Are there any legitimate reasons why someone would oppose DC statehood?

[Anonymous]

Because it is unconstitutional. It has nothing to do with white-black or rich-poor. It was a mismanaged decision made back in 1790. The powers that be could have prevented this by paying the families that resided on the District land to move off the land so they would have voting rights, but they didn't. So, now we have this tragic turmoil. No matter how much people scream, cry, curse, pray, raise hell, or whatever, Washington DC cannot become a state. It has NOTHING to do with Republican-Democrat, seats, power, whatever. It is unconstitutional and cannot be changed. If a President comes along and if Congress were to form enough support to make DC a state, it would be overturned by the United States Supreme Court as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What shocks me is the number of elected leaders who do not know the Constitution, or if they do know it, they disregard it (even though they took an oath to protect said Constitution).

I personally find it disgraceful that there are Americans living in the District of Columbia who cannot vote. BUT, what I find just as distasteful is that there are two easy viable ways to resolve this issue, but Mayor Bowser, Representative Holmes, and the citizens reject both options. Option #1 is too move out of DC, while option #2 is to have that part of DC returned to Maryland. If the land is returned to Maryland, Mayor Bowser could still form a city like government exactly like Falls Church City, Baltimore, and many other places. They would be a part of Maryland with Maryland benefits, but could be there own separate local city limit government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because it is unconstitutional. It has nothing to do with white-black or rich-poor. It was a mismanaged decision made back in 1790. The powers that be could have prevented this by paying the families that resided on the District land to move off the land so they would have voting rights, but they didn't. So, now we have this tragic turmoil. No matter how much people scream, cry, curse, pray, raise hell, or whatever, Washington DC cannot become a state. It has NOTHING to do with Republican-Democrat, seats, power, whatever. It is unconstitutional and cannot be changed. If a President comes along and if Congress were to form enough support to make DC a state, it would be overturned by the United States Supreme Court as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What shocks me is the number of elected leaders who do not know the Constitution, or if they do know it, they disregard it (even though they took an oath to protect said Constitution).

I personally find it disgraceful that there are Americans living in the District of Columbia who cannot vote. BUT, what I find just as distasteful is that there are two easy viable ways to resolve this issue, but Mayor Bowser, Representative Holmes, and the citizens reject both options. Option #1 is too move out of DC, while option #2 is to have that part of DC returned to Maryland. If the land is returned to Maryland, Mayor Bowser could still form a city like government exactly like Falls Church City, Baltimore, and many other places. They would be a part of Maryland with Maryland benefits, but could be there own separate local city limit government.

If you want to be pedantic, there's clearly nothing in the constitution that says that you can't carve out a portion of DC to create a new state. Presumably the only reason you're dismissing that option is because you don't want to give DC voters two senate seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because it is unconstitutional. It has nothing to do with white-black or rich-poor. It was a mismanaged decision made back in 1790. The powers that be could have prevented this by paying the families that resided on the District land to move off the land so they would have voting rights, but they didn't. So, now we have this tragic turmoil. No matter how much people scream, cry, curse, pray, raise hell, or whatever, Washington DC cannot become a state. It has NOTHING to do with Republican-Democrat, seats, power, whatever. It is unconstitutional and cannot be changed. If a President comes along and if Congress were to form enough support to make DC a state, it would be overturned by the United States Supreme Court as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What shocks me is the number of elected leaders who do not know the Constitution, or if they do know it, they disregard it (even though they took an oath to protect said Constitution).

I personally find it disgraceful that there are Americans living in the District of Columbia who cannot vote. BUT, what I find just as distasteful is that there are two easy viable ways to resolve this issue, but Mayor Bowser, Representative Holmes, and the citizens reject both options. Option #1 is too move out of DC, while option #2 is to have that part of DC returned to Maryland. If the land is returned to Maryland, Mayor Bowser could still form a city like government exactly like Falls Church City, Baltimore, and many other places. They would be a part of Maryland with Maryland benefits, but could be there own separate local city limit government.

