Should DC become a state and get 2 Senators and voting rights for residents?

[HappyJoy]

Of course you'd say that - you arent likely to -admit- you lied.
But you did. And you know it.

I like what USMB has replaced debate with.

 

[Lastamender]

I like what USMB has replaced debate with.

There is no debate here. The Constitution tell us what DC is and it is not and was never meant to be a state.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I like what USMB has replaced debate with.

Well, when you lie about your position, you make debate impossible.
So... blame yourself.

 

[HappyJoy]

Well, when you lie about your position, you make debate impossible.
So... blame yourself.

I'm debating the merit of the land that currently makes up most of DC a new state. You stopped debating and are simply just accusing people of lying and you have nothing to back it up except your cynical opinion. That is not debate.

 

[HappyJoy]

There is no debate here. The Constitution tell us what DC is and it is not and was never meant to be a state.

Actually can you quote what the Constitution says about DC? You may be surprised. You clearly don't even understand the debate to begin with.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm debating the merit of the land that currently makes up most of DC a new state.

Yes. And you are lying about your motivation for doing so.
This makes debate impossible.

 

[Lastamender]

Actually can you quote what the Constitution says about DC? You may be surprised.

Let's hear it. I am all ears.

Washington D.C. Statehood Violates the Constitution, is Bad for Texas and America

Attorney General Ken Paxton today sent a letter to President Joe Biden and Congressional leaders, warning that passing the “Washington, D.C. Admission Act” is unconstitutional, unsound policy, and would create a super-state with unrivaled power.

www.texasattorneygeneral.gov

 

[HappyJoy]

Let's hear it. I am all ears.

Washington D.C. Statehood Violates the Constitution, is Bad for Texas and America

Attorney General Ken Paxton today sent a letter to President Joe Biden and Congressional leaders, warning that passing the “Washington, D.C. Admission Act” is unconstitutional, unsound policy, and would create a super-state with unrivaled power.

www.texasattorneygeneral.gov

Other than the 23rd amendment this is it:

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

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The only requirement for the District of Columbia is that it's less than 10 square miles and Congress is who governs over D.C. So, if Congress chooses to shrink the size of it then all Constitutional requirements are met.

What does Dan Patrick have to say about that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The only requirement for the District of Columbia is that it's less than 10 square miles and Congress is who governs over D.C. So, if Congress chooses to shrink the size of it then all Constitutional requirements are met.

And so, there's no legal or constitutional impediment to reducing the district to exclude the residential areas, reverting the land back to MD.
But -you- want 2 blue senators, so you'll argue against it.

 

[HappyJoy]

And so, there's no legal or constitutional impediment to reducing the district to exclude the residential areas, reverting the land back to MD.
But -you- want 2 blue senators, so you'll argue against it.

Why do we have to keep going back to this? D.C., not interested in Maryland. But that's OK, Maryland isn't interested in D.C. If both parties were fine by it then I wouldn't care at all, but that's not the way it is.

Why does some asshole who doesn't live in either place think their opinion about DC and MD's relationship with government is more important than those who actually live there?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why do we have to keep going back to this? D.C., not interested in Maryland.

Doesn't matter - as you said, Congress has the power to do it, regardless.
And as I said: But -you- want 2 blue senators, so you'll argue against it.
Thank you for proving me correct.

 

[HappyJoy]

Doesn't matter - as you said, Congress has the power to do it, regardless.

I never said Congress has the right to force Maryland to accept D.C. Not a single time. I guess the right doesn't give a shit about 'states rights' though. Don't worry, that was always only used for cover.

And as I said: But -you- want 2 blue senators, so you'll argue against it.
Thank you for proving me correct.

If Maryland wanted DC and DC was OK with it then that's probably what should happen. That's not reality though. It's the exact opposite, you understand this. Yes? No? I'm honestly not sure what you understand.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I never said Congress has the right to force Maryland to accept D.C. Not a single time.

You said:
The only requirement for the District of Columbia is that it's less than 10 square miles and Congress is who governs over D.C. So, if Congress chooses to shrink the size of it then all Constitutional requirements are met.

According to you, Congress has the power to give the residential sections back to MD, regardless.
But -you- want 2 blue senators, so you'll argue against it.
I shall now allow you to prove me correct - again.

 

[HappyJoy]

You said:
The only requirement for the District of Columbia is that it's less than 10 square miles and Congress is who governs over D.C. So, if Congress chooses to shrink the size of it then all Constitutional requirements are met.

According to you, Congress has the power to give the residential sections back to MD, regardless.
But -you- want 2 blue senators, so you'll argue against it.
I shall now allow you to prove me correct - again.

Clearly you thought this through.

Let's go over this slowly. Congress can shrink D.C. simply by passing a law. The Constitution grants authority over the district to Congress. What you quoted above says as much. I never said nor is it true that Congress has the right to force Maryland to accept additional land. Is this that confusing for you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Clearly you thought this through.
Let's go over this slowly. Congress can shrink D.C. simply by passing a law. The Constitution grants authority over the district to Congress. What you quoted above says as much. I never said nor is it true that Congress has the right to force Maryland to accept additional land. Is this that confusing for you?

As I said:
But -you- want 2 blue senators, so you'll argue against it.
Thank you for proving me right.

 

[HappyJoy]

As I said:
But -you- want 2 blue senators, so you'll argue against it.
Thank you for proving me right.

Let's see, first you completely took the meaning of my post in a way I don't know how you could have taken it. I further explain it to you and then your response is to ignore everything I've said.

Got it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's see, first you completely took the meaning of my post in a way I don't know how you could have taken it. I further explain it to you and then your response is to ignore everything I've said.

Well, no one expects you to -admit- you're wrong, so...

 

[HappyJoy]

Well, no one expects you to -admit- you're wrong, so...

Especially when I'm not.

What happened to your argument about forcing two entities together who don't want to be and there isn't a law in the land that can force them short of a constitutional amendment that would never pass?

I thought we would have at least moved onto the 23rd amendment by now.

 

[Lastamender]

Other than the 23rd amendment this is it:

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

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The only requirement for the District of Columbia is that it's less than 10 square miles and Congress is who governs over D.C. So, if Congress chooses to shrink the size of it then all Constitutional requirements are met.

What does Dan Patrick have to say about that?

I don't know. E-mail him. It is nothing but a power grab because people are not going to vote Democratic for quite awhile. VA, and NJ. prove that.

 

[HappyJoy]

I don't know. E-mail him. It is nothing but a power grab because people are not going to vote Democratic for quite awhile. VA, and NJ. prove that.

Email him? He's your source, no answer?

A power grab is equal representation in Congress? You guys have a funny outlook on representative government.

VA and NJ have absolutely nothing to do with this. Why would they? Oh, that's right, you don't want people who disagree with you to have the same rights.