & then at the 2022 elections (which just so happen to be the 1st post-redistricting elections), the permanent size would reset to 436, 1 of which would be D.C.'s & ~5 or so of which would go to P.R. (so some states would lose out). But if DC was admitted tomorrow while PR wasn't admitted 'til 2023 (say, because of a delay to allow for a binding referendum), then it'd temporarily get 1 for 2 years (temporarily increasing the size of the House to 437 for 2 years), then it'd get ~5 for 8 years (increasing the size of the House to ~441 for 8 years), before getting whatever it's proportionally entitled to out of 436 starting in 2033.

[brucejoel99]

Does anyone else think Douglass Commonwealth sounds forced?  I'm fine with Douglass or even Commonwealth of Douglass but the current thing just doesn't sound great to my ears.  Of course, I'd support DC statehood no matter what they decided to call it.

It’s super awkward but no one’s ever going to say it out loud, only DC.

Yeah, the only reason it's "Douglass Commonwealth" is so that the area can retain the state code of DC & otherwise minimize administrative stress so that nothing has to change geographically.

[brucejoel99]

Dc statehood is unconstitutional.

Not liking something doesn't make it unconstitutional.

[brucejoel99]

Dc statehood is unconstitutional.

Focus on Puerto rico.

I’m pretty sure it’s not with the plan that Democrats have?
I obviously support PR statehood, although there isn’t a clear mandate for it among the locals like with DC where even their license plates make clear the stance of the community.

Pleasantly surprised that you support PR statehood. Given your hackery & their relative conservatism & the resultant propensity to elect Republicans at the federal level, I would've figured that you'd balk at the idea.

[brucejoel99]

Dc statehood is unconstitutional.

Focus on Puerto rico.

I’m pretty sure it’s not with the plan that Democrats have?
I obviously support PR statehood, although there isn’t a clear mandate for it among the locals like with DC where even their license plates make clear the stance of the community.

Pleasantly surprised that you support PR statehood. Given your hackery & their relative conservatism & the resultant propensity to elect Republicans at the federal level, I would've figured that you'd balk at the idea.

I mean, I say I support it now, but obviously if we get more data which shows a decent chance of them voting in a bunch of GOPers, my mind can change.

Hack gonna hack.

[brucejoel99]

Columbia isn't even a reference to Columbus.  Columbia is a woman, she was used in "goddess of the new land" type imagery before the Statue of Liberty came along and became our new favorite gal.

The name originally came from Columbus, because the land was originally named after Columbus.  As is the entire country of Colombia.  But DC is not named after Columbus.

This is Columbia:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/American_Progress_%28John_Gast_painting%29.jpg

Tbf, DC technically being named after something which is itself named after Columbus is still something that, for a lot of people, would definitely "feel" like it's at least transitively named after Columbus.

[brucejoel99]

Any actual news on the progression of this bill?

Not since Carper introduced the Senate companion to Norton's House bill, & probably not for at least another ~2 months, given that the COVID relief reconciliation package will be taking up all of the oxygen & legislative focus in the meantime.

[brucejoel99]

Any actual news on the progression of this bill?

Not since Carper introduced the Senate companion to Norton's House bill, & probably not for at least another ~2 months, given that the COVID relief reconciliation package will be taking up all of the oxygen & legislative focus in the meantime.

By the time it sees the floor we will have lost the majority.

Mark my words. We will not get either statehood this year.

I could reverse jinx it a million times, offer all the bets in the world - it’s clear this isn’t a priority for leadership. If only Dem leadership was a little more ruthless - they could take a thing or two from the con artists in GOP leadership

k