DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[TheReckoning]

No current US territories meet the requirements to become a state in my opinion.

PR is too different, a very small percentage of its population can actually speak English. If the average Puerto Rican can’t communicate with the average North Carolinian, then that’s a problem, because citizens of the same country need to be able to communicate. Additionally, Puerto Rico is corrupt, and I feel like they just want the feds to bail them out.

DC is too small territorially. That’s a problem because then it will be compromised of only a single city. That leads to issues with separations of powers- I’m not comfortable with allowing an entire state to be controlled by one city. Not to mention there’s an explicit reason the founders were opposed to this.

All other territories have too small populations, among other issues.

Not to mention that these are being done for political reasons. If they voted differently, we all know most Atlasians would be completely opposed to this.

[TheReckoning]

that’s a problem, because citizens of the same country need to be able to communicate.

By this standard, Alabama should not be part of this country.

Based.

[TheReckoning]

No current US territories meet the requirements to become a state in my opinion.

PR is too different, a very small percentage of its population can actually speak English. If the average Puerto Rican can’t communicate with the average North Carolinian, then that’s a problem, because citizens of the same country need to be able to communicate. Additionally, Puerto Rico is corrupt, and I feel like they just want the feds to bail them out.

DC is too small territorially. That’s a problem because then it will be compromised of only a single city. That leads to issues with separations of powers- I’m not comfortable with allowing an entire state to be controlled by one city. Not to mention there’s an explicit reason the founders were opposed to this.

All other territories have too small populations, among other issues.

Not to mention that these are being done for political reasons. If they voted differently, we all know most Atlasians would be completely opposed to this.

"People I don't like should be disenfranchised because reasons"

How is PR disenfranchised? They have their own government. They aren’t drafted. They don’t pay federal taxes.

[TheReckoning]

No current US territories meet the requirements to become a state in my opinion.

PR is too different, a very small percentage of its population can actually speak English. If the average Puerto Rican can’t communicate with the average North Carolinian, then that’s a problem, because citizens of the same country need to be able to communicate. Additionally, Puerto Rico is corrupt, and I feel like they just want the feds to bail them out.

DC is too small territorially. That’s a problem because then it will be compromised of only a single city. That leads to issues with separations of powers- I’m not comfortable with allowing an entire state to be controlled by one city. Not to mention there’s an explicit reason the founders were opposed to this.

All other territories have too small populations, among other issues.

Not to mention that these are being done for political reasons. If they voted differently, we all know most Atlasians would be completely opposed to this.

"People I don't like should be disenfranchised because reasons"

How is PR disenfranchised? They have their own government. They aren’t drafted. They don’t pay federal taxes.

So I assume you are against the idea of the state of Rhode Island because it is basically one city and surrounding suburbs/exurbs?

I also assume you are against Wyoming because it doesn’t have enough people, yes?

Wyoming has over half a million people, more than all other territories except PR and DC. Clearly, half a million is pushing the limit, since millions of people complain about its Senate advantage non-stop.

Rhode Island also has 39 divisions of Government. Much more than the “one” in DC.

[TheReckoning]

No current US territories meet the requirements to become a state in my opinion.

PR is too different, a very small percentage of its population can actually speak English. If the average Puerto Rican can’t communicate with the average North Carolinian, then that’s a problem, because citizens of the same country need to be able to communicate. Additionally, Puerto Rico is corrupt, and I feel like they just want the feds to bail them out.

DC is too small territorially. That’s a problem because then it will be compromised of only a single city. That leads to issues with separations of powers- I’m not comfortable with allowing an entire state to be controlled by one city. Not to mention there’s an explicit reason the founders were opposed to this.

All other territories have too small populations, among other issues.

Not to mention that these are being done for political reasons. If they voted differently, we all know most Atlasians would be completely opposed to this.

"People I don't like should be disenfranchised because reasons"

How is PR disenfranchised? They have their own government. They aren’t drafted. They don’t pay federal taxes.

So I assume you are against the idea of the state of Rhode Island because it is basically one city and surrounding suburbs/exurbs?

I also assume you are against Wyoming because it doesn’t have enough people, yes?

