Washington D.C. set to become the 51st State...vote on Friday

[Ringel05]

Here's a question that if you can answer it, will show you that i'm right.

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.

Answer the questions then.

Prove me wrong. But you can't. That's why you're avoiding having to answer.

I don't argue with demagogues........

 

[meaner gene]

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.

Wow, you really are desperate.

And you're long on opinion, and short on facts, or law, or citations. I posted the actual language of the constitution, and couldn't find any violation in admitting a federal territory as a state, while leaving the federal land within the newly formed state, as federal property.

If you have conflicting "facts" or "law" post it.

Tic Toc.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

Wow, you really are desperate.

And you're long on opinion, and short on facts, or law, or citations. I posted the actual language of the constitution, and couldn't find any violation in admitting a federal territory as a state, while leaving the federal land within the newly formed state, as federal property.

If you have conflicting "facts" or "law" post it.

Tic Toc.

Go back and re-read the thread, you'll find evey thing you're asking for. Like I said, I don't argue with demagogues who want to interpret the Constitution anyway it fits their paradigm, it's a waist of my time and effort.

 

[skews13]

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.

Read the Constitution.

I have. Now explain to everyone how the states that ratified the Constitution became states. Before there was a Constitution.

This is within the purview of Congress. The same Congress that also has the power to regulate the courts. Meaning they can use that same majority, to expand the size of the Supreme Court.

Which will also be happening in the near future.

 

[meaner gene]

If you have conflicting "facts" or "law" post it.

Tic Toc.

Go back and re-read the thread, you'll find evey thing you're asking for. Like I said, I don't argue with demagogues who want to interpret the Constitution anyway it fits their paradigm, it's a waist of my time and effort.

I read their citations, and they didn't provide anything other than opinion. Half of them didn't even understand that the constitution doesn't give any guidance to congress on what they can do with the "seat of government".

Congress can move the "seat of government" to Area 51.

 

[two_iron]

The last time I was in DC, I thought I had landed in Zero's birthplace - Kenya. I hid in my hotel for a couple days and escaped as soon as I could.

 

[Ringel05]

If you have conflicting "facts" or "law" post it.

Tic Toc.

Go back and re-read the thread, you'll find evey thing you're asking for. Like I said, I don't argue with demagogues who want to interpret the Constitution anyway it fits their paradigm, it's a waist of my time and effort.

I read their citations, and they didn't provide anything other than opinion. Half of them didn't even understand that the constitution doesn't give any guidance to congress on what they can do with the "seat of government".

Congress can move the "seat of government" to Area 51.

Legally, DC is the DE FACTO "seat of government". Deal with it.

 

[Vastator]

Before the Civil war if you had a slave state, i.e, democrat state, be added to the union they would not do it unless you equaled things out by adding a free state.

The same should apply now. So which state do the free states get?

Republicans are the Confederates now, remember? I mean, it's not the Democrats waving Confederate flags and having tantrums when slaver monuments get removed.

Article IV, section 3 details the process of admitting new states. The territory has to consent, both the House and the Senate have to vote yes, and then President has to sign. So no, it won't happen while Trump is in office.

In the 1800's democrats refused to admit blacks were their equal, were human beings with innate rights. Today, you are still doing the same thing with the unborn. No compromises my dear. It's a fight to the death!

Some things never change.

Should we make New York City a state? How about LA?

I'm thinking divide Alabama into about 40 different states.

Eat shit, and die slow...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You guys are arguing about NOTHING, the Senate will never pass it.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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!

I dont think you understand how this works.

 

[Ringel05]

If you have conflicting "facts" or "law" post it.

Tic Toc.

Go back and re-read the thread, you'll find evey thing you're asking for. Like I said, I don't argue with demagogues who want to interpret the Constitution anyway it fits their paradigm, it's a waist of my time and effort.

I read their citations, and they didn't provide anything other than opinion. Half of them didn't even understand that the constitution doesn't give any guidance to congress on what they can do with the "seat of government".

Congress can move the "seat of government" to Area 51.

Legally, DC is the DE FACTO "seat of government". Deal with it.

