Posted on 04/05/2021 8:43:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
Despite numerous arguments against the effort, the push to make Washington, D.C. a state just won't die./em>
D.C. statehood is not a novel idea. As the Department of Justice concluded in 1987 in a highly detailed report totaling more than 80 pages: “Efforts to admit the District of Columbia to the Union as a state should be vigorously opposed.” Still, the idea lingers, although never nearing 60 votes in the Senate (or a constitutional amendment for that matter).
The passage of time has not brought D.C. statehood closer to 60 votes. But statehood has suddenly become plausible to propose. Indeed, the forceful Democrat push to end the filibuster — that is, to revoke a 60-vote requirement — gives D.C. statehood an undeniable chance.
The well-worn argument in favor of D.C. statehood goes like this: D.C. residents pay federal taxes and otherwise bear the burdens of citizenship, such as signing up for the draft. Therefore, D.C. should be a state. Furthermore, anyone who opposes the measure must be racist, since 46 percent of the District’s residents are black Americans. Closer scrutiny, however, reveals these arguments to be overly simplistic.
The Founders thought it obvious the nation’s capital should be subject to federal, rather than state, jurisdiction. No self-respecting federal power should tie its capital’s success to the benevolence of a state, forcing the nation as a whole to endure whatever state mismanagement, neglect, corruption, or disdain for federal officials may occur.
Additionally, they realized tying federal operations to a state’s continued good graces would necessarily create a cozy relationship between federal officials and that state, contrary to our nation’s federal system that recognizes our states as equals.
The potential for corruption is limitless. A state could prevent needed federal buildings through poor zoning laws or — as COVID-19 has shown us — prevent gatherings to debate and vote on crucial legislation. Members would dole out favorable federal policies and, in return, receive favorable local tax policies.
The “no taxation without representation” rallying cry of the American Revolution stemmed from British efforts to tax the colonies exclusively. Yet D.C. residents pay no unique taxes. Indeed, they are the largest beneficiaries of federal dollars.
While the average U.S. resident took $2,000 more than he or she paid in taxes pre-COVID (the reality of our nation’s spending problem), the average D.C. resident took in almost $59,000 – for D.C. in total, that’s $41 billion more than it pays in taxes. That blows any state out of the water, and certainly any city. Receiving a $41 billion surplus from the federal government is a far, far cry from being mistreated by an unelected monarch across the sea.
D.C. has the highest average federal income tax per capita, proponents add. Yes, it also has the highest average income per capita — that’s how taxes work. Also, if the argument really is that an individual’s representation should rise or fall based on her tax burden, let’s see where that road leads.
In the final analysis, residents of D.C. have far more representation than those in any state. If there’s a hurricane, an opioid crisis, a homelessness surge, too much smog, or a bridge that needs building — no need to ring your representative. No need for a citizen petition. Congress knows.
The news written by D.C. residents is the news consumed by Congress. The quality of health care available to D.C. residents is the quality available to Congress too. Again, the king of England did not participate in the burdens imposed on colonists. But to think that the interests of D.C. residents aren’t shared by the members of Congress who live and work there defies reason.
To quote again from the Department of Justice report, “Statehood for the Nation’s capital is inconsistent with the language of the Constitution.”
The Constitution gives Congress — not D.C. residents — the power to exercise “exclusive” power over “such District,” “not to exceed 100 square miles of land ceded from the States, that occupies the Seat of the Government.” H.R. 51 attempts to skirt this language by shrinking “such District” to mini pockets of federal buildings, and letting the rest of the District turn into Douglass Commonwealth state.
But the Constitution, in describing Congress’s exclusive power over the District, also vests “exclusive” power to control forts and other federal buildings. That contrast is illuminating. By giving Congress power over the District, not just over isolated federal buildings, the Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority over the entire district that became the seat of government, not merely over the seat of the government.
Moreover, as H.R. 51 itself recognizes, the Constitution would need to be amended to repeal the 23rd Amendment. This amendment gives electoral votes to the “District constituting the seat of the Government” as “if it were a State.” Given that H.R. 51 would shrink that area down to federal buildings, allowing this mini “District” to continue to exercise electoral power would be absurd. It would also be completely contrary to the understanding of the states that ratified the 23rd Amendment.
Frankly, we all know what is actually going on with D.C. statehood. D.C. is a Democratic stronghold. Its residents voted 91 percent for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and 92 percent for Joe Biden in 2020. To obfuscate the political nature of D.C. statehood, proponents attack the racist motives of those favoring our federal structure and the text of the Constitution.
Yet the argument against statehood would be the exact same if D.C. were an exclusive club of Mayflower descendants. We know this is true because the Founders created this federally-controlled district when it looked like rural Maryland and rural Virginia.
No one thinks Oklahoma City should be a state, despite its similar population. Or Nashville. Or El Paso. While it’s true those cities have representation in Congress, these urban areas in otherwise rural states are unquestionably underrepresented in the Senate. Name-calling is a resort away from reason, and the rationale against D.C. statehood is sufficiently clear to avoid such devolving.
