DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[Del Tachi]

In a 50/50 Senate, each individual senator has a unique motivation to not add new members to the body.  That's not going to be lost on Sinema, Manchin, Collins or Murkowski, especially.

[Del Tachi]

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.

Maybe we're wrong that it's dead, but how are you so confident that it's a given?

Because it's been listed as a major priority by Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer and not a single Democrat has indicated they're opposed.

The process is currently working in the House, and even Merrick Garland was talking about it this week. There's no reason at all to think it's "dead." The numbers are there, it's just not getting all the media attention with the stimulus going on, and that's OK. It will be a state either way by this summer.

I mean, the issue that people are having is that one Senator has spent the last two weeks beating it into everyone's head how much she loves the filibuster.
It's hard to see her backing down after making it her brand.

Over the last 2 months we've documented a number of ways DC can be admitted without abolishing the filibuster. Sinema may be a grandstander, but she's not going to perpetuate Jim Crow, and she may not have even to make that call.

All of which would take 50 affirmative votes, something that there is zero indication exists for this issue.

[Del Tachi]

“No taxation without representation”

Not the same thing as DC statehood.

Yeah, this is the most dishonest aspect of Democrats' whole "DC statehood" charade.

Congress could pass legislation allowing D.C. to have voting representation in the House and Senate without revoking Congressional control over the District.  Such control is necessary to ensure the Federal government doesn't have to operate under the undue influence of any state, which is a noble enough reason to oppose D.C. statehood on its merits.

As I have said before:

The reason D.C. should not be a state today is the same reason why it was created in the first place:  so that Congress and the Federal government would not be under the undue authority or influence of any state.  The constitutional principles of federalism and the separation of powers are fundamentally incompatible with D.C. statehood.  Federal actions and officials must be independent of state governments and not unduly bound by any state's particular laws.  One sovereign cannot live in the house of another.         

Turning the seat of the federal government into an unpopulated enclave of some new state is no better a solution.    The everyday needs of the Federal government for utilities, roads, safety and transportation could be choked and snarled by a "Douglass Commonwealth" unhappy with some Federal (in)action.  It would be a "plenary power" of any state formed out of D.C. to interfere with these essential services and exert undue control over the functioning of the federal government.  Maybe the new state would never seek to act this way, but it wouldn't have to be intentional for it to inhibit the functioning of our federal government.  The Douglass Commonwealth could (like many Democrat-run cities) simply wreck the city budget, amass huge amounts of municipal debt, resultingly hallow out local police/schools/infrastructure and leave the Federal government to operate in an unsafe, decrepit shell of a formerly great national capital.  Exclusive control of D.C. by the federal government is the only option that preempts either of these scenarios.   

If admitted, the Douglass Commonwealth would be grossly unlike any other state in our nation, either historically or today.  The federal government is not a visitor upon D.C., the city has grown up around and entirely dependent on it.  It has no identifiable history or economy other than surviving off Federal tax receipts.  It is only 5 percent the size of Rhode Island.  Its 100% urban population would not be home to a single farmer or miner.  As a state, D.C. would be the richest yet have one of the highest poverty rates, simultaneously the most educated yet with the worst high school graduation rates.  Admitting D.C. as a state does not improve upon what some proponents of the idea claim as the great failing of our U.S. Senate - there it would elevate a small, idiosyncratic enclave to the same level of huge, diverse states home to tens of millions.   

All this being said, I'm sympathetic to permanent D.C. residents who want voting representation in Congress.  I'd support adding additional seats so that D.C. (and Puerto Rico and other territories, FWIW) can have voting rights in the House commensurate with their population.   

[Del Tachi]

Congress could pass legislation allowing D.C. to have voting representation in the House and Senate without revoking Congressional control over the District. 

I’m pretty sure that’s not true and that you’d need a Constitutional amendment. But either way,  no GOP member of congress has actually proposed any such thing. So it seems pretty disingenuous to say, “why are democrats ramming through statehood instead of this great compromise we’re not actually offering?” when the GOP position is, in fact, that DC residents should have NO representation.

A resolution to amend the Constitution is a piece of legislation before Congress.

And there is at least one Republican in the Senate who supports giving D.C. voting representation in the House.

[Del Tachi]

So are Republicans going to support this amendment?  Because if they aren't, what is the point? The primary reason statehood via shrinking the district is being pushed is because no alternatives have enough support to pass.

