The Window for D.C. Statehood Won’t Be Open Forever

The Atlantic ^ | FEBRUARY 19, 2021 | EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE

[bIlluminati]

East Texas, South Texas, West Texas, North Texas, and the People’s Demonratic Republic of Austin.

[rxsid]

I would think it's absurd for 15 people, as you say, to get 3 E.V.'s.

I also think it's absurd that the states have given up their Constitutional authority on a myriad of concerns. But that's been done by choice, not by requirement of the Constitution or the law.

I also think it's absurd that the (D)'s are planning to grant citizenship to 22+ million foreign nationals in our country illegally (and to let countless more in). Now that they are in power, the Constitution, and the federal statutes would allow them to do so....whether you, or I, or anyone else reading this likes it.

And on...and on...and on.

The point being here, is not whether I think any of what they have done, or plan to do, or would like to do is a good thing.

The point here, is that IF the (D)'s in congress were to redraw the District of Columbia, to shrink it, and to pass legislation in the Congress and Xiden signs it....there isn't a damn thing any of us or the redist of red states can do to stop it.

You stated that they would "run afoul" of the 23rd Amendment by shrinking their map. That's just not true, as that Amendment says nothing about a requirement for the physical size, nor the population count of the district.

3 E.V's for 15 people. Absurd indeed. Would be infuriating. But not unlawful nor unconstitutional. They would be within the law, within the 23rd Amendment and within the Constitution to make it happen.

Too many people on "our side" believe, incorrectly, that such a move to shrink the district in size...but still have a district, is unconstitutional. It's not. That's the point here.

There is NO mandate...anywhere for the district's population size OR it's size being ANYTHING "ten miles square" or LESS.
It can be 9 sq miles, 2 sq miles, 0.25 sq. miles. It can be any size they want it to be so long as it's within the maximum physical size.

And the irony, at this point, is that only the (D)'s at the federal level can prevent D.C. (or Puerto Rico, or Guam or U.S. Virgin Islands) from becoming a state.

[100%FEDUP]

Whatever states austin and houston are in will be definite blue states so thats 4 senate seats plus the four from DC and PR. Even if the 3 remaining new states are red its still a net loss of 2 senate seats.

[Trump Girl Kit Cat]

Schumer has changed his mind about PR becoming a state it turns out that the voting habits of the population there have been trending right for some time now!!

[MinorityRepublican]

Austin is even more blue today. The border region is less blue because they are concerned about border security and Trump did well in that region in the recent election. But still it would be 6 Republican Senators and 4 Democratic Senators from 5 Texan states.

[hanamizu]

There would be Constitutional challenges. The ‘original intent of the 23rd Amendment’ ie granting the inhabitants of the federal district the ‘right to vote for President would likely be taken into consideration. Whether or not the challenges would be successful, I have no idea. But I don’t think the District will become a ‘state’ on just a simple vote of the majority of the House and Senate. These objections, and they are not trivial will be brought up.

I think several states would have an objection to something .25sq miles having 3 EVs.

[rxsid]

"But I don’t think the District will become a ‘state’ on just a simple vote of the majority of the House and Senate. "

Your missing the point, as are others.

They are NOT planing to "make" "DC" a "state."

That's a misnomer.

They want to redraw the district.
To make it smaller.
Still in existence, just smaller.

Then, with the piece(s) that is left out of the new...smaller district would become the new state.

Carve it into 2 pieces if you will.

Congress has the authority to do just that.

What's ironic here, is that since there is NO population requirement for the district....it's possible the district could have ZERO people in it and still somehow get the 3 E.V.'s.

Again, with NO population requirement for the "district," it's theoretically possible.

A good idea? Obvious not. It's clearly a flaw in our system.

I haven't looked up the history that went into the 23rd, but I'll bet it was put into place as a way to counter carving a new state out of D.C. and to appease the small number of people who reside there permanently.

"I think several states would have an objection to something .25sq miles having 3 EVs."

