What I want and don't want has no bearing on the discussion I'm having. We're discussing Constitutional law and procedure not personal opinions concerning how many and what party two potentially new Senators might belong to.Would you want an additional two guaranteed democrat senators?To the best of my knowledge slavery nor alcohol is mentioned in the Constitution meaning your examples fit exactly what I said, nothing was taken away. The district designation is part of the main body of the Constitution, not an Amendment therefore CAN NOT be superseded by an Amendment. The 18th Amendment was passed according to the requirements laid out in the Constitution as was the 25th Amendment abolishing the 18th Amendment. A Constitutional Convention does not "re-write" the entire Constitution though it can in theory.Amendments do not replace existing Constitutional law, they are in place to add to the Constitution not take away from.Amendments are different and would not be Constitutional in this instance. To substantially amend or remove any part of the Constitution requires a Constitutional Convention.Sorry but it can't happen regardless of the vote, DC's status is enshrined within the Constitution. It would take a Constitutional Convention to change it.
Update: House Passes Historic DC Statehood Bill
After some procedural delays, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the D.C. statehood bill Friday on a vote of 232-180.patch.com
District of Columbia statehood movement - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
...2 more dem Senators as bonus!
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-17
No, it would require an amendment.
Actually, the Amendments can and do supersede any existing Constitutional law question. For example, Slavery was abolished, by Constitutional Amendment. Alcohol was prohibited, and then that prohibition was removed, by Constitutional Amendment.
Constitutional Amendment Process
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for...www.archives.gov
It would require an Amendment, not a whole new Constitution, to make Washington DC a state. I know, you’re dreaming of a new Constitutional Convention, but it is not going to happen. First, nobody could agree on any of it. And it would require all of the states to agree. We can’t even agree on Freedom of Speech for the love of God.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Washington D.C. set to become the 51st State...vote on Friday
- Thread starter Invisibleflash
- Start date
There is no reason to make DC a stateWhat I want and don't want has no bearing on the discussion I'm having. We're discussing Constitutional law and procedure not personal opinions concerning how many and what party two potentially new Senators might belong to.Would you want an additional two guaranteed democrat senators?To the best of my knowledge slavery nor alcohol is mentioned in the Constitution meaning your examples fit exactly what I said, nothing was taken away. The district designation is part of the main body of the Constitution, not an Amendment therefore CAN NOT be superseded by an Amendment. The 18th Amendment was passed according to the requirements laid out in the Constitution as was the 25th Amendment abolishing the 18th Amendment. A Constitutional Convention does not "re-write" the entire Constitution though it can in theory.Amendments do not replace existing Constitutional law, they are in place to add to the Constitution not take away from.Amendments are different and would not be Constitutional in this instance. To substantially amend or remove any part of the Constitution requires a Constitutional Convention.Sorry but it can't happen regardless of the vote, DC's status is enshrined within the Constitution. It would take a Constitutional Convention to change it.Update: House Passes Historic DC Statehood Bill
After some procedural delays, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the D.C. statehood bill Friday on a vote of 232-180.
District of Columbia statehood movement - Wikipedia
...2 more dem Senators as bonus!
Congress shall have power * * * 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 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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-17
No, it would require an amendment.
Actually, the Amendments can and do supersede any existing Constitutional law question. For example, Slavery was abolished, by Constitutional Amendment. Alcohol was prohibited, and then that prohibition was removed, by Constitutional Amendment.
Constitutional Amendment Process
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for...
It would require an Amendment, not a whole new Constitution, to make Washington DC a state. I know, you’re dreaming of a new Constitutional Convention, but it is not going to happen. First, nobody could agree on any of it. And it would require all of the states to agree. We can’t even agree on Freedom of Speech for the love of God.
meaner gene
Diamond Member
- Feb 11, 2017
- 21,936
- 18,182
- 2,290
FIrst the corrections: It was the 21st that overturned the 18th, and amendments are a means to change language in the main text of the constitution, such as the 14th overturning the 3/5th clause in article I.To the best of my knowledge slavery nor alcohol is mentioned in the Constitution meaning your examples fit exactly what I said, nothing was taken away. The district designation is part of the main body of the Constitution, not an Amendment therefore CAN NOT be superseded by an Amendment. The 18th Amendment was passed according to the requirements laid out in the Constitution as was the 25th Amendment abolishing the 18th Amendment. A Constitutional Convention does not "re-write" the entire Constitution though it can in theory.