Oh and the area that was SPECIFICALLY set aside for the "seat of government" IS the District of Columbia. If you took the time to research it's founding you would know this.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

The decision literally says that

. 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,

Ok. Tell me what the Constitution says.

 

[meaner gene]

Congress can move the "seat of government" to Area 51.

Legally, DC is the DE FACTO "seat of government". Deal with it.

New York City: the capital of the United States.
between April 1789—when George Washington was sworn in as the first president (at left)—and July 1790, New York was the nation's capital.

The Constitution wasn't amended to allow congress to move the capital to washington DC.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Congress can move the "seat of government" to Area 51.

Legally, DC is the DE FACTO "seat of government". Deal with it.

New York City: the capital of the United States.
between April 1789—when George Washington was sworn in as the first president (at left)—and July 1790, New York was the nation's capital.

The Constitution wasn't amended to allow congress to move the capital to washington DC.

The Constitution was written so that an area NOT part of a State would be the NEW CAPITOL. There was no reason to include where the old capitol was at all since it specifically says the new capitol will be a district NOT part of ANY State.

 

[meaner gene]

New York City: the capital of the United States.
between April 1789—when George Washington was sworn in as the first president (at left)—and July 1790, New York was the nation's capital.

The Constitution wasn't amended to allow congress to move the capital to washington DC.

The Constitution was written so that an area NOT part of a State would be the NEW CAPITOL. There was no reason to include where the old capitol was at all since it specifically says the new capitol will be a district NOT part of ANY State.

And if congress could not agree on where to move the capital to, it would still be in New York City.

Or in Philadelphia.

And neither move required more than an act of congress (no change to the constitution)

 

[Ringel05]

Congress can move the "seat of government" to Area 51.

Legally, DC is the DE FACTO "seat of government". Deal with it.

New York City: the capital of the United States.
between April 1789—when George Washington was sworn in as the first president (at left)—and July 1790, New York was the nation's capital.

The Constitution wasn't amended to allow congress to move the capital to washington DC.

Damn, any rationalization to make your hopeless case........ Friggin' pathetic.

 

[meaner gene]

Damn, any rationalization to make your hopeless case........ Friggin' pathetic.

Congress moved the capital to New York City 1785 to 1790 (old city hall-federal hall)

To Philadelphia 1790 to 1800 ( Philadelphia County Building–Congress Hall)

Before moving it to Washington DC.

Point to the constitutional amendments required for congress to move the seat of government from state to state to Washington DC (not a state)

 

[Ringel05]

Damn, any rationalization to make your hopeless case........ Friggin' pathetic.

Congress moved the capital to New York City 1785 to 1790 (old city hall-federal hall)

To Philadelphia 1790 to 1800 ( Philadelphia County Building–Congress Hall)

Before moving it to Washington DC.

Point to the constitutional amendments required for congress to move the seat of government from state to state to Washington DC (not a state)

WTF? Where did that flight of fancy come from? Oh never mind, I know where.........
Have a nice life. Oh and seek professional help, psychiatric would be advisable.

 

[meaner gene]

WTF? Where did that flight of fancy come from? Oh never mind, I know where.........
Have a nice life. Oh and seek professional help, psychiatric would be advisable.

It answers the questions that you avoided, whether congress needed a constitutional amendment to move the capital to anywhere they wanted. They could move it to Area 51 on their own approval.

Thus there are no requirements that Washington DC remain the seat of government, and as such isn't a constitutional requirement.

 

[Ringel05]

WTF? Where did that flight of fancy come from? Oh never mind, I know where.........
Have a nice life. Oh and seek professional help, psychiatric would be advisable.

It answers the questions that you avoided, whether congress needed a constitutional amendment to move the capital to anywhere they wanted. They could move it to Area 51 on their own approval.

Thus there are no requirements that Washington DC remain the seat of government, and as such isn't a constitutional requirement.

Strawman questions deserve no answer knumb knut........

Of course they could move it to area 51. So? Why would they when all the infrastructure is in place where it's at?
I mean, come on, just to make your argument?
Doesn't change the fact you're wrong that (in the real world) it would take an amendment to grant DC Statehood because (in the real world) DC isn't going anywhere.