Statehood for DC is Unconstitutional

[Eyepublius]

So the President can get 3 electoral votes because he is the only one living in the District of Columbia under the 23rd Amendment? That defeats the purpose of giving the rest of the residents statehood, don't you think?

Wow. You really have no clue, do you?

The President would NOT be the only one living in DC. There are 600,000 people living in DC. The same number as Wyoming. The President would have the same votes as the other 599,999 residents of DC.

Hey shit for brains, he would be the only one left living in that federal district you were raving about. No one lives at the Supreme Court or in any other federal buildings!

My God, you are a stupid motherfucker!

Adm. Asswipe - Toro is spot on... you are out in "right" field w/o a glove while everyone else is playing soccer. Wake up and do the research.

Stop the disinformation spewing ... oh, wait you're a GOPer - never mind.

 

[candycorn]

Perhaps.

It's still a stupid idea none the less. We don't need another state. Everyone born a US citizen should be born in a state though. Meaning the current Peurto Rico should be part of one of the 50 existing states. Guam should be part of one of the existing states.

Why?

Are the services for the citizens going to be any better with 51 states as opposed to 50? No.
We'd have to add 2 more seats to the Senate and 1 or 2 more to the House. No thanks to that.
Another layer of taxation and red tape we don't need.
We have 50 stars on the flag. Are we really going to change the flag too? If we don't, what does that say about the meaning of the number of stars?
What would the Capitol of the District of Columbia be?
Imagine all of the laws that would have to be changed; all of the bills reworked, all of the silly posturing.

I'm not saying DC residents shouldn't have state representation. They should. All persons born as a US Citizen should have 2 senators, one House representative, representation in the State legislatures, and be governed by the laws of a state by person they voted for. I'm just saying that there should be 50 states and have all existing territories and districts folded into them.

There's nothing in the COTUS that says there should be 50 states.

Very true. However, it seems to be in the sweet spot where there is good management of public services, good span of control of regulations, good use of natural resources and the flag looks good too. Puts us right in the good spot of getting 51 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House.

Further more--doing away with the ridiculous 3 EVs for DC puts us at 535 votes in the Electoral College instead of the coo-coo-for-cocoa-puffs 538 which can result in a 269-269 tie.

It's up to those living in those places if they want to become states, and to the Congress if they want to grant them statehood.

Is it?

Numerous stories I've seen here and read in other places denote that the new Dixie is Northern Idaho.

White Supremacist's Legacy in Northern Idaho

Elizabeth Wynne Johnson reports on the death of Aryan Nation founder Richard Butler, whose white supremacist beliefs continue to impact the northern Idaho region where Butler lived.

www.npr.org

It Was A Feel-Good Story About Potatoes. But It Left Out An Idaho Militia's Role

The Real Idaho Three Percenters' involvement in a potato giveaway raises questions about the role armed groups are playing in the coronavirus response.

www.npr.org

Republican leaders in Idaho have ties to a rising militia, extremist movement

Extremist groups have gained ground in all levels of Idaho leadership.

magicvalley.com

Could they form their own hate-filled bastion and leave it to Congress to decide on whether to grant them statehood? I'd hope not. Would it require a 50.1% or 2/3rds of the House/Senate? I'm don't know...I'm really asking.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So the President can get 3 electoral votes because he is the only one living in the District of Columbia under the 23rd Amendment? That defeats the purpose of giving the rest of the residents statehood, don't you think?

Wow. You really have no clue, do you?

The President would NOT be the only one living in DC. There are 600,000 people living in DC. The same number as Wyoming. The President would have the same votes as the other 599,999 residents of DC.

Hey shit for brains, he would be the only one left living in that federal district you were raving about. No one lives at the Supreme Court or in any other federal buildings!

My God, you are a stupid motherfucker!

Adm. Asswipe - Toro is spot on... you are out in "right" field w/o a glove while everyone else is playing soccer. Wake up and do the research.

Stop the disinformation spewing ... oh, wait you're a GOPer - never mind.

I used the US Constitution as a source. I am sorry that you cannot read, fucktard!

 

[Eyepublius]

So the President can get 3 electoral votes because he is the only one living in the District of Columbia under the 23rd Amendment? That defeats the purpose of giving the rest of the residents statehood, don't you think?

Wow. You really have no clue, do you?

