DC Statehood

[Larry]

Well, and then there is that pesky fact that DC actually is a city, not a state. 
 

But hey. If you try to draw untrue parallels to a fact, then it stops being a fact. I'm sure that's a rule, somewhere. 

[Captain Wiggles]

If cities aren't states explain the existence of city-states? 🤪

[PokerPacker]

The Vatican is a city, not a country!

[Larry]

Analogies are like farts.  

If you have to force it, it's probably crap.  

[Captain Wiggles]

 

🤷‍♂️

[bearrock]

12 hours ago, Larry said:

Well, and then there is that pesky fact that DC actually is a city, not a state. 

 

Why is a city and a state mutually exclusive?

[Ball Security]

How can Australia be a continent when it is a country?

[Larry]

22 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Why is a city and a state mutually exclusive?

Why is a person and a state mutually exclusive?  
 

They simply are not the same thing. 
 

Yes, there may occasionally occur, circumstances in which it's desirable to grant something legal status as something else. To treat a church as it's own country. To treat a building as if it's part of a different country. 
 

Hawaii is vastly smaller than any other US state. At least in non-colonial times. But then, it's an island. You either call it it's own state, or you combine it with some other state that's thousands of miles away. 
 

There is no reason why the map of the US needs to include a city that's treated as if it were a state. 
 

Waving a magic wand and declaring DC to be a separate state, is not equality. It's granting it a special status, which grants it grossly disproportionate impact on our national politics. 
 

This disproportionate impact is, in fact, virtually the sole motivation for pushing this notion. Just look at the immediate rejection of the notion of granting DC equal impact. 
 

Almost the entire push behind this drive, is simply the liberal version of "sticking it to the libs". It's "hey, we have 50% of Congress, and a tiebreaker. So let's use that power so we can change the rules of our government, to give my team more power."

 

Sorry. This thread has simply convinced me that maybe 90% (maybe 99%) of this issue, is people who would reverse their opinions, if DC voted R instead of D. 

Edited May 3, 2021 by Larry

[Ball Security]

10 minutes ago, Larry said:

Why is a person and a state mutually exclusive?  
 

They simply are not the same thing. 
 

Yes, there may occasionally occur, circumstances in which it's desirable to grant something legal status as something else. To treat a church as it's own country. To treat a building as if it's part of a different country. 
 

Hawaii is vastly smaller than any other US state. At least in non-colonial times. But then, it's an island. You either call it it's own state, or you combine it with some other state that's thousands of miles away. 
 

There is no reason why the map of the US needs to include a city that's treated as if it were a state. 
 

Waving a magic wand and declaring DC to be a separate state, is not equality. It's granting it a special status, which grants it grossly disproportionate impact on our national politics. 
 

This disproportionate impact is, in fact, virtually the sole motivation for pushing this notion. Just look at the immediate rejection of the notion of granting DC equal impact. 
 

Almost the entire push behind this drive, is simply the liberal version of "sticking it to the libs". It's "hey, we have 50% of Congress, and a tiebreaker. So let's use that power so we can change the rules of our government, to give my team more power."

 

Sorry. This thread has simply convinced me that maybe 90% (maybe 99%) of this issue, is people who would reverse their opinions, if DC voted R instead of D. 

Hawaii is not vastly smaller than any other US State.  C’mon man.  Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware.

[bearrock]

26 minutes ago, Larry said:

Why is a person and a state mutually exclusive?  
 

They simply are not the same thing. 

 

You state dispositively that DC cannot be a state because it's a city.  Yet you provide no reasoning, it is simply a declarative statement.  There's no legal infirmity I'm aware of and when looked at historically and internationally, there are clear precedents of city-states, yet you simply declare that city and states are different therefore they are mutually exclusive (which I assume you yourself know as a completely meritless reasoning.  If different necessarily meant mutually exclusive, we wouldn't need the mutually exclusive category to begin with).

 

27 minutes ago, Larry said:

Yes, there may occasionally occur, circumstances in which it's desirable to grant something legal status as something else. To treat a church as it's own country. To treat a building as if it's part of a different country. 
 

Hawaii is vastly smaller than any other US state. At least in non-colonial times. But then, it's an island. You either call it it's own state, or you combine it with some other state that's thousands of miles away. 

 

And this is one of those times where people are saying granting a city legal status as a state is needed.  In a perfect world, we never would've created a situation that deprived 700k+ of full representation to begin with.  But that ship has sailed.  Now we're saddled with choices that will leave some people unhappy.  Every reasonable person should be able to agree that the priority is remedying the injustice of lack of suffrage.  We are left with the option of creating a city state vs forcing together DC with MD or VA, which none of the parties involved actually want.  If there is no independent barrier other than some non-legal, purely domestic precedent as a barrier to a city-state, I don't see any possible reason why forcing people into an unwanted merging scenario is the better option (which is the same point I raised earlier in this thread which never got answered).

 

33 minutes ago, Larry said:

There is no reason why the map of the US needs to include a city that's treated as if it were a state. 
 

Waving a magic wand and declaring DC to be a separate state, is not equality. It's granting it a special status, which grants it grossly disproportionate impact on our national politics.

 

Disproportionate impact in the Senate is unavoidable under the US Constitution.  If DC becomes a separate state, its residents wield disproportionately larger impact compared to every other US citizen save for people in smaller states.  

 

If DC is subsumed into MD or VA, DC residents would wield disproportionately smaller impact than every other US citizen save for people in states larger than the new MD or VA.  It's not special status.  It's the status every newly admitted state enjoyed since the founding of the country.