LOTS of objections all across the country by LOTS of people, lots of politicians, regarding the blatent-in-our-faces-transparent-systemic fraud in 2020.
What happened?
Did it change the outcome?

Lots of objections to lots of things, even unlaw and unconstitutional things....all the time...everywhere.

But the S&*# still happens.

Making the "district" smaller, and the resulting non "district" area a new state has nothing to do with Constitutionality at this point. They have the authority to make it happen.

This is a question of politics. Do the (D)'s want to "go there?" Do they want to push that "button?" Do they really want to divide the country even further?

Will it even matter, with all the resulting "objections" and "outcry" anyway?

It comes down to this: Do they have the political will to do it?

[rxsid]

"Again, with NO population requirement for the "district," it's theoretically possible."

This, of course, would depend on how they decided to count those living in the white house.
We know the inhabitant's are guaranteed to exit the residence in predetermined time frame. Unless of course, someone other than the President and their family is allowed to "reside" there.
Are they temporary residents? Or are they considered permanent residents?

[Pining_4_TX]

Then maybe eastern Washington state could break off from Washington and become a separate state. There are other possibilities as well. Why can’t conservatives play this game?

[hanamizu]

“You’rer missing the point, as are others. They are NOT planing to “make” “DC” a “state.”

---

No, I’m not missing the point. They are trying to make the majority, virtually all of what is now called the District of Columbia, into a state, leaving behind a few buildings such as the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court as the seat of government—which is nowhere named “The District of Columbia” in the Constitution.

---

“I haven’t looked up the history that went into the 23rd, but I’ll bet it was put into place as a way to counter carving a new state out of D.C...”

---

You’d lose the bet. There was no move to create a state out of D.C. when the 23rd Amendment was passed. It was passed because of the ‘unfairness’ of the citizens of capital city of the United States (even then a primarily black city) not being able to vote for the President. Both the 23rd and 24th Amendment (no poll taxes) were passed in the early 60s as a part of the Civil Rights movement.

My original point was the filibuster is not the biggest problem “DC statehood” faces. I’m not saying the dems won’t try to shove it through, but I am saying that there are some serious Constitutional questions surrounding the issue. In comparison, Puerto Rico statehood, or Virgin Islands or Guam are quite straightforward. Majority in both houses, President’s signature, done deal. D.C. perhaps not so much.

[kaehurowing]

The five states would be named:

Old Texas
Cordell
Trivette
Cahill
Parker

[pepsionice]

It’s basically a 5 x 8 mile area. Around ten years ago, I walked from the Lincoln Memorial straight north across the District and left the boundary in roughly two hours. It’s just not that big.

This would be like walking from the southend of Central Park in NY city, to the pier for the Statue of Liberty ferry.

The argument that will eventually erupt here....there are a minimum of forty cities around the US who will think they deserve to have two Senators as well (Chicago might even think they should be two states and have four Senators).

My biggest argument over this...does the Governor/Legislative Body...act more like their titles, or will they be more like mayor/city council members? How many governors or legislative members do you know, who are concerned over city parking rules or pot-holes?

[Caipirabob]

Given that it’s unconstitutional, the window should be closed forever.

[NetAddicted]

Yay

[xzins]

No way dc qualfies for state. Besides, it would take a constitutional amendment.

Furthermore, why wouldn’t every city then demand their own senators and representatives?

[nd76]

Interestingly, the most vocal opponent of DC statehood used to be Barbara Mikulski of Maryland; this is because one of the first things the new state legislature in Washington Douglass Commonwealth will do is pass a wage tax on DC workers who live in the surrounding states, believed to be in the vicinity of 10.7%. This would be in addition to the substantial state income taxes: in Maryland, there are both a state and a county income tax, which amounts to almost 9% in Montgomery County; and in Virginia we have a tax of $420 plus 5.75% on everything over $17k.

But Sens. Chris Van Hollen, the successor to Mikulski who is a left wing nut from Montgomery County, and Sen. Ben Cardin, who is a party hack from Baltimore, are on the statehood bandwagon.