Wyoming has over half a million people, more than all other territories except PR and DC. Clearly, half a million is pushing the limit, since millions of people complain about its Senate advantage non-stop.

Rhode Island also has 39 divisions of Government. Much more than the “one” in DC.

So...are you a yes or no on Wyoming?

As for divisions...would you be more willing to support DC statehood if we decided to convert the one city into 40 separate municipalities? The external borders wouldn’t change but we would make it even more viable than RI, right?

That would certainly make statehood more palatable for me, but if we’re being honest, that will never happen.

[TheReckoning]

No current US territories meet the requirements to become a state in my opinion.

PR is too different, a very small percentage of its population can actually speak English. If the average Puerto Rican can’t communicate with the average North Carolinian, then that’s a problem, because citizens of the same country need to be able to communicate. Additionally, Puerto Rico is corrupt, and I feel like they just want the feds to bail them out.

DC is too small territorially. That’s a problem because then it will be compromised of only a single city. That leads to issues with separations of powers- I’m not comfortable with allowing an entire state to be controlled by one city. Not to mention there’s an explicit reason the founders were opposed to this.

All other territories have too small populations, among other issues.

Not to mention that these are being done for political reasons. If they voted differently, we all know most Atlasians would be completely opposed to this.

"People I don't like should be disenfranchised because reasons"

How is PR disenfranchised? They have their own government. They aren’t drafted. They don’t pay federal taxes.

So, because you believe that they have X benefits without Y costs, that means they aren't disenfranchised? I'm pretty sure that our federal government is also their federal government; they are also citizens of this country. As a citizen, I'd be pretty pissed off not being able to have a say in what my federal government does just because a certain political party would be negatively impacted by my proposed state's ability to express our will and exert democratic influence on our shared federal government.

I believe you are grossly overestimating the actual impact the federal government has on Puerto Rico. It’s largely autonomous.

[TheReckoning]

No current US territories meet the requirements to become a state in my opinion.

PR is too different, a very small percentage of its population can actually speak English. If the average Puerto Rican can’t communicate with the average North Carolinian, then that’s a problem, because citizens of the same country need to be able to communicate. Additionally, Puerto Rico is corrupt, and I feel like they just want the feds to bail them out.

DC is too small territorially. That’s a problem because then it will be compromised of only a single city. That leads to issues with separations of powers- I’m not comfortable with allowing an entire state to be controlled by one city. Not to mention there’s an explicit reason the founders were opposed to this.

All other territories have too small populations, among other issues.

Not to mention that these are being done for political reasons. If they voted differently, we all know most Atlasians would be completely opposed to this.

There are so many counterexamples of multilingual countries.

Outrageously false statement. I support representation of ALL Americans, even if I don't like the way they're going to vote. If Puerto Rico sends Republicans to the Senate, which they very well might, that's fine. They have every right to do so. If America is 52% Republican, 48% Democrat, then ideally the Senate would be that way too while my side figures out how to appeal to more people. Politics is NOT a game.

You may say that, and it may even be true. But let’s not act like, at this point, most people aren’t willing to give a single INCH to other side.

[TheReckoning]

But let’s not act like, at this point, most people aren’t willing to give a single INCH to other side.

What compromise is even out there? DC gets to be a state in even months but not odd ones? Anything less than the current 50 states keeps the Americans who live there second-class citizens.

I hate it when states like Texas elect treasonous morons like Ted Cruz to the Senate, but I still support the right of Americans who live in Texas to elect people to Congress to represent them, just as I support that right for Americans who live in DC, Puerto Rico, or any other territory that has affirmatively shown in wants statehood. If they want to elect someone I don't like, I'll deal with it.

On this issue, Democrats legitimately have the moral high ground, while any Republican who opposes it is being nakedly partisan. Thankfully at least DC will be settled in a few weeks.

Would you support statehood for Wake Island, with its population of 100 residents?

[TheReckoning]

There’s been a lot of talk about adding these states to the Union, on this forum and elsewhere, and with Democrats controlling all 3 branches, its seeming more possible than ever.

But it’s clear most Republicans think of this as being a political move to expand Democrats control over the senate, and increase their chances in the EC.

