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

[meaner gene]

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.

You said:

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.

Where in the constitution does it do that? I posted the "seat of govenment" clause, and it said no such thing.

 

[meaner gene]

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;

 

[Ringel05]

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.

You said:

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.

Where in the constitution does it do that? I posted the "seat of govenment" clause, and it said no such thing.

It's been explained to you numerous times but you've rejected the explanation because it doesn't fit your paradigm The fact that DC was designated as the seat of government (you figure out who and why, I'm not going to explain it to you) and that the clause was written specifically with the new Capital in mind (that's call studying history) it explicitly forbids the seat of government (DC by implied reference, again historically based) to become a State. If you're too dull to figure that out then there's no hope for you and this conversation is at an end.

 

[meaner gene]

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.

Where in the constitution does it do that? I posted the "seat of govenment" clause, and it said no such thing.

It's been explained to you numerous times but you've rejected the explanation because it doesn't fit your paradigm The fact that DC was designated as the seat of government (you figure out who and why, I'm not going to explain it to you) and that the clause was written specifically with the new Capital in mind (that's call studying history) it explicitly forbids the seat of government (DC by implied reference, again historically based) to become a State. If you're too dull to figure that out then there's no hope for you and this conversation is at an end.

Actually, everybody failed to explain. They preached, they bloviated, they even repeated their previous outbursts, but none would provide an explanation.

 

[meaner gene]

it explicitly forbids the seat of government (DC by implied reference, again historically based) to become a State. If you're too dull to figure that out then there's no hope for you and this conversation is at an end.

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;

Nothing there bars the state from in part or in whole, taking back what they ceded or some other state doing a partial or full buyback.

 

[satrebil]

. 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,

The fuck does a grazing dispute have to do with creating a new 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.

What the hell are you babbling about? It says nothing of the sort.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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)

LOL perhaps you should learn when the Constitution was written and approved.