DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The arguments against DC I can certainly understand.  It's kind of silly to make a state out of our capital city, when it's so small.  But then again, it's kind of silly that DC is what it is in the first place.  Why is it its own thing and not part of any state?  Why does it get electoral votes, but no representation in Congress?  The whole thing doesn't really make any sense.  DC is more populous than Vermont and Wyoming, but those states get 7 congressmen making laws, yet the people of DC have no control over the laws of their own country.  Makes no sense.

That said, there is no cohesive argument against making Puerto Rico a state.  It's a large enough state population-wise that it would have 6 congressmen, same as Iowa, and in terms of area it is 80x bigger than DC and about the same size as Connecticut.  Puerto Ricans are at the mercy of U.S. rule, as we found out so painfully during Hurricane Maria.  They absolutely deserve representation.

If you want to argue against DC being a state, that's fine, but as soon as someone starts arguing against Puerto Rico being a state, you know it's just bad-faith with political motivations.

I wonder if Puerto Rico's declining population will help it gain Statehood.  In the 2000 Census, it would have been entitled to 8 Electors; in the 2010 Census, 7 Electors; and if estimates are correct, now only 6 Electors.  A lot of Puerto Rican are already able to vote for Congress and President, they just did so by moving to the mainland.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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

DC was also meant to be a few blocks of government buildings in which representatives would deliberate in and then go home.

The Constitution allows for ten miles square, not one mile square. I'll grant that the concerns that led the Founders to have a Federal district independent of any State are largely inapplicable now, but imagine if you will an alternate reality in which the Federal district was located inside Texas and Gov. Abbott had called out the Guard to ensure Trump got a second term.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

The DC Voting Rights Amendment was the superior option, as it would have given the residents representation in Congress without relinquishing Congressional sovereignty over the entire district, but it went nowhere with only 16 States ratifying it during the seven years after it was sent to them in 1978.

I'd still prefer it to Statehood, but there's no reason to expect it would do any better if it were resubmitted to the States

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

100% chance this will go to the Supreme Court.

On what grounds? Even if they made the entirety of the Federal district into a new State, it would be Constitutional. The Constitution only specifies that there may be a Federal district, not that there must be one.

Even if there were some provision that was being violated, who would have standing to sue?  The Supreme Court will deny cert.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

What happened to your one year self-imposed ban?

You aren't supposed to return until after January 5, 2022.

I am saying it right now: If either Ossoff or Warnock wins, I'll leave the forum for 1 solid year.

___________________________________________

I am saying it right now: If either Ossoff or Warnock wins, I'll leave the forum for 1 solid year.

Promise?

Sure. Take a screencap right now.

To be fair, he only said, he'd leave for a year, not which year.  I think we can be reasonably sure he won't be posting in 2120.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Each State would still have the same number of Senators, and the provision was clearly intended to prevent the Senate being switched to some other form of apportionment.  I think it would survive any court challenge and if not, Statehood would remain an option.  However, politically, there's zero chance of the Amendment being revived by Congress, let alone ratified by the States. (At most, I could see perhaps Manchin insisting a revival be tried first, with him supporting DC Statehood if not enough Republicans agreed to resend it to the States.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I do wonder if the VA/MD senators/congressmen demand that along with DC statehood passing a commuter tax is not allowed( and that would pretty clearly be interstate commerce and easily regulatable by congress)

It would violate the requirement that laws be uniform if it only applied to the Douglas Commonwealth and not any other States.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Crossposting from the other thread:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/26/us/dc-statehood-voting-rights.html

Senate Democrats are getting pressured to add DC statehood into this bill.

And, like, duhhhh, right? Why the hell would you pass a law that provides "support" for DC statehood but doesn't actually enact it? If you're going to go to such lengths to pass voting rights protection, presumably killing or heavily nerfing the filibuster for this bill, why not put everything in there rather than having yet another huge fight? If Manchin, Sinema, and the rest are willing to do what it takes to pass HR1 (and I think they are), they'll also pass DC statehood.

In fact, they should go ahead and pre-admit Puerto Rico, Marianas, and the Virgin Islands as states as well. When Hawaii and Alaska were admitted by Congress, the admission was preconditioned on having a positive statewide referendum, a state constitution transmitted to the president, and a presidential proclamation to declare them to be a state. Thus, use this act to admit 54 states, effective when all of that happens. DC has already had their referendum and will transmit their constitution to Biden immediately. PR has had their referendum, and can transmit their constitution when the territorial government is ready. The other 2 aren't nearly as far along in the process, but this will allow them to become states immediately once they're ready.