Is it possible that next time the Republicans are in charge, they could create new states as well to expand their power? I don’t think there’s anything stopping them from making every single Oklahoma County a new state, technically.

All hell could break loose.

[TheReckoning]

No current US territories meet the requirements to become a state in my opinion.

PR is too different, a very small percentage of its population can actually speak English. If the average Puerto Rican can’t communicate with the average North Carolinian, then that’s a problem, because citizens of the same country need to be able to communicate. Additionally, Puerto Rico is corrupt, and I feel like they just want the feds to bail them out.

DC is too small territorially. That’s a problem because then it will be compromised of only a single city. That leads to issues with separations of powers- I’m not comfortable with allowing an entire state to be controlled by one city. Not to mention there’s an explicit reason the founders were opposed to this.

All other territories have too small populations, among other issues.

Not to mention that these are being done for political reasons. If they voted differently, we all know most Atlasians would be completely opposed to this.

Regarding Puerto Rico, it's not like the country immediately north of the US is also a federalized country, with one of its constituent units speaking a different language to all the others right? Oh wait! (Quebec)

Now, I can agree that admitting PR as a state could create some frictions, much like how Quebec creates them in Canada. But PR secessionism is even deader than Quebec separatism. I can agree with an argument along the lines of "Statehood is permanent, PR is very different from the rest of the US and it doesn't have a strong enough mandate on the island"; but a purely cultural argument is nonsense. Canada handles Quebec fairly well and I am confident the US would handle PR just as well, especialy since PR will be way smaller than QC is in Canada.

As for DC being too small, there are lots of federal countries where the capital city is small, yet it is also its own constituent unit: Berlin, Brasilia, CABA, etc. Why should Washington DC be any different?

Finally, I am pretty sure Atlasia admitted DC as a state a long time ago (and PR and the rest of the territories).

You’re from Spain, you know what cultural divisions can do to a country. I’m not saying PR statehood can never happen, I’m just saying there needs to a discussion about this because PR is unlike any other US state that we’ve ever admitted before.

[TheReckoning]

There’s been a lot of talk about adding these states to the Union, on this forum and elsewhere, and with Democrats controlling all 3 branches, its seeming more possible than ever.

But it’s clear most Republicans think of this as being a political move to expand Democrats control over the senate, and increase their chances in the EC.

Is it possible that next time the Republicans are in charge, they could create new states as well to expand their power? I don’t think there’s anything stopping them from making every single Oklahoma County a new state, technically.

All hell could break loose.

The most obvious check is that state governors would not want to give up power by ceding territory to new states. This also applies to the 'split California' proposals and is a reason why the 'add NoVA to DC with statehood' compromise could fail.

It might make it politically easier for a future administration to add other, smaller territories as states, but all of these have more autonomy than PR and DC.

If those State governors were Trumpists who believed that Biden would destroy the country, I think they’d do anything they could.

[TheReckoning]

I’m opposed to both DC statehood and PR statehood at the moment, as for all other territories.

[TheReckoning]

Awesome that partisan power grabs are being shot down!

[TheReckoning]

Awesome that partisan power grabs are being shot down!

The Americans living in DC not getting to have Congressional representation just because Republicans don't want them electing Democrats is the partisan power grab. And yes, it is nice that Jim Crow II will finally end for DC later this year.

Next up are the territories - their Jim Crow will come to an end soon too.

It’s pretty obvious this is a power grab. Maybe the Republicans opposing it also a power grab, but if this was really about giving the people of DC representation, it would’ve been done all the other times the Democrats held power. Now that they realize that their old coalition isn’t working, they’re trying to find ways to get back power.

[TheReckoning]

https://news.yahoo.com/democrats-ambitions-narrow-political-reality-185504886.html



SORRY TO SPOIL YOUR FUN ON DC STATEHOOD KING IS UNDECIDED ON DC STATEHOOD SO STATEHOOD ISNT INEVITABLE

Will you shut up man?

He’s literally correct lmao

[TheReckoning]

King, Kelly, Manchin, Sinema, have all expressed reservation about statehood so I would celebrate yet

No they haven't. They've all said something along the lines of "i have to look more into it" which is nowhere near a reservation and especially nowhere near opposition.

