'House approves statehood for Washington, DC'

[clearspira]

The first thing I thought of when I read this was ''damn that's going to cost a lot of money to put an extra star onto every flag in America.''

We're not just talking actual physical waving flags on poles, we're talking military uniforms, monuments, plaques, commercially sold clothing, company branding, paint jobs on the sides of buildings. I'm just saying that maybe a global recession is not the time to dump billions of dollars into a project of arguably questionable value?

[Draco Dracul]

That's a very strange argument as this is a move that helps secure power by reducing the Republican structural advantage in the Senate.

Well, let me walk you through it, and then maybe you can point out the flaw in my logic. I am but human.

When we say a party is "in power," we generally mean that it can move legislation, which means it controls majorities in both the House and Senate. That's getting less common in the US as the rural/urban split intensifies, but it still happens with some regularity. Of course, to actually have legislation become law, you have to deal with the Presidential veto and the Senate fillibuster, so sometimes people also throw in that the party has to control the White House or have at least 60 Senate seats. That's a lot more rare, though it still happens occasionally. Pelosi certainly doesn't have that power right now, but it's quite possible she'll be close after November. (though 60 Senate seats is still unlikely) And under normal circumstances, that's all you would need to add a state.

The only way the filibuster stays in place when there is both a major recession and major pandemic is if the GOP never uses it. Any obstruction is going to be met with a massive clap back from the Democrats and I think there is a very good chance even the more conservative democrats would back it because they would see a massive increase in their personal power.

But DC isn't normal. DC is explicitly laid out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

The Congress shall have Power 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…

Now I don't sit on the Supreme Court, but I'm pretty certain that at least 5 of the people who do are going to have a problem with granting DC statehood in light of that language. After all, if DC is a state, then the Congress does not have exclusive Legislation powers.

So to make DC a state, I think you're going to need a Constitutional Amendment, which requires a LOT more. You're going to need 2/3s of the State Legislatures to sign on. No single party has wielded anything like that power in over a century, but on the off chance that Pelosi ever does...she'd STILL be silly for wasting time on DC statehood. After all, if she has THAT much power and is worried about keeping it, she can just rewrite the Constitution to say "Democrats shall be the sole keeper of political power within the United States. All other political parties are banned forthwith and forever." Bam. Book it. Done.

While the existence of such a district is set by the constitution, the size and location are set by congress. Specifically in the The Residence act. Legally there is nothing stopping congress from reducing the size of the district to only encompass the Mall or even just Capitol Hill and we know this because they have reduced the size of federal district before and the only party that would have standing in giving the land to the people of DC as a new state wouldn't dispute it because Maryland, pointedly does not want the land back.

The first thing I thought of when I read this was ''damn that's going to cost a lot of money to put an extra star onto every flag in America.''

We're not just talking actual physical waving flags on poles, we're talking military uniforms, monuments, plaques, commercially sold clothing, company branding, paint jobs on the sides of buildings. I'm just saying that maybe a global recession is not the time to dump billions of dollars into a project of arguably questionable value?

Generally a global recession is exactly the time when a government needs to be pouring tons of money into the economy.

[LittleRaven]

The only way the filibuster stays in place when there is both a major recession and major pandemic is if the GOP never uses it. Any obstruction is going to be met with a massive clap back from the Democrats and I think there is a very good chance even the more conservative democrats would back it because they would see a massive increase in their personal power.

Maybe, but that would be a VERY drastic step that would dramatically change how the US functions. Imagine if Trump really COULD have repealed the Affordable Care Act on day one of his term. How is anyone going to make any kind of long-term plan, knowing that anything and everything can be upended if a party manages to get a simply majority in each branch?

But that's a different topic.

While the existence of such a district is set by the constitution, the size and location are set by congress. Specifically in the The Residence act. Legally there is nothing stopping congress from reducing the size of the district to only encompass the Mall or even just Capitol Hill and we know this because they have reduced the size of federal district before and the only party that would have standing in giving the land to the people of DC as a new state wouldn't dispute it because Maryland, pointedly does not want the land back.

The first part is true. The second? Not at all clear.