 

38 minutes ago, Larry said:

This disproportionate impact is, in fact, virtually the sole motivation for pushing this notion. Just look at the immediate rejection of the notion of granting DC equal impact. 
 

Almost the entire push behind this drive, is simply the liberal version of "sticking it to the libs". It's "hey, we have 50% of Congress, and a tiebreaker. So let's use that power so we can change the rules of our government, to give my team more power."

 

Sorry. This thread has simply convinced me that maybe 90% (maybe 99%) of this issue, is people who would reverse their opinions, if DC voted R instead of D. 

 

You can attack the motivation all you want (which neither of us can prove or disprove as a singular monolithic driver of either side), but there is no debating the merit of full suffrage for DC.  And then we are left with the two choices that's been debated.  Set aside all the motivations in the world, the point still comes down to which is preferable. 

 

Personally, as a resident of VA, I don't want DC to dilute my national voting power nor do I want the attendant headache of merging a completely different legal approach DC and VA takes when it comes to the many everyday life matters.  Tell me why the Federal Government gets to override VA's objection.

[tshile]

I find this exercise annoying.

 

we get it larry. It’s a city. And a city and a state are different things. 
 

in fact, if they weren’t, we wouldn’t be having this discussion about how dc is a city and it’s people do not have representation the way everyone else in the country has

 

must we do this every day on this topic?

 

seems dumb. 

Edited May 3, 2021 by tshile

[CousinsCowgirl84]

4 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Waving a magic wand and declaring DC to be a separate state, is not equality. It's granting it a special status, which grants it grossly disproportionate impact on our national politics. 

 

 

How so? Because it only takes up 5px on your computer screen? DC is big. It’s got people.  The Congress doesn’t represent the grass, it represents the people who walk on it (concrete in this case).

 

To put it another way, do you consider Wyoming to be a city? 

Quote

Almost the entire push behind this drive, is simply the liberal version of "sticking it to the libs". It's "hey, we have 50% of Congress, and a tiebreaker. So let's use that power so we can change the rules of our government, to give my team more power."
 

 

 

Didn’t republicans decide to enact the nuclear action for stuff they wanted? The democrats would be feckless if they didn’t use the power republicans granted them.

 

[quote]
Sorry. This thread has simply convinced me that maybe 90% (maybe 99%) of this issue, is people who would reverse their opinions, if DC voted R instead of D. 

[/quote]
 

its like that for 99 percent of issues.....

 

Edited May 3, 2021 by CousinsCowgirl84

[mammajamma]

22 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

How so? Because it only takes up 5px on your computer screen? DC is big. It’s got people.  The Congress doesn’t represent the grass, it represents the people who walk on it (concrete in this case).

 

exactly. some "against" people are just arguing that land is more important than people for some reason

[JCB]

If your "argument" comes down to pedantry, you don't actually have an argument. So when did the "District" referred to in the Constitution have the status of "city" conferred upon it, and was this too a Congressional overreach? Are we also uncomfortable with home rule? There have already been manifold changes to the ol' hometown, so let's stop pretending this is an issue of fidelity to tradition or anything remotely similar.

[tshile]

Also worth pointing out the dc statehood thing has been a thing for a long time

 

not just the result of the 2020 elections. 
 

edit: I think I remember there being a rallying cry for it during the campaigns...

Edited May 3, 2021 by tshile

[Jabbyrwock]

Just a stupid question since I don't know enough about this issue really.  Lets imagine DC became a state...would the federal government have to pay rent for its foot print?  I mean...all of the sudden there are an enormous amount of capital assets belonging to the national government that suddenly exist in a state and can't exactly be moved...although for some reason the pentagon moving down the road on a wide-load truck would be an interesting vision.

 

I guess I'm just wondering about the logistics.  Would the federal gov't bits just be carved out, or somehow grandfathered in and allowed to stay in perpetuity?  What happens if new buildings for the federal gov't need to be built?  Anyone know how it would actually work?

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Federal land is owned by the federal government, not the state it resides in.

[CobraCommander]

If a corporation is a person then a  city can be a state.

18 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

Just a stupid question since I don't know enough about this issue really.  Lets imagine DC became a state...would the federal government have to pay rent for its foot print?  I mean...all of the sudden there are an enormous amount of capital assets belonging to the national government that suddenly exist in a state and can't exactly be moved...although for some reason the pentagon moving down the road on a wide-load truck would be an interesting vision.

 

I guess I'm just wondering about the logistics.  Would the federal gov't bits just be carved out, or somehow grandfathered in and allowed to stay in perpetuity?  What happens if new buildings for the federal gov't need to be built?  Anyone know how it would actually work?

The Pentagon is in Virginia. In facts a lot of federal offices are to my knowledge. So maybe we can just strip Virginia of its statehood. 😂

Edited May 3, 2021 by Florgon79

[Captain Wiggles]

So much of the west and Alaska is Federal Land its not an issue. 

 

https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state

 

 

[Metalhead]

59 minutes ago, clietas said:

So much of the west and Alaska is Federal Land its not an issue. 

 

https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state

 

 

I was looking at this a couple days ago. I propose that all states with a majority of their land owned by the federal government lose their Senate and House reps...and still be taxed

[88Comrade2000]

Your All-Purpose Wonk’s Guide to Why D.C. Statehood Is So Hard

[China]

 

[tshile]

1 - why is he wearing that?

2 - I bet a lot of Capitol police don’t live in DC, and do have representation

 

[China]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

1 - why is he wearing that?

2 - I bet a lot of Capitol police don’t live in DC, and do have representation

 

 

1 - He has cancer

[tshile]

Oh. I think I remember seeing that. That sucks but thank you