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.
Nothing in the constitution prohibits ceding parts of
the "seat of government".
They can shrink the size of the seat of government to that actually needed to govern the country. And then admit the remaining territory
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.
I doubt you are right. Doesn't matter because the Senate will never agree.
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. "
I honestly don't know this, but doesn't it require full congressional approval and a President's signature? A house vote means nothing.
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. "
There is no such requirement in the language of the Constitution. Plus there is case law to define the constitution.
. United States v. Gardner (9th Cir. 1997). Nor does the Equal Footing Doctrine require the federal government to surrender ownership of lands it owns within a newly admitted state, and it does not affect the broad power that the federal government has to regulate those lands under the Property Clause.
No, it also needs ratification of 3/4s of the States. The Constitution has to be amended first.Nothing in the constitution prohibits ceding parts of
the "seat of government".
They can shrink the size of the seat of government to that actually needed to govern the country. And then admit the remaining territory
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.I doubt you are right. Doesn't matter because the Senate will never agree.
Admitting a state is no different from any other law or act passed by congress. Unless objected to (ex: by filibuster) all that is needed is a majority of both houses and the signature of the president. Or by 2/3rds of both houses to override a presidential veto.
. United States v. Gardner (9th Cir. 1997). Nor does the Equal Footing Doctrine require the federal government to surrender ownership of lands it owns within a newly admitted state,
Read the decision, it states that they can admit DC as a state, and continue to control the federal land, the seat of government. occupied within the newly formed state.The fuck does a grazing dispute have to do with creating a new state?
I honestly don't know this, but doesn't it require full congressional approval and a President's signature? A house vote means nothing.
Yes, but it would only require the Dems winning back the Senate, then eliminate the filibuster, then pass it with a 51 vote majority, the president signs it, done deal.
You can expect this to happen with both DC, and Puerto Rico in the near future.
That has nothing to do with the Constitutional designation of DC (District of Columbia) not becoming or belonging to ANY State.. United States v. Gardner (9th Cir. 1997). Nor does the Equal Footing Doctrine require the federal government to surrender ownership of lands it owns within a newly admitted state,Read the decision, it states that they can admit DC as a state, and continue to control the federal land, the seat of government. occupied within the newly formed state.The fuck does a grazing dispute have to do with creating a new state?
You'll also need 3/4 of the States to sign off on it.I honestly don't know this, but doesn't it require full congressional approval and a President's signature? A house vote means nothing.
Yes, but it would only require the Dems winning back the Senate, then eliminate the filibuster, then pass it with a 51 vote majority, the president signs it, done deal.
You can expect this to happen with both DC, and Puerto Rico in the near future.
. United States v. Gardner (9th Cir. 1997). Nor does the Equal Footing Doctrine require the federal government to surrender ownership of lands it owns within a newly admitted state,Read the decision, it states that they can admit DC as a state, and continue to control the federal land, the seat of government. occupied within the newly formed state.The fuck does a grazing dispute have to do with creating a new state?
No, it also needs ratification of 3/4s of the States. The Constitution has to be amended first.
That decision DOES NOT replace the Constitutional designation of the Capital therefore is not valid in this instance despite your wishful thinking and grasping at straws.No, it also needs ratification of 3/4s of the States. The Constitution has to be amended first.
No constitutional amendment is needed. Nor the approval of anyone other than congress (and the president unless congress overrides) and the people of Washington DC.
The seat of government would remain inside of the newly formed state, just like when they admitted Nevada as a state.
Washington DC's current status is no different constitutionally than any other federal territory
Read the decision, it states that they can admit DC as a state, and continue to control the federal land, the seat of government. occupied within the newly formed state.
Just like the federal land in Nevada, it's physically within the states boundaries, but is not part of the state. The state has no jurisdiction at all over the federal lands within it's borders.That has nothing to do with the Constitutional designation of DC (District of Columbia) not becoming or belonging to ANY State.
No. The Constitution explicitly forbids the District of Columbia from becoming a State. That has to be amended first. Your argument is based on a fallacy.Read the decision, it states that they can admit DC as a state, and continue to control the federal land, the seat of government. occupied within the newly formed state.Just like the federal land in Nevada, it's physically within the states boundaries, but is not part of the state. The state has no jurisdiction at all over the federal lands within it's borders.That has nothing to do with the Constitutional designation of DC (District of Columbia) not becoming or belonging to ANY State.
The same would happen with DC. The federal government would retain the actual "seat of government" like the white house, capitol, and other federal properties and momuments. And the remainder would become a state, with no control over the "seat of government" just like Nevada.
Read the decision, it states that they can admit DC as a state, and continue to control the federal land, the seat of government. occupied within the newly formed state.
No it does not.
Washington DC's current status is no different constitutionally than any other federal territory
Here's a question that if you can answer it, will show you that i'm right.That decision DOES NOT replace the Constitutional designation of the Capital therefore is not valid in this instance despite your wishful thinking and grasping at straws.
Dude, you're grasping at straws, there's no legal way you can rationalize your position as factual and lawful.Washington DC's current status is no different constitutionally than any other federal territoryHere's a question that if you can answer it, will show you that i'm right.That decision DOES NOT replace the Constitutional designation of the Capital therefore is not valid in this instance despite your wishful thinking and grasping at straws.
Q: Does it require a constitutional amendment for congress to change the size of the "seat of government" as long as it stays within the 10 mile square limit?
Q: Does it require a constitutional amendment for congress to designate a new location as the "seat of government"?
The constitution doesn't address the "district of columbia" it only addresses the "seat of government" Which would remain a federal territory within the newly formed state like happened with Nevada.No. The Constitution explicitly forbids the District of Columbia from becoming a State. That has to be amended first. Your argument is based on a fallacy.
meaner gene said:Q: Does it require a constitutional amendment for congress to change the size of the "seat of government" as long as it stays within the 10 mile square limit?
Q: Does it require a constitutional amendment for congress to designate a new location as the "seat of government"?
Dude, you're grasping at straws, there's no legal way you can rationalize your position as factual and lawful.
Wow, you really are desperate.The constitution doesn't address the "district of columbia" it only addresses the "seat of government" Which would remain a federal territory within the newly formed state like happened with Nevada.No. The Constitution explicitly forbids the District of Columbia from becoming a State. That has to be amended first. Your argument is based on a fallacy.