The constitutionality of the retrocession has been called into question. The contract clause found in Article One of the United States Constitution prohibits states from breaching contracts to which they are themselves a party. By annexing Alexandria in 1847, Virginia may have breached its contractual obligation to "forever cede and relinquish" the territory for use as the permanent seat of the United States government.[22] President William Howard Taft also believed the retrocession to be unconstitutional and tried to have the land given back to the District.[19]

The Supreme Court of the United States has never issued a firm opinion on whether the retrocession of the Virginia portion of the District of Columbia was constitutional. In the 1875 case of Phillips v. Payne the Supreme Court held that Virginia had de facto jurisdiction over the area returned by Congress in 1847, and dismissed the tax case brought by the plaintiff. The court, however, did not rule on the core constitutional matter of the retrocession.

So I suspect we're back to the Nine wise men. And there's another problem: the Twenty Third Amendment.

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

If you reduce DC to the mall, who votes for the Representatives?

I still don't think this is as easy as you make it out.

[Riedquat]

Generally a global recession is exactly the time when a government needs to be pouring tons of money into the economy.

As long as it isn't (a) doing more of what got it into a mess in the first place (not applicable here), and (b) is money that's well spent, rather than just chucking cash out for the sake of it - you don't help by paying one person to dig a hole and another to fill it in again straight away. Otherwise it would be a lot easier than it is to keep economies going well.

[Draco Dracul]

The only way the filibuster stays in place when there is both a major recession and major pandemic is if the GOP never uses it. Any obstruction is going to be met with a massive clap back from the Democrats and I think there is a very good chance even the more conservative democrats would back it because they would see a massive increase in their personal power.

Maybe, but that would be a VERY drastic step that would dramatically change how the US functions. Imagine if Trump really COULD have repealed the Affordable Care Act on day one of his term. How is anyone going to make any kind of long-term plan, knowing that anything and everything can be upended if a party manages to get a simply majority in each branch?

But that's a different topic.

While the existence of such a district is set by the constitution, the size and location are set by congress. Specifically in the The Residence act. Legally there is nothing stopping congress from reducing the size of the district to only encompass the Mall or even just Capitol Hill and we know this because they have reduced the size of federal district before and the only party that would have standing in giving the land to the people of DC as a new state wouldn't dispute it because Maryland, pointedly does not want the land back.

The first part is true. The second? Not at all clear.

The constitutionality of the retrocession has been called into question. The contract clause found in Article One of the United States Constitution prohibits states from breaching contracts to which they are themselves a party. By annexing Alexandria in 1847, Virginia may have breached its contractual obligation to "forever cede and relinquish" the territory for use as the permanent seat of the United States government.[22] President William Howard Taft also believed the retrocession to be unconstitutional and tried to have the land given back to the District.[19]

The Supreme Court of the United States has never issued a firm opinion on whether the retrocession of the Virginia portion of the District of Columbia was constitutional. In the 1875 case of Phillips v. Payne the Supreme Court held that Virginia had de facto jurisdiction over the area returned by Congress in 1847, and dismissed the tax case brought by the plaintiff. The court, however, did not rule on the core constitutional matter of the retrocession.

So I suspect we're back to the Nine wise men.

That actually makes the case stronger, not weaker as it means that not even Maryland has standing. No Standing, no case.

And there's another problem: the Twenty Third Amendment.

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

If you reduce DC to the mall, who votes for the Representatives?

I still don't think this is as easy as you make it out.

The actual proposal is slightly larger and the small number of people in the actual proposed area that still make up the federal district would vote for them.

[Darth Wedgius]

Well, Washington D.C. is well known to be a stellar example of success as a metropolitan area. I can see why we'd want to give them greater influence over national affairs.

[Draco Dracul]

Well, Washington D.C. is well known to be a stellar example of success as a metropolitan area. I can see why we'd want to give them greater influence over national affairs.

That's kind of an odd comment as the majority of power in running DCs local government is still held in the power of the federal government.

[Darth Wedgius]

Well, Washington D.C. is well known to be a stellar example of success as a metropolitan area. I can see why we'd want to give them greater influence over national affairs.

That's kind of an odd comment as the majority of power in running DCs local government is still held in the power of the federal government.

From WIkipedia:

A locally elected mayor and a 13‑member council have governed the District since 1973. However, Congress maintains supreme authority over the city and may overturn local laws.

[Draco Dracul]

Thank you for backing up my claim.

[Darth Wedgius]

Thank you for backing up my claim.

I'm happy to let people interpret that for themselves.