Jump to content

House, Senate set to vote on DC statehood


Buzzard
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-set-to-vote-on-dc-statehood-but-all-eyes-are-on-the-senate/ar-BB1fVsOb

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/washington-dc-51st-state-bill-senate-democrats/

 

It's plain to see that Pelosi and Schumer are stealing the country with a blatant power grab!

 

And the Main Stream Media isn't even trying to hide it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't they have to change the US Constitution to do this? And wouldn't that mean 2/3rds of the states have to agree

 

To repeal the 23rd Amendment, one would think so. But it's 2/3 vote in both House and Senate (or 2/3's of the state legislatures calling for a constitutional convention). Then 3/4 of the states would have to ratify it.

 

Which begs the question, how can D.C. statehood even be granted without the 23rd Amendment being repealed prior?

 

I will gladly defer to anyone with the legal savvy to know.

 

 

https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/amending-the-u-s-constitution.aspx

Edited by springfield shooter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Constitution? What's a Constitution?! This is the new Democratic States of Amerika.

 

Biden, Pelosi and Schumer are flushing the Constitution down the toilet!

 

Don't you folks remember the election we just went through? Was THAT in any way Constitutional?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wouldn't they have to change the US Constitution to do this? And wouldn't that mean 2/3rds of the states have to agree

 

To repeal the 23rd Amendment, one would think so. But it's 2/3 vote in both House and Senate (or 2/3's of the state legislatures calling for a constitutional convention). Then 3/4 of the states would have to ratify it.

 

Which begs the question, how can D.C. statehood even be granted without the 23rd Amendment being repealed prior?

 

I will gladly defer to anyone with the legal savvy to know.

 

 

https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/amending-the-u-s-constitution.aspx

 

How would an amendment giving representation to a district prevent the district from ceasing to exist?

Blatant power grab for sure, but I don't see how they'd have to get rid of that amendment to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Wouldn't they have to change the US Constitution to do this? And wouldn't that mean 2/3rds of the states have to agree

 

To repeal the 23rd Amendment, one would think so. But it's 2/3 vote in both House and Senate (or 2/3's of the state legislatures calling for a constitutional convention). Then 3/4 of the states would have to ratify it.

 

Which begs the question, how can D.C. statehood even be granted without the 23rd Amendment being repealed prior?

 

I will gladly defer to anyone with the legal savvy to know.

 

 

https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/amending-the-u-s-constitution.aspx

 

How would an amendment giving representation to a district prevent the district from ceasing to exist?

Blatant power grab for sure, but I don't see how they'd have to get rid of that amendment to do it.

 

I see your point. But if the legislation for statehood renders the amendment moot, why does it (according to the MSN article) call for repealing it?

 

I'm obviously no expert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be short or snippy with the members here, if it sounded that way, I apologize.

 

But since the Dems have seized power after what was called an election, they've been playing fast and loose with the laws of the land. Look at how some Dem state governors changed the election laws on the fly, under the auspices of safety due to the virus. And even though this was not conforming to election laws, the election results were accepted.

 

So any expectation involving the Constitution, State or Federal law, goes right out the window with the current Administration and Congress. And very soon, I fear, the Supreme Court. In short, all bets are off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Wouldn't they have to change the US Constitution to do this? And wouldn't that mean 2/3rds of the states have to agree

 

To repeal the 23rd Amendment, one would think so. But it's 2/3 vote in both House and Senate (or 2/3's of the state legislatures calling for a constitutional convention). Then 3/4 of the states would have to ratify it.

 

Which begs the question, how can D.C. statehood even be granted without the 23rd Amendment being repealed prior?

 

I will gladly defer to anyone with the legal savvy to know.

 

 

https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/amending-the-u-s-constitution.aspx

 

How would an amendment giving representation to a district prevent the district from ceasing to exist?

Blatant power grab for sure, but I don't see how they'd have to get rid of that amendment to do it.

 

My understanding is that DC statehood bill they've passed actually creates a smaller federal district within the new state, effectively meaning they get 3 additional electoral votes (for the new DC state) on top of the 3 they already have (for the now-smaller federal district)

 

B3-GY594_fallba_APP_20200626101426.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I say if they get statehood then southern Illinois should also.

We can take southern most Illinois, western Kentucky and southeast Missouri and make a new state since these areas have more in common than they do with the rest of their respective states

 

Why would anyone from Missouri or Kentucky want to divide out of their state....... theyre both conservative states

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly..... everytime the discussion of Illiinois splitting comes up it all boils down to 1 thing.....

 

If you take Chicago away the rest of the state could not financially survive...... you would have to have a really detailed and very long crooked state line to make it work

 

for instance.......take Chicago away and there isnt enough tax revenue in the entire state at 100% tax rate to pay the welfare in St Clair county (east st louis, cahokia, granite city, madision, etc)

 

you could certainly break off the southern portion if you included St Clair county in the northern state

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I say if they get statehood then southern Illinois should also.

We can take southern most Illinois, western Kentucky and southeast Missouri and make a new state since these areas have more in common than they do with the rest of their respective states

 

Why would anyone from Missouri or Kentucky want to divide out of their state....... theyre both conservative states

 

Because folks in these areas feel left out of their states politics just like we do down here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would an amendment giving representation to a district prevent the district from ceasing to exist?

