Posted on 04/22/2021 7:16:19 AM PDT by deport
The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday is set to approve, for the second time in less than a year, legislation making the District of Columbia the 51st state in a move sure to further inflame tensions between Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
The population of Washington, D.C. is heavily Democratic. As a state, it likely would elect two Democratic senators, potentially changing the balance of power in the Senate, which now has 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
No, you lying skank. And this has been dealt with by scholars for decades.
Here are some of the simpler articles that a clown like you might understand.
https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/dc-statehood-not-without-constitutional-amendment
https://www.cato.org/commentary/dc-statehood-fools-errand
https://www.pulj.org/the-roundtable/the-constitutional-roadblocks-to-dc-statehood
The ONLY idiots that take the end around position that you advocate are those who are ignoring the text and intent of the Constitution and the original meaning of the terms.
You continually expose your liberal bias. To the point that you will cower and run when anyone calls you out on it directly (as you have been suspended from posting before for it.)
Lets put it to the test and Let’s call a spade a spade, are “Assault Weapons” bans Constitutional or not? YES or NO?
Would DC still get its special privileges as the Federal City, like in-state tuition at any state-run university in the country?
Doodledawg is a lying skank and a Soros plant. She continually brings up liberal talking points as she plays her shareblue role here. She’s been banned before for advocating “assault weapons” bans as “constitutional” and now won’t engage on that topic at all.
She pretends to be a student of the law and the Constitution but mostly parrots left wing talking points.
It’s a troll, Jim.
DC will want their star to be bigger.
Sure it does. Article I, Section 9 gives Congress exclusive legislative control over the district. They could carve it up and do what they want with the remainder.
That is against all common sense and the Founders never dreamed that some fools would seek to grant statehood to a few square miles and make it co-equal in the Senate to Texas or New York, for example.
I submit that upwards of 90% of what the federal government does nowadays would give the Founders a conniption fit. Why should D.C. statehood be any different?
I’ll defer to your expertise in what idiots do.
“If we still had a Constitution they would need an amendment.”
Traditional way at least
Awww... aren’t you cute. Worrying about “legality” in regards to Democrats.
There is ZERO evidence they give two tin nickels for “legality”.
Well, normally this would be a non-starter, since it requires a Constitutional amendment, which they can’t pass. Of course if they pack the Supreme Court, then it won’t matter if they do it through unconstitutional legislation.
Doing this should require a Constitutional Amendment, not some majority vote by rabid squirrels.
Normally, you would be correct. This change legally requires a Constitutional amendment, since DC was created specifically in the Constitution as a district rather than a state. Congress knows this because as recently as 1977 they tried to start the amendment process to do just this:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/95th-congress/house-joint-resolution/554
However, if they manage to pack the Supreme Court with compliant commies, then it won’t matter if the bill is unconstitutional, since the court will just wave it through.
No, not in the case of DC, since DC is specifically designated as a district rather than a state in the Constitution. So to change that designation requires a Constitutional amendment rather than a simple act of Congress.
“according to the constitution a state can not be made from another”
Of course it can; West Virginia was formerly part of Virginia.
It just can’t be made from parts of another state without the approval of Congress. However, there are even more restrictions in the special case of DC.
That's debatable. Those proposing D.C. statehood maintain that as long as there is a Capitol District as required by the Constitution requires then Congress can do what they want with the rest. And the House bill identifies that district as part of the legislation. This'll probably wind up in court, assuming it makes it through the Senate first.
“Sure it does. Article I, Section 9 gives Congress exclusive legislative control over the district. They could carve it up and do what they want with the remainder.”
NO it does not. Legislative control is one concept. Giving a few acres statehood, that would change the entire nation, is an entirely different concept that goes far beyond any understanding of legislative control. The district was carved out of other states’ territory by the Constitution. Makes about as much sense as someone claiming the Bill of Rights were subject to Congressional legislative control.
But nothing in the Constitution explicitly prevents Congress from doing that. It'll be for the courts to decide, assuming it makes it through the Senate in the first place.
I recognize your concession in your non-response.
Now, Are “assault weapon” bans constitutional or not?
Your recognition is faulty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.