“I’m going to look into it,” is a nice way of saying “No.”

[TheReckoning]

Watching all the red avatars getting mad that their power grab failed is the perfect indictment of U.S. politics.

[TheReckoning]

Watching all the red avatars getting mad that their power grab failed is the perfect indictment of U.S. politics.

A power grab is refusing to a sit a Supreme Court justice for 10 months.

A power grab is actively trying to have electoral college votes thrown out cause you’re mad you lost.

Giving representation to the most taxed 700k residents in the nation is not a power grab just because it happens to benefit the party which you oppose.

I never said it was only Democrats who engaged in power grabs. But this right here certainly is an example of them doing just that.

[TheReckoning]

Watching all the red avatars getting mad that their power grab failed is the perfect indictment of U.S. politics.

A power grab is refusing to a sit a Supreme Court justice for 10 months.

A power grab is actively trying to have electoral college votes thrown out cause you’re mad you lost.

Giving representation to the most taxed 700k residents in the nation is not a power grab just because it happens to benefit the party which you oppose.

I never said it was only Democrats who engaged in power grabs. But this right here certainly is an example of them doing just that.

The "power grab" is Republicans not letting the Americans who live in DC have the same rights as any other American.

What rights are those? Electing senators isn’t a right.

Be honest with yourself. Democrats couldn’t care less about giving people voting rights. If they did, they would’ve made DC a state in 2009, when they had full Control of Congress. So why are they doing it now? 3 words.

Power, power, power.

[TheReckoning]

Watching all the red avatars getting mad that their power grab failed is the perfect indictment of U.S. politics.

A power grab is refusing to a sit a Supreme Court justice for 10 months.

A power grab is actively trying to have electoral college votes thrown out cause you’re mad you lost.

Giving representation to the most taxed 700k residents in the nation is not a power grab just because it happens to benefit the party which you oppose.

I never said it was only Democrats who engaged in power grabs. But this right here certainly is an example of them doing just that.

The "power grab" is Republicans not letting the Americans who live in DC have the same rights as any other American.

What rights are those? Electing senators isn’t a right.

Sometimes I wonder what people who don’t believe in democracy are doing on an elections forum.

Tell me where in the U.S. Constitution does it give all American citizens the unconditional right to elect people to the U.S. Senate.

You’ll be looking for a long time.

[TheReckoning]

Watching all the red avatars getting mad that their power grab failed is the perfect indictment of U.S. politics.

A power grab is refusing to a sit a Supreme Court justice for 10 months.

A power grab is actively trying to have electoral college votes thrown out cause you’re mad you lost.

Giving representation to the most taxed 700k residents in the nation is not a power grab just because it happens to benefit the party which you oppose.

I never said it was only Democrats who engaged in power grabs. But this right here certainly is an example of them doing just that.

The "power grab" is Republicans not letting the Americans who live in DC have the same rights as any other American.

What rights are those? Electing senators isn’t a right.

Sometimes I wonder what people who don’t believe in democracy are doing on an elections forum.

Tell me where in the U.S. Constitution does it give all American citizens the unconditional right to elect people to the U.S. Senate.

You’ll be looking for a long time.

Tell me where the Constitution defined the limits of what a democracy is.

Tell me how that’s at all relevant to whether or not DC not having senators is unconstitutional.

[TheReckoning]

What rights are those? Electing senators isn’t a right.

Be honest with yourself. Democrats couldn’t care less about giving people voting rights. If they did, they would’ve made DC a state in 2009, when they had full Control of Congress. So why are they doing it now? 3 words.

Power, power, power.

They did try, and it was crafted to appease Republicans but died due to an unrelated amendment concerning gun control in DC. Nothing about what happened screams "power, power, power":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-house-finally-voted-to-support-dc-statehood-its-a-needed-step/2019/03/12/f171771c-4434-11e9-8aab-95b8d80a1e4f_story.html

A promising and pragmatic bipartisan effort to give the District a voting member in the House, balanced against an additional seat for the traditionally Republican state of Utah, was sabotaged in 2009 by inclusion of a poisonous amendment that would have overturned the city’s gun-control laws.