I never said there was.There is no reason to make DC a stateWhat I want and don't want has no bearing on the discussion I'm having. We're discussing Constitutional law and procedure not personal opinions concerning how many and what party two potentially new Senators might belong to.Would you want an additional two guaranteed democrat senators?To the best of my knowledge slavery nor alcohol is mentioned in the Constitution meaning your examples fit exactly what I said, nothing was taken away. The district designation is part of the main body of the Constitution, not an Amendment therefore CAN NOT be superseded by an Amendment. The 18th Amendment was passed according to the requirements laid out in the Constitution as was the 25th Amendment abolishing the 18th Amendment. A Constitutional Convention does not "re-write" the entire Constitution though it can in theory.Amendments do not replace existing Constitutional law, they are in place to add to the Constitution not take away from.Amendments are different and would not be Constitutional in this instance. To substantially amend or remove any part of the Constitution requires a Constitutional Convention.Sorry but it can't happen regardless of the vote, DC's status is enshrined within the Constitution. It would take a Constitutional Convention to change it.Update: House Passes Historic DC Statehood Bill
After some procedural delays, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the D.C. statehood bill Friday on a vote of 232-180.
District of Columbia statehood movement - Wikipedia
...2 more dem Senators as bonus!
Congress shall have power * * * 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 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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-17
No, it would require an amendment.
Actually, the Amendments can and do supersede any existing Constitutional law question. For example, Slavery was abolished, by Constitutional Amendment. Alcohol was prohibited, and then that prohibition was removed, by Constitutional Amendment.
Constitutional Amendment Process
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for...
It would require an Amendment, not a whole new Constitution, to make Washington DC a state. I know, you’re dreaming of a new Constitutional Convention, but it is not going to happen. First, nobody could agree on any of it. And it would require all of the states to agree. We can’t even agree on Freedom of Speech for the love of God.
meaner gene
Diamond Member
- Feb 11, 2017
- 21,936
- 18,182
- 2,290
Actually there are over 700,000 reasons. That's more reasons than making Wyoming or Vermont a state.There is no reason to make DC a state
Yeah, I re-read Article 5 a couple of times and realized I was mistaken. Unfortunately many don't realize what it means when it's claimed "Congress enacts (X) Amendment, they don't realize it also takes two thirds of the States to ratify it.FIrst the corrections: It was the 21st that overturned the 18th, and amendments are a means to change language in the main text of the constitution, such as the 14th overturning the 3/5th clause in article I.To the best of my knowledge slavery nor alcohol is mentioned in the Constitution meaning your examples fit exactly what I said, nothing was taken away. The district designation is part of the main body of the Constitution, not an Amendment therefore CAN NOT be superseded by an Amendment. The 18th Amendment was passed according to the requirements laid out in the Constitution as was the 25th Amendment abolishing the 18th Amendment. A Constitutional Convention does not "re-write" the entire Constitution though it can in theory.
Then push for an Amendment otherwise DC can never become a State.Actually there are over 700,000 reasons. That's more reasons than making Wyoming or Vermont a state.There is no reason to make DC a state
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,885
- 70,032
- 2,330
All of the territories should become states. Make it 3 states. DC a state, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands a state, the Pacific territories (Guam, Marianas, American Samoa) a state. DC and PR have much bigger populations than Wyoming. The Pacific territories cover a much bigger expanse, and as Republicans so often tell us, empty real estate matters more than people.
Maybe the American Taliban can move to PR and Guam? I'm all for it! You can pick your own anthem, laws, etc.
meaner gene
Diamond Member
- Feb 11, 2017
- 21,936
- 18,182
- 2,290
In case you corrected it.... nevermindYeah, I re-read Article 5 a couple of times and realized I was mistaken. Unfortunately many don't realize what it means when it's claimed "Congress enacts (X) Amendment, they don't realize it also takes two thirds of the States to ratify it.
If not. It takes 2/3rds of both houses of congress to propose an amendment. And 3/4ths of the states to ratify.
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
To get DC in Would in fact require an amendment since DC is specifically mentioned in the Constitution.Seems it would require a constitutional amendment.I honestly don't know this, but doesn't it require full congressional approval and a President's signature? A house vote means nothing.
I just read it earlier, three times. 2/3s both houses of Congress and the States legislatures to ratify.....In case you corrected it.... nevermindYeah, I re-read Article 5 a couple of times and realized I was mistaken. Unfortunately many don't realize what it means when it's claimed "Congress enacts (X) Amendment, they don't realize it also takes two thirds of the States to ratify it.
If not. It takes 2/3rds of both houses of congress to propose an amendment. And 3/4ths of the states to ratify.
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
Amendments CAN in fact take away from the Constitution by AMENDING the part they want OUT. Been done lots of times.Amendments do not replace existing Constitutional law, they are in place to add to the Constitution not take away from.Amendments are different and would not be Constitutional in this instance. To substantially amend or remove any part of the Constitution requires a Constitutional Convention.Sorry but it can't happen regardless of the vote, DC's status is enshrined within the Constitution. It would take a Constitutional Convention to change it.Update: House Passes Historic DC Statehood Bill
After some procedural delays, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the D.C. statehood bill Friday on a vote of 232-180.
District of Columbia statehood movement - Wikipedia
...2 more dem Senators as bonus!
Congress shall have power * * * 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 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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-17
No, it would require an amendment.