The President would NOT be the only one living in DC. There are 600,000 people living in DC. The same number as Wyoming. The President would have the same votes as the other 599,999 residents of DC.

Hey shit for brains, he would be the only one left living in that federal district you were raving about. No one lives at the Supreme Court or in any other federal buildings!

My God, you are a stupid motherfucker!

Adm. Asswipe - Toro is spot on... you are out in "right" field w/o a glove while everyone else is playing soccer. Wake up and do the research.

Stop the disinformation spewing ... oh, wait you're a GOPer - never mind.

I used the US Constitution as a source. I am sorry that you cannot read, fucktard!

One more time:

• When the constitution was written, DC didn’t exist.

Plus: The most significant modem initiative to provide national voting rights for the District occurred in 1978. A constitutional amendment was proposed, not to make D.C. a state, but rather to grant it a state's full voting strength in Congress while retaining its legal status as the federal seat of government. The proposed amendment was passed by Congress with the required two-thirds margin and sent to the states for ratification. During the seven-year ratification period, however, only sixteen states approved, so the amendment failed.14 Eleanor Holmes Norton has sponsored the most recent bills, which seek to grant full statehood without an amendment: H.R. 4718 in the last Congress, and the now-pending H.R. 51.

The Mechanics of Statehood: Statehood proponents correctly point out that Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that the Congress may admit new states to the Union. That has obviously been done 37 times since the Constitution was adopted. Twenty of these 37 added states achieved admission after first obtaining an enabling act from Congress giving congressional approval of the plan.

 

[meaner gene]

But for the next two years, the easy way to settle this, is every time it is brought up for conversation in the Senate
the 50 members of the GOP just walk out of the chamber denying the dems a quorum which would deny them
the ability to conduct business.

As i've often said, the republicans are the speedbump to running the government. They have no ideas, no plans, no agenda other than stopping the other side from doing anything to help the country.

 

[MadChemist]

The Constitution says no to DC statehood

Lefties consistently crap on the Constitution. Its fine how it is.This
Legislation. Will be overturned by the Supreme Court.


It’s not by accident or oversight that the nation’s capital isn’t a state: The Founding Fathers wrote it into the Constitution. Article I, Section 8provides explicitly for a national capital that would not be part of a state nor treated as a state, but rather a unique enclave under the exclusive authority of Congress — a neutral “district” in which representatives of all the states could meet on an equal footing to conduct the nation’s business.

You solve this by carving out the White House and Congress along Pennsylvania Avenue, and the rest of the district becomes a state.

There's nothing in COTUS that specifically states that the boundaries of DC have to forever and always be a district.

You just make it part of Maryland.

 

[meaner gene]

So the President can get 3 electoral votes because he is the only one living in the District of Columbia under the 23rd Amendment? That defeats the purpose of giving the rest of the residents statehood, don't you think?

Actually the legla residents of the district would also include the Vice President, at the Naval Observatory, as well as retiring congressmen and senators.

 

[pknopp]

My ad hominins are not. They illustrate your lack of facts. intellect and logic.

When you present intellect and logic, you'll have a point.

I presented the Constitution, which you have patently ignored. DC statehood is Unconstitutional and nothing you say can change that.

Outside of the facts. Simply saying something is Unconstitutional does not make it so. The Constitution grants Congress the right to vote in new states.

 

[pknopp]

The Constitution says no to DC statehood

Lefties consistently crap on the Constitution. Its fine how it is.This
Legislation. Will be overturned by the Supreme Court.


It’s not by accident or oversight that the nation’s capital isn’t a state: The Founding Fathers wrote it into the Constitution. Article I, Section 8provides explicitly for a national capital that would not be part of a state nor treated as a state, but rather a unique enclave under the exclusive authority of Congress — a neutral “district” in which representatives of all the states could meet on an equal footing to conduct the nation’s business.

You solve this by carving out the White House and Congress along Pennsylvania Avenue, and the rest of the district becomes a state.

There's nothing in COTUS that specifically states that the boundaries of DC have to forever and always be a district.

It would be better to make dc citizens of the original state they live in.

A little over 100 years ago, DC was downsized. The land was returned to Virginia.
Besides the Constitution forbidding the Nation's Capitol from being in a state, even if a deal was reached to maintain
an independent zone for the Capitol, the land, not in the zone, would be returned to the State of Maryland.