As is true with many policy proposals, the idea of shrinking the district and creating a state from the rest needed time to make the rounds and gain support from lawmakers, activists and other proponents.

This whole situation would be downright amusing if it weren't sad for the people in DC. To the GOP, any Democrat proposing statehood is just after power. Ironically, as explicitly stated by numerous Republican lawmakers, it's also clear that the reason for intense resistance to this idea among Republicans is because of two new Democratic Senators (or power).

How is DC ever supposed to get representation in Congress in this case? This is how you end up with Democrats just saying saying to ram statehood through. Republicans are never going to support it because they don't want to empower their opposition. Meanwhile, there isn't exactly an avalanche of Democratic Senators kicking down Manchin's door to beat him into submission on statehood, even knowing it would make their ability to pass their agenda easier. In fact, HR1 and DC statehood are beginning to fall to the wayside, priority-wise.

Doesn't sound like Democrats are all about "power, power, power."

I never said it wasn’t equally a power grab among Republicans as well. Of course it is. But when both moves are power grabs, I just feel like keeping things the same is better than changing 240 years of precedent.

[TheReckoning]

What rights are those? Electing senators isn’t a right.

Be honest with yourself. Democrats couldn’t care less about giving people voting rights. If they did, they would’ve made DC a state in 2009, when they had full Control of Congress. So why are they doing it now? 3 words.

Power, power, power.

They did try, and it was crafted to appease Republicans but died due to an unrelated amendment concerning gun control in DC. Nothing about what happened screams "power, power, power":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-house-finally-voted-to-support-dc-statehood-its-a-needed-step/2019/03/12/f171771c-4434-11e9-8aab-95b8d80a1e4f_story.html

A promising and pragmatic bipartisan effort to give the District a voting member in the House, balanced against an additional seat for the traditionally Republican state of Utah, was sabotaged in 2009 by inclusion of a poisonous amendment that would have overturned the city’s gun-control laws.

As is true with many policy proposals, the idea of shrinking the district and creating a state from the rest needed time to make the rounds and gain support from lawmakers, activists and other proponents.

This whole situation would be downright amusing if it weren't sad for the people in DC. To the GOP, any Democrat proposing statehood is just after power. Ironically, as explicitly stated by numerous Republican lawmakers, it's also clear that the reason for intense resistance to this idea among Republicans is because of two new Democratic Senators (or power).

How is DC ever supposed to get representation in Congress in this case? This is how you end up with Democrats just saying saying to ram statehood through. Republicans are never going to support it because they don't want to empower their opposition. Meanwhile, there isn't exactly an avalanche of Democratic Senators kicking down Manchin's door to beat him into submission on statehood, even knowing it would make their ability to pass their agenda easier. In fact, HR1 and DC statehood are beginning to fall to the wayside, priority-wise.

Doesn't sound like Democrats are all about "power, power, power."

I never said it wasn’t equally a power grab among Republicans as well. Of course it is. But when both moves are power grabs, I just feel like keeping things the same is better than changing 240 years of precedent.

Muh BOTHsidz!1!

So now you back slid from it being unconstitutional to mere precedent? Jim Crow had precedent, why not keep it? Poll taxes, fraudulently applied literacy tests, etc etc etc. Bad ideas have precedent and such precedent should have zero precedential value in being broken.

The difference was, getting rid of Jim Crow wasn’t a power grab, and also, Jim Crow wasn’t anywhere near as much established as the fact that the Capital should not be able to use its power to prioritize itself.

[TheReckoning]

Tell me where in the U.S. Constitution does it give all American citizens the unconditional right to elect people to the U.S. Senate.

You’ll be looking for a long time.

- TheReckoning (D-AL), 1965

Not at all the same thing, but okay.

[TheReckoning]

But let’s not act like, at this point, most people aren’t willing to give a single INCH to other side.

.

On this issue, Democrats legitimately have the moral high ground, while any Republican who opposes it is being nakedly partisan. Thankfully at least DC will be settled in a few weeks.

You expect anyone to take you seriously after this blunder?