Actually, no. While the 2020 Puerto Rican referendum was finally an unambiguous referendum in favor of Statehood in the abstract. There wasn't a referendum on the specific terms of Statehood.  In previous admissions, the order has been adoption of a State Constitution, followed by acceptance thereof by the Territory and the Congress under such terms as set by Congress.  There's no certainty that terms offered by Congress will be acceptable to the people of Puerto Rico. As I've mentioned before, it's uncertain how much of the recent increase in support there in Puerto Rico is based upon the hope it would prove a way out of the Puerto Rican debt crisis, but I see zero chance that a Puerto Rican statehood bill can pass this Congress without the new State assuming all current Commonwealth debt.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Crossposting from the other thread:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/26/us/dc-statehood-voting-rights.html

Senate Democrats are getting pressured to add DC statehood into this bill.

And, like, duhhhh, right? Why the hell would you pass a law that provides "support" for DC statehood but doesn't actually enact it? If you're going to go to such lengths to pass voting rights protection, presumably killing or heavily nerfing the filibuster for this bill, why not put everything in there rather than having yet another huge fight? If Manchin, Sinema, and the rest are willing to do what it takes to pass HR1 (and I think they are), they'll also pass DC statehood.

In fact, they should go ahead and pre-admit Puerto Rico, Marianas, and the Virgin Islands as states as well. When Hawaii and Alaska were admitted by Congress, the admission was preconditioned on having a positive statewide referendum, a state constitution transmitted to the president, and a presidential proclamation to declare them to be a state. Thus, use this act to admit 54 states, effective when all of that happens. DC has already had their referendum and will transmit their constitution to Biden immediately. PR has had their referendum, and can transmit their constitution when the territorial government is ready. The other 2 aren't nearly as far along in the process, but this will allow them to become states immediately once they're ready.

Actually, no. While the 2020 Puerto Rican referendum was finally an unambiguous referendum in favor of Statehood in the abstract. There wasn't a referendum on the specific terms of Statehood.  In previous admissions, the order has been adoption of a State Constitution, followed by acceptance thereof by the Territory and the Congress under such terms as set by Congress.  There's no certainty that terms offered by Congress will be acceptable to the people of Puerto Rico. As I've mentioned before, it's uncertain how much of the recent increase in support there in Puerto Rico is based upon the hope it would prove a way out of the Puerto Rican debt crisis, but I see zero chance that a Puerto Rican statehood bill can pass this Congress without the new State assuming all current Commonwealth debt.

Terms or no terms - the people voted for statehood. They didn’t vote for “statehood if the terms are right”. They voted for statehood. And that’s what they should get. Period. Or at minimum have the state be pre-accepted dependent on once the statehood ratified a constitution or whatever they have to do. The point is to pass the congressional/presidential hurdle asap so it’s a done deal when ready.

As for DC. It should’ve been a state by now and the fact it isn’t is repulsive, color me skeptical that will happen but hey. At least it’s going to pass the house which could put the issue in the national spotlight.

I’m curious if PR statehood could be pushed through reconciliation - making PR a state would require residents to pay federal INCOME taxes which would have an impact on the budget... I know it’s a reach but just curious.

If only statehood didn’t require fillibuster proof votes. This and gerrymander prevention are critical but the Democrats seem content on letting the GOP con their way back into power so

Are you seriously proposing that Congress should be able to write a Puerto Rican Constitution without being subjected to a referendum and saddle the new State with as much debt as it wants just because in one referendum a slight majority finally stated a preference for Statehood in the abstract?

Yes, Congress should get off its duff and present terms for Statehood to Puerto Rico for a referendum that would decide whether to accept them or not.  But what you're proposing is akin to, tho not nearly as bad as, the effort prior to the Civil War to admit Kansas as a slave state.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Local government in the district ended in 1871. Prior to that there was Washington County and the municipalities of Georgetown and Washington City.  Pre-retrocession there was also Alexandria County and Alexandria City.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If it get thru Filibuster, Murkowski proposes a law that will make Elenor Holmes Norton a Rep without the Senators with voting power, that would be a compromise

that feels very unconstitutional.

I agree 100%, it violates the plain text of Article I, but the idea has been floating around for a while. There was a bill that almost passed in the Bush(?) administration that a bunch of bipartisan legal experts endorsed. Back in the bad old days, this cockamamie thing was the best Democrats were able to hope for though.

From time to time how much authority delegates have on committees has varied. A lot of the business of the House is conducted in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.