DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[Antonio the Sixth]

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"

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?!?

[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.

[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.