Blatant power grab for sure, but I don't see how they'd have to get rid of that amendment to do it.

The Constitution states that only States can have representation in the House and Senate. So either way there has to be an Amendment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How would an amendment giving representation to a district prevent the district from ceasing to exist?

Blatant power grab for sure, but I don't see how they'd have to get rid of that amendment to do it.

The Constitution states that only States can have representation in the House and Senate. So either way there has to be an Amendment.

 

That's the whole point of making DC a state: to give them that representation without an amendment

 

The 23rd Amendment grants the district 3 votes in the Electoral College, and with the seat of government remaining in the smaller federal enclave, those 3 electoral votes would remain with the federal district, to be apportioned however Congress directs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if passed, I think that several states would sue on the basis of Article I, section 8 of the Constitution which reads in part:

 

"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, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

 

The district was established as the seat of government. The intention was that no state would be the seat of the national government.

 

Edited to change "the no state" to "that no state" in the last sentence.

Edited by Quiet Observer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if passed, I think that several states would sue on the basis of Article I, section 8 of the Constitution which reads in part:

 

"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, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

 

The district was established as the seat of government. The intention was the no state would be the seat of the national government.

 

Texas is already on top of this

 

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2021/Press/DC%20Statehood%20letter%20as%20sent%20(02539672xD2C78)%20(002).pdf

 

I like thier initial arguments, first that the Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to create a new state from the very same land they set aside and used to create the Federal District. Second they argue that the Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to reduce the Federal District to essentially just the Federal buildings and parks as there is more to the seat of the Federal government than just a few buildings and parks, the 23rd actually ads credibility to this argument when it declared the district (as a whole) as the seat of the Federal government. They also argue that if allowed to happen Washington DC would not enter the union on equal ground and would forever be a state run by the very same people running the Federal government with all sorts of conflicts of interest and could not function independently as a state on equal ground with the other states aka basically the entire reason our founding fathers created the unique district in the first place.

 

I also would argue that the 23rd does come into play, that being if they reduce DC to essentialy just the buildings and parks then why and what justification is there for the district to have their own electoral votes? How is that anything short of a conflict of interest in itself?

 

Sorry but the people that reside and move to Washington DC are fully aware that it's not a state, they are no forced to live there instead they accept living there and thus they accept the downfalls and benefits that both come with living there by choice.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Even if passed, I think that several states would sue on the basis of Article I, section 8 of the Constitution which reads in part:

 

"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, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

 

The district was established as the seat of government. The intention was the no state would be the seat of the national government.

 

Texas is already on top of this

 

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2021/Press/DC%20Statehood%20letter%20as%20sent%20(02539672xD2C78)%20(002).pdf

 

I like thier initial arguments, first that the Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to create a new state from the very same land they set aside and used to create the Federal District. Second they argue that the Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to reduce the Federal District to essentially just the Federal buildings and parks as there is more to the seat of the Federal government than just a few buildings and parks, the 23rd actually ads credibility to this argument when it declared the district (as a whole) as the seat of the Federal government. They also argue that if allowed to happen Washington DC would not enter the union on equal ground and would forever be a state run by the very same people running the Federal government with all sorts of conflicts of interest and could not function independently as a state on equal ground with the other states aka basically the entire reason our founding fathers created the unique district in the first place.

 

I also would argue that the 23rd does come into play, that being if they reduce DC to essentialy just the buildings and parks then why and what justification is there for the district to have their own electoral votes? How is that anything short of a conflict of interest in itself?

 

Sorry but the people that reside and move to Washington DC are fully aware that it's not a state, they are no forced to live there instead they accept living there and thus they accept the downfalls and benefits that both come with living there by choice.

 

giphy-downsized.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Even if passed, I think that several states would sue on the basis of Article I, section 8 of the Constitution which reads in part:

 

"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, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

 

The district was established as the seat of government. The intention was the no state would be the seat of the national government.

 

Texas is already on top of this

 

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2021/Press/DC%20Statehood%20letter%20as%20sent%20(02539672xD2C78)%20(002).pdf

 

I like thier initial arguments, first that the Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to create a new state from the very same land they set aside and used to create the Federal District. Second they argue that the Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to reduce the Federal District to essentially just the Federal buildings and parks as there is more to the seat of the Federal government than just a few buildings and parks, the 23rd actually ads credibility to this argument when it declared the district (as a whole) as the seat of the Federal government. They also argue that if allowed to happen Washington DC would not enter the union on equal ground and would forever be a state run by the very same people running the Federal government with all sorts of conflicts of interest and could not function independently as a state on equal ground with the other states aka basically the entire reason our founding fathers created the unique district in the first place.

 

I also would argue that the 23rd does come into play, that being if they reduce DC to essentialy just the buildings and parks then why and what justification is there for the district to have their own electoral votes? How is that anything short of a conflict of interest in itself?

 

Sorry but the people that reside and move to Washington DC are fully aware that it's not a state, they are no forced to live there instead they accept living there and thus they accept the downfalls and benefits that both come with living there by choice.

 

SCOTUS "no standing"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's the whole point of making DC a state: to give them that representation without an amendment

Can't make DC a state without an Amendment, because DC was created by the Constitution and no mere law can change that fact.

 

They'd be reducing the size of the district, not eliminating it. The size has been reduced before without an amendment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...