Posted on 03/26/2021 3:56:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
There are numerous principled reasons to oppose D.C. statehood. But, really, no arguments are more applicable than the ones offered by the founders, who created a federal district for the distinct purpose of denying it statehood.
First, because they were concerned about the seat of federal power being controlled by a hostile or intrusive state government. Second, because they knew that if the capital were in a state -- much less its own state -- the people would vote to grow and accumulate federal power. Both situations were incompatible with the proper separation of powers and state rights.
Today, though, Democrats want to localize one of the only things in the Constitution that is actually federalized -- while federalizing everything else.
People like to argue that the founders never anticipated that millions of Americans would be living and working in the District. Indeed, the more powerful the permanent political class in D.C. becomes, the more reason we have to deny it statehood. Washington would likely be nothing but a swampy backwater village if it hadn't been created for, again, the purpose of not being a state.
And it doesn't matter if there are 20 or 20 million people residing in its 10-square-mile boundary. We already have Maryland and, increasingly, Virginia doing D.C.'s bidding. Washingtonians already have far too much power over ordinary Americans. And the town's great wealth is produced by taxing citizens and creating federal laws that centralize power. Why would we want to give the federal government more power?
The Washington Post's Aaron Blake says we've been dumbing down the D.C. statehood debate -- and I agree, but for very different reasons. He argues that "emerging arguments against D.C. statehood" are no longer principled but partisan. "The idea isn't so much that D.C. doesn't necessarily deserve voting rights in the House and Senate, as much as that it would be a boon to Democrats," he writes.
Normally, I would be quite sympathetic to this type of grievance. The problem is that the argument over D.C. is, both in the abstract and practical, a partisan one. After all, the only reason Democrats want to turn D.C. into a city-state is because it guarantees them two seats in the Senate, a fact that is completely reasonable to point out. If Democrats were genuinely concerned about the imaginary voting rights of D.C. citizens, then they would talk about redrawing the borders of Washington as a one- or two-square-mile district and giving the rest of the people to Maryland and Virginia (this idea also has complications, but at least it would show that advocates for D.C. voting rights would be arguing from a "principled" position).
Yet, even setting contemporary debates aside, one of James Madison's arguments for creating a federal district was his fear of the partisan nature of states. In Federalist No. 43, he warned that without federal control of the capital, "the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity ..." by some opposing party. That is an argument about partisanship as well.
The debate, as I see it, is being dumbed down by the usual destructive majoritarian arguments, which are either propelled by a lack of civic education or an antagonism toward the Constitution. When, for instance, South Dakota Senator Mike Rounds correctly noted on Twitter that the "Founding Fathers never intended for Washington D.C. to be a state," he was dunked on a number of media believing that the founders had ever envisioned South Dakota becoming a state.
ndeed, the Founding Fathers absolutely foresaw, places such as South Dakota becoming states. That's why they laid out a clear path for statehood. This wasn't some theoretical proposition, either. Vermont was added to the Union only three years after the ratification of the Constitution. There were 17 states by the time Madison was elected president.
It is true, of course, that Madison was unaware that more than a century after the ratification of a new constitution, there would be a state christened, "South Dakota," but surely -- surely - no thinking person actually believes this is a clever point to make. On the other hand, the founders also unambiguously intended -- evident in both their writing and in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution -- to create a special federal district for the purpose of not being a state.
And if D.C. residents don't like it, they can always move to the other side of the border.
And if D.C. residents don't like it, they can always move to the other side of the border.
Wouldn’t the Constitution have to be amended?
Would be nice if that document was actually followed.
D.C. statehood is unconstitutional but with the current Robert’s court we can’t depend on them to affirm it’s unconstitutionality.
I don’t think it’d take much to create the rule that allowed Arlington and Fairfax to rejoin Virginia....to be dragged out, and allow 60-percent of DC to rejoin Maryland. Georgetown folks (rich-urban types) would probably prefer that over the single statehood gimmick.
The Constitution requires a 'district' not to exceed 10 square miles in size. Since there is no minimum size requirement then they could carve out the Capitol and the White House and other areas protected by the Secret Service and the Capitol Police into a district and make a state out of the rest.
FFS just give the non-Fed parts back to Maryland!
Other than two Democrat Senators and one Democrat Congressman what are they?
The same people grousing about Wyoming want to make a state of even less people and area.
The D.C. population is about 100,000 people larger than Wyoming's.
The founding fathers created a federal district precisely so it wouldn’t be under the jurisdiction of any state. This is not hard to understand. The federal government was not to be influenced or controlled by any state government.
No. We’ve added many states. Just needs a majority in house and senate.
This is different.
The Constitution specifically states that DC is not a State.
I can see reducing the size somehow to include only gov buildings but we’ll see.
This is different.
The Constitution specifically states that DC is not a State.
I can see reducing the size somehow to include only gov buildings but we’ll see.
My bad. Still about the same issue. DC would have the same number of senators as CA.
Sadly not, the “Federal District” can be reduced to just the Capitol/White House/Washington Mon/Lincoln Mon/Smithsonian/EEOB and the rest of the city could be made a State, all with regular legislation.
As for principles, keeping 2 more pig sucking rats out of the filthy Senate is the only one I need. I’d take away their electors too, actually if I controlled Congress I’d abolish it’s popular vote and appoint GOP electors for the city, unless rats agreed to go along with repealing the 23rd amendment.
16
I think some of you know what I’m going to say here:
I fully support the admission of a State of New Columbia (or, even better, the State of Douglass) that includes all of DC except for the White House, Congress, etc.,
PLUS Arlington, Fairfax, Prince William and Loudon counties and Alexandria, Falls Church, Fairfax, Manassas and Manassas Park cities from VA, and
PLUS Montgomery, Prince George’s, Charles and (if we can swing this) Howard counties from MD.
The new state would be overwhelmingly Democrat, but it would make MD a relatively competitive state (with Democrats having the advantage, but not that big of one) and it would make VA a solidly GOP state. The Democrats would gain 2 Senate seats from DC, but 2 Democrat-held seats in VA would become Republican seats within a few years. And our 2012, 2016 and 2020 EVs from the region would have gone from 26 D, 0 R to 16 D, 10 R, so Trump would have gotten to 270 in 2016 even without PA, MI and WI and to 269 in 2020 merely by winning GA and AZ.
It is beyond me why congressional Republicans, and Presidents Bush and Trump, for that matter, didn’t spend the past 20 years talking about how DC needed suburban counties to join it so that it can have the tax base and diversified economy to become a state and to shame VA and MD into giving up those counties so that DC residents can finally be fully enfranchised.
Pete, forgot to ping you for #18. It’s Impy’s fault, really. : )
Excellent idea.
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.