Our Founders created a federal system, not an unstable majoritarian democracy. The interests and rights of the states, in our country, are pitted against the interests and rights of the federal government, and the winners are individuals, whose rights are preserved.
D.C. residents are — and have all the rights of — U.S. citizens. They are not represented in Congress by a state because they are represented by Congress as a whole.
Ultimately, the District does not belong to D.C. residents. It belongs to all of us.
At some point, people will just acknowledge the Constitution as a quaint old document that doesn’t really mean anything. The Left can do what it wants.
—
And the Right will nod and go back to sleep, except for a handful of trouble makers who will mostly be ignored, be ineffectual, and silently go away.
1) Senate arrives at a tied vote to approve statehood;
2) Harris casts a tie-breaker vote as VP;
3) Statehood is approved by Congress
4) Immediately file quo warranto challenging the law on basis of contradiction of Constitution violation, Constitution reference to DC
and authority of Harris to cast vote as un-qualified VP because she is not a Natural Born Citizen. text of resolution 511
If the residential portions of D.C. no longer wish to be part of the Capitol, then their land should be returned to Maryland, not formed into the 51st state.
😆
We do not live under the constitution. That should be patently obvious to anyone in America now.
We live under an authoritarian oligarchy that does as it pleases.
When they can use constitutional verbiage to “prove” to us that we must obey, they do so. When the verbiage stands in their way, they get a court ruling that allows them to so as they please.
Anyone remember Obamacare? The Constitution says all spending bills MUST originate in the House.
The Constitution was amended to prohibit involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. Woodrow Wilson started a draft. He reasoning was that since Congress declared war, they whole nation had “volunteered”. Ergo, “selective service” was merely choosing people from a giant body of volunteers!
What does the constitution say about declaring war?
What does the constitution say about direct taxes?
What does the constitution say about gun laws?
What does the constitution say about how the value of a dollar is set?
Does the constitution give the Federal government the right to regulate a creek on your property or the crop you grow and sell locally?
We are so far beyond the constitution that this person’s argument is trite and meaningless.
Does the constitution allow the Federal government to order me to stay home, close my business, wear a facemask?
We need to face it. We are living in a modern version of the USSR or Nazi Germany. The government rules by decree and has done so for years now.
The technocratic oligarchy rules by fiat and nothing else.
They rarely even pretend to do otherwise.
The Democrap response:
File that quo warranto case and Roberts, closet homo Roberts, party boy Kavenaugh and Amy Conehead Barrett would swat that case down as fast as they did the Texas case.
Why then is the most important Federal Agency (DOD) headquartered in sovereign Virginia?
Simple solution - retrocede residential area to Maryland. Maryland will never elect a Republican senator anyhow and, yes, one more sure D seat in the House - meh
That will shut ‘em up
Forgot the old buzzard of a speaker of the house.
Correct and "infringed" means the federal government has no power to regulate any firearm of any type on any level whatsoever. The federal government has no authority to require background checks, firearms licenses for dealers or licenses of any type. The federal government has no authority to require any form to be filled out for any type of firearm.
The people have the god given right to own machine guns, short barrel shotguns, suppressors, armor piercing ammunition and grenade launchers.
Yet we have allowed the federal government to ban or regulate nearly every aspect of this god given right.
This article is utterly delusional. The Constitution has failed to protect us from the intrusion, oppression and tyranny of government. The Constitution has many "safeguards" built in that were supposed to protect us from a corrupt government rigging our elections. ALL OF THOSE SAFEGUARDS FAILED.
The left loves to talk about "rethinking" this or that. Maybe it's time for Americans to start doing a little rethinking.
The Constitution? That old thing?
When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they were operating under the false assumption (or hope),that the country would always be governed by honest men.
Ink on a parchment means nothing without enforcement.
“Conservatives” lose because they refuse to acknowledge the way the game is played.
A rather pointless opinion, and it's getting warm enough now that if the quo warranto fails, it's time to pick up arms and visit Congress again. And there may be some results of recent attempts to audit election ballots that might sway SCOTUS if the fraud-filled elections are exposed for public consumption. And that adds incentive to the people picking up arms to visit Congress.
“The Founders thought it obvious the nation’s capital should be subject to federal, rather than state, jurisdiction.”
This is not hard to understand! The federal district was to be out of the jurisdiction of any state! It is FEDERAL! Not hard to understand. I remember that from my high school days! 100% clear to me.
If I were a real estate tycoon (**ahem**), I’d promote the simple remedy to the “no taxation without representation” argument by exempting DC residents from Federal taxes.
All those row houses in NE? All that crime ridden SE? Would turn into 12-story condos mighty fast.
The reason you have guns is to protect your god given, constitutional rights. You may at some point actually have to use your weapon to protect those rights.
You left ‘cuckolds’ off yer list...
I did. Thanks. I also left off peacocks. The menagerie is growing.
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.