But for the next two years, the easy way to settle this, is every time it is brought up for conversation in the Senate
the 50 members of the GOP just walk out of the chamber denying the dems a quorum which would deny them
the ability to conduct business.

No, the Constitution grants to Congress the right to set the Capitol aside from a state. It does not require it. The capital was in Philadelphia, still part of Pennsylvania.

 

[pknopp]

Not unconstitutional NOT one bit - cite these key (in RED):

GOP arguments are like this from Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA) who says: “The country’s founding fathers, never wanted DC to be a state and then specifically framed the constitution to say so. This is absolutely against what our founders intended and it ought to be soundly rejected.”

• Kentucky was once a part of Virginia, and it was carved out as a state by a simple act of Congress.
• DC was a theoretical concept when first conceived, not a community with a higher population than two states (WY & VT) today.
• When the constitution was written, DC didn’t exist.
• Congress, which has the power to essentially veto or alter any local laws.
• Its estimated 712,000 residents pay federal taxes, vote for president and serve in the armed forces, but they have no voting representation in Congress.

Um, "taxation w/o representation" - boy does that ring the 1776 bell ... pity so many here forget that fact - which we were born from England by - Boston Tea Party also rings that bell loud and clear.
Seems most GOPers failed American history - I am not surprised about that.

Kentucky was never part of Virginia. West Virginia was.

 

[Colin norris]

Doesn't it take a 67% of the vote to change the Constitution?

One would think so, but not when the Democrats are in control by claiming a "simple majority" of seats. Democrats totally overturned the Second Amendment without a 2/3 supermajority in Congress and without the consent of 3/4 the legislatures of the several states.

What part of the second amendment did the democrats overturn?
You never complained when that simple majority worked in your favour many times.
Why shouldn't democrats have the same privilege? Don't bellow about democracy when you won't allow others to have it.

 

[SavannahMann]

This is going to the Supreme Court if it passes. The question is which part of the Constitution has dominance. Article One as you point out has the District as a neutral enclave. Article 3 says that Congress can admit new States.

If Congress passes the Statehood legislation, legal Motions will be filed in all fifty states that day asking for immediate relief and a stay. It will go to the Supreme Court. As to how they decide I won’t predict.

It depends on what the Supreme Court decides is higher authority.

 

[Lesh]

So the President can get 3 electoral votes because he is the only one living in the District of Columbia under the 23rd Amendment? That defeats the purpose of giving the rest of the residents statehood, don't you think?

Wow. You really have no clue, do you?

The President would NOT be the only one living in DC. There are 600,000 people living in DC. The same number as Wyoming. The President would have the same votes as the other 599,999 residents of DC.

Hey shit for brains, he would be the only one left living in that federal district you were raving about. No one lives at the Supreme Court or in any other federal buildings!

My God, you are a stupid motherfucker!

Adm. Asswipe - Toro is spot on... you are out in "right" field w/o a glove while everyone else is playing soccer. Wake up and do the research.

Stop the disinformation spewing ... oh, wait you're a GOPer - never mind.

I used the US Constitution as a source. I am sorry that you cannot read, fucktard!

Then you don’t read well. The Constitution only mandates that the government BUILDINGS be separate from any state. The District itself can be any size UP to ten miles square.

 

[Lesh]

The Constitution says no to DC statehood

Lefties consistently crap on the Constitution. Its fine how it is.This
Legislation. Will be overturned by the Supreme Court.


It’s not by accident or oversight that the nation’s capital isn’t a state: The Founding Fathers wrote it into the Constitution. Article I, Section 8provides explicitly for a national capital that would not be part of a state nor treated as a state, but rather a unique enclave under the exclusive authority of Congress — a neutral “district” in which representatives of all the states could meet on an equal footing to conduct the nation’s business.

You solve this by carving out the White House and Congress along Pennsylvania Avenue, and the rest of the district becomes a state.

There's nothing in COTUS that specifically states that the boundaries of DC have to forever and always be a district.

You just make it part of Maryland.

You can. Or it can be an independent state

 

[pknopp]

So the President can get 3 electoral votes because he is the only one living in the District of Columbia under the 23rd Amendment? That defeats the purpose of giving the rest of the residents statehood, don't you think?

Wow. You really have no clue, do you?

The President would NOT be the only one living in DC. There are 600,000 people living in DC. The same number as Wyoming. The President would have the same votes as the other 599,999 residents of DC.