The point is that the unique status of our Federal District should not be changed absent an affirmative Constitutional supermajority and ratification by the three-fourths of the several States.  This is the same way D.C. was given presidential electors.  If there isn't such a majority then pro-statehood advocates need to do a better job of winning the debate.   

They are criticizing it because Democrats will win those seats. Few, if any, Republicans are going out of their way to sympathize with the situation DC residents find themselves, representation-wise.

No, they are making the point that Democrats' sudden interest in D.C. statehood is a naked partisan power play.  Democrats cared not about "taxation without representation" when they had trifectas in 1993-95 or 2009-11, and there is little doubt Democrats' interest in this stems from the difficult math they perceive in keeping a working Senate majority long term.

[Del Tachi]

And 0 senators. The taxpaying American citizens who live in DC (as is the case in any other part of America) deserve to have their interests represented in both Houses of Congress, and anything less than that is a non-starter. We should not have any second class citizens.

This is another funny thing about this debate.  Many Democrats (including this particular red avatar) will talk out of both sides of their head about how the Senate is an undemocratic body that flagrantly violates the "one man, one vote" principle while simultaneously arguing that a small, unpopulated exclave should be thrown into the mix to only further exacerbate this inequality.   

[Del Tachi]

So are Republicans going to support this amendment?  Because if they aren't, what is the point? The primary reason statehood via shrinking the district is being pushed is because no alternatives have enough support to pass.

The point is that the unique status of our Federal District should not be changed absent an affirmative Constitutional supermajority and ratification by the three-fourths of the several States.  This is the same way D.C. was given presidential electors.  If there isn't such a majority then pro-statehood advocates need to do a better job of winning the debate.   

They are criticizing it because Democrats will win those seats. Few, if any, Republicans are going out of their way to sympathize with the situation DC residents find themselves, representation-wise.

No, they are making the point that Democrats' sudden interest in D.C. statehood is a naked partisan power play.  Democrats cared not about "taxation without representation" when they had trifectas in 1993-95 or 2009-11, and there is little doubt Democrats' interest in this stems from the difficult math they perceive in keeping a working Senate majority long term.

Utter unadulterated bullsh**t.

Once again, I have a hard time seeing how anyone would ever pay for your representation in court lol 

[Del Tachi]

DC statehood is actually really good for Sinema and Manchin's schtick. Two more Dem Senators means one of them could actually break and vote with Republicans while still allowing the bill to pass. It gives them cover to actually vote like moderate heroes without actually jeopardizing the Democratic agenda. It's a win for everyone except Republicans, as all things should be.

The fact this post has 15 likes shows how rotted the Atlas pundit-think is, lol

Like, what do you think their "shtick" even is?  do you think they just enjoy the Politico intrigue for its own sake?  or might it be that they are more able to effectively deliver for their constituents (i.e., the people who actually put them into office, not the liberal Twitteratti) by positioning themselves as the 50th vote? 

And even if they did play their "shticks" solely for the cable news fame, why would they give that up for D.C. statehood?  If they wanted to give Schumer carte blanche to run the Senate, they already could.

[Del Tachi]

I'm sure this has been asked before, but do y'all think Douglass would divide the new state into different counties and municipalities? Like would Georgetown be made into a new municipality with its own mayor and council? Who would be made governor until the next election, Bowser?

EDIT: I actually doubt any new counties would be made, but I wouldn't be all that surprised to see some outer neighborhoods be granted independent municipal status.

D.C.'s municipal government already does all the things that the other fifty state governments do, so there's really no reason for statehood to change anything about its local government.

[Del Tachi]

Welp...looks like this is dead for at least another 2 years....

Manchin says he doesn’t support D.C. statehood bill

#ManchinCycle

Cope.

[Del Tachi]

Why should DC’s (disproportionately black) populace not have a voice in decisions made by the federal government which affect them simply because of where they happen to live?

Because the whole reasoning behind having D.C. in the first place was so that Congress and the Federal government would not exist under the undue influence of any particular State's laws or police power; the fact that D.C. just so happened to become a majority-Black city in the 1950s was a later development and has nothing to do with this debate.

How would allowing the Americans living there to have 0.2% of House members and 1.96% of Senators suddenly be "prioritizing itself" ??

The issue is not representation.  It is police power.  Having Congress be the final arbiter of the District's laws is the only way to ensure a Federal government that can function independently; statehood for D.C. is simply incompatible with this concept.