PR maybe. Guam? Hell no....... It's the American point of the spear in the Pacific.All of the territories should become states. Make it 3 states. DC a state, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands a state, the Pacific territories (Guam, Marianas, American Samoa) a state. DC and PR have much bigger populations than Wyoming. The Pacific territories cover a much bigger expanse, and as Republicans so often tell us, empty real estate matters more than people.
Maybe the American Taliban can move to PR and Guam? I'm all for it! You can pick your own anthem, laws, etc.
Yeah, read on before responding, I already acknowledged my mistake.Amendments CAN in fact take away from the Constitution by AMENDING the part they want OUT. Been done lots of times.Amendments do not replace existing Constitutional law, they are in place to add to the Constitution not take away from.Amendments are different and would not be Constitutional in this instance. To substantially amend or remove any part of the Constitution requires a Constitutional Convention.Sorry but it can't happen regardless of the vote, DC's status is enshrined within the Constitution. It would take a Constitutional Convention to change it.Update: House Passes Historic DC Statehood Bill
After some procedural delays, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the D.C. statehood bill Friday on a vote of 232-180.
District of Columbia statehood movement - Wikipedia
...2 more dem Senators as bonus!
Congress shall have power * * * 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 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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-17
No, it would require an amendment.
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
Ya I saw that, But notice those claiming a simple vote can make it a State have not corrected themselves.Yeah, read on before responding, I already acknowledged my mistake.Amendments CAN in fact take away from the Constitution by AMENDING the part they want OUT. Been done lots of times.Amendments do not replace existing Constitutional law, they are in place to add to the Constitution not take away from.Amendments are different and would not be Constitutional in this instance. To substantially amend or remove any part of the Constitution requires a Constitutional Convention.Sorry but it can't happen regardless of the vote, DC's status is enshrined within the Constitution. It would take a Constitutional Convention to change it.Update: House Passes Historic DC Statehood Bill
After some procedural delays, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the D.C. statehood bill Friday on a vote of 232-180.
District of Columbia statehood movement - Wikipedia
...2 more dem Senators as bonus!
Congress shall have power * * * 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 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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-17
No, it would require an amendment.
SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 14,540
- 6,818
- 365
I just read it earlier, three times. 2/3s both houses of Congress and the States legislatures to ratify.....In case you corrected it.... nevermindYeah, I re-read Article 5 a couple of times and realized I was mistaken. Unfortunately many don't realize what it means when it's claimed "Congress enacts (X) Amendment, they don't realize it also takes two thirds of the States to ratify it.
If not. It takes 2/3rds of both houses of congress to propose an amendment. And 3/4ths of the states to ratify.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
I must be out of it today...... (Just today you ask.........?I just read it earlier, three times. 2/3s both houses of Congress and the States legislatures to ratify.....In case you corrected it.... nevermindYeah, I re-read Article 5 a couple of times and realized I was mistaken. Unfortunately many don't realize what it means when it's claimed "Congress enacts (X) Amendment, they don't realize it also takes two thirds of the States to ratify it.
If not. It takes 2/3rds of both houses of congress to propose an amendment. And 3/4ths of the states to ratify.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
). Maybe I should take up drinking again........
meaner gene
Diamond Member
- Feb 11, 2017
- 21,936
- 18,182
- 2,290
To get DC in Would in fact require an amendment since DC is specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Nothing in the constitution prohibits ceding parts of
the "seat of government".
...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
They can shrink the size of the seat of government to that actually needed to govern the country. And then admit the remaining territory
Section 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
As Washington DC isn't part of any state, the only permission needed is that of congress.
And the seat of government can remain as federal property within the borders of washington dc, the same as nevada incorporating (actually is 80%) federal property.
The only applicable rules are those of congress, as amended by case law.
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
I doubt you are right. Doesn't matter because the Senate will never agree.To get DC in Would in fact require an amendment since DC is specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Nothing in the constitution prohibits ceding parts of
the "seat of government".
...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
They can shrink the size of the seat of government to that actually needed to govern the country. And then admit the remaining territory
Section 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
As Washington DC isn't part of any state, the only permission needed is that of congress.
And the seat of government can remain as federal property within the borders of washington dc, the same as nevada incorporating (actually is 80%) federal property.
The only applicable rules are those of congress, as amended by case law.
satrebil
Platinum Member
- Oct 3, 2018
- 2,995
- 1,806
- 1,030
Update: House Passes Historic DC Statehood Bill
After some procedural delays, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the D.C. statehood bill Friday on a vote of 232-180.
District of Columbia statehood movement - Wikipedia
...2 more dem Senators as bonus!
The Constitution forbids DC from becoming a state. This vote is meaningless.
" The Founding Fathers wrote it into the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 provides 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. "
Similar threads
- Replies
- 112
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 495
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 231
- Replies
- 203
- Views
- 3K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 113
- Views
- 651
- Replies
- 47
- Views
- 221
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 47
- Replies
- 76
- Views
- 377
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 71
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8552
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 485
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-