Hey shit for brains, he would be the only one left living in that federal district you were raving about. No one lives at the Supreme Court or in any other federal buildings!

My God, you are a stupid motherfucker!

Adm. Asswipe - Toro is spot on... you are out in "right" field w/o a glove while everyone else is playing soccer. Wake up and do the research.

Stop the disinformation spewing ... oh, wait you're a GOPer - never mind.

I used the US Constitution as a source. I am sorry that you cannot read, fucktard!

Then you don’t read well. The Constitution only mandates that the government BUILDINGS be separate from any state. The District itself can be any size UP to ten miles square.

Which indeed means they could simply make it one mile. It isn't going to happen but Constitutionally it could.

 

[Rogue AI]

The Constitution says no to DC statehood

Lefties consistently crap on the Constitution. Its fine how it is.This
Legislation. Will be overturned by the Supreme Court.


It’s not by accident or oversight that the nation’s capital isn’t a state: The Founding Fathers wrote it into the Constitution. Article I, Section 8provides explicitly for a national capital that would not be part of a state nor treated as a state, but rather a unique enclave under the exclusive authority of Congress — a neutral “district” in which representatives of all the states could meet on an equal footing to conduct the nation’s business.

As I've stated many times,

The part that has our government can and will be excluded from the state.

They can and no doubt will draw the lines of the state around the government buildings.

DC is much bigger than just where the governmental buildings and monuments are.

There are over 700 thousand people in DC. Which is more people than the state of Wyoming. Do you actually believe they all live in the small area that the government is located?

The District of Columbia was already an existing entity when the Constitution was signed, therefore it's territorial integrity is already established. What Democrats want would require an amendment, they cannot simply legislate this away.

 

[pknopp]

The Constitution says no to DC statehood

Lefties consistently crap on the Constitution. Its fine how it is.This
Legislation. Will be overturned by the Supreme Court.


It’s not by accident or oversight that the nation’s capital isn’t a state: The Founding Fathers wrote it into the Constitution. Article I, Section 8provides explicitly for a national capital that would not be part of a state nor treated as a state, but rather a unique enclave under the exclusive authority of Congress — a neutral “district” in which representatives of all the states could meet on an equal footing to conduct the nation’s business.

As I've stated many times,

The part that has our government can and will be excluded from the state.

They can and no doubt will draw the lines of the state around the government buildings.

DC is much bigger than just where the governmental buildings and monuments are.

There are over 700 thousand people in DC. Which is more people than the state of Wyoming. Do you actually believe they all live in the small area that the government is located?

The District of Columbia was already an existing entity when the Constitution was signed, therefore it's territorial integrity is already established. What Democrats want would require an amendment, they cannot simply legislate this away.

The Constitution was signed in 1787. Philadelphia was the capital.

 

[Lesh]

The District of Columbia was already an existing entity when the Constitution was signed, therefore it's territorial integrity is already established.

HORSE SHIT>

EXPLAIN HOW A THIRD OF IT WAS PEELED AWAY AND CEEDED TO VIRGINIA THEN

 

[struth]

The Constitution makes it Constitutional to create D.C. and it also makes it Constitutional for Congress to make it a state.

Why should it be?

Why shouldn't it be?

This country was formed as individuals petitioned to join the United States as states. Why should the residents of the District of Columbia not be allowed this right that all others have had and still have?

Because when the other states petitioned to join, the United States already existed, including the Constitution that created the Federal District. When people moved to live in the Federal District, they knew it was a Federal District....not a state.

I can certainly appreciate their concern of "no taxation, without representation" - so the easy solution, is to not tax them federally. No amendment needed.

The resident's concern would be addressed...and more over the benefit of no federal tax

 

[Lesh]

The Constitution makes it Constitutional to create D.C. and it also makes it Constitutional for Congress to make it a state.

Why should it be?

Why shouldn't it be?

This country was formed as individuals petitioned to join the United States as states. Why should the residents of the District of Columbia not be allowed this right that all others have had and still have?

Because when the other states petitioned to join, the United States already existed, including the Constitution that created the Federal District. When people moved to live in the Federal District, they knew it was a Federal District....not a state.

I can certainly appreciate their concern of "no taxation, without representation" - so the easy solution, is to not tax them federally. No amendment needed.

The resident's concern would be addressed...and more over the benefit of no federal tax

There are numerous ways that their concerns could be be dealt with...one of which is statehood.