Option 3: Carve out the White House, US Capitol, the Supreme Court, the House and Senate Office buildings and the National Mall and designate that the Federal City. Make the rest of it its own state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because it is unconstitutional. It has nothing to do with white-black or rich-poor. It was a mismanaged decision made back in 1790. The powers that be could have prevented this by paying the families that resided on the District land to move off the land so they would have voting rights, but they didn't. So, now we have this tragic turmoil. No matter how much people scream, cry, curse, pray, raise hell, or whatever, Washington DC cannot become a state. It has NOTHING to do with Republican-Democrat, seats, power, whatever. It is unconstitutional and cannot be changed. If a President comes along and if Congress were to form enough support to make DC a state, it would be overturned by the United States Supreme Court as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What shocks me is the number of elected leaders who do not know the Constitution, or if they do know it, they disregard it (even though they took an oath to protect said Constitution).

I personally find it disgraceful that there are Americans living in the District of Columbia who cannot vote. BUT, what I find just as distasteful is that there are two easy viable ways to resolve this issue, but Mayor Bowser, Representative Holmes, and the citizens reject both options. Option #1 is too move out of DC, while option #2 is to have that part of DC returned to Maryland. If the land is returned to Maryland, Mayor Bowser could still form a city like government exactly like Falls Church City, Baltimore, and many other places. They would be a part of Maryland with Maryland benefits, but could be there own separate local city limit government.

Maryland on numerous occasions has rejected the idea of retroceding the District into its state. Ergo, not a solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bozo Bowser is a darn good reason to oppose statehood for DC.

Are you more of a sexist pig or a racist pig? Hard to tell...

[Anonymous]

DC is too small to be a state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Other than not liking the way DC residents might vote? What could be the arguments against?

The city is already extremely over-represented in Congress, the vast majority of members of which live here for months on end.

If voting rights was really the issue, anyone living in DC has the option, by a $4.00 Metro ride, to move to MD or VA. I've lived in all three (DC, VA and MD) -- not a big deal -- and voting rights was never a consideration. Red herring.

[Anonymous]

As someone on the West Coast, my first thought is that there's a lot of good stuff that DC gets that the rest of the country doesn't get. For example, you have the Smithsonian museums that are way better than anything we have in the rest of the country. You also get paid WAY more for frankly less work than the rest of the country gets.

I'd be fine if they distribute the government departments/functions throughout cities in the rest of the country, distribute the museums and any other things like that that are supposed to be national facilities and services, and then let the surrounding states absorb the DC properties and its residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone on the West Coast, my first thought is that there's a lot of good stuff that DC gets that the rest of the country doesn't get. For example, you have the Smithsonian museums that are way better than anything we have in the rest of the country. You also get paid WAY more for frankly less work than the rest of the country gets.

I'd be fine if they distribute the government departments/functions throughout cities in the rest of the country, distribute the museums and any other things like that that are supposed to be national facilities and services, and then let the surrounding states absorb the DC properties and its residents.

You clearly high on something very strong if you think that doctors and lawyers do less work in DC than in California. It sounds like you just hate brown people. Sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than not liking the way DC residents might vote? What could be the arguments against?

The city is already extremely over-represented in Congress, the vast majority of members of which live here for months on end.

If voting rights was really the issue, anyone living in DC has the option, by a $4.00 Metro ride, to move to MD or VA. I've lived in all three (DC, VA and MD) -- not a big deal -- and voting rights was never a consideration. Red herring.

Right - cause I can call Moscow Mitch to assist with my veterans claims issues. Sorry that you take civics so lightly, guessing it’s your white male privilege?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone on the West Coast, my first thought is that there's a lot of good stuff that DC gets that the rest of the country doesn't get. For example, you have the Smithsonian museums that are way better than anything we have in the rest of the country. You also get paid WAY more for frankly less work than the rest of the country gets.

I'd be fine if they distribute the government departments/functions throughout cities in the rest of the country, distribute the museums and any other things like that that are supposed to be national facilities and services, and then let the surrounding states absorb the DC properties and its residents.

Lol. Thanks for the laugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than not liking the way DC residents might vote? What could be the arguments against?

The city is already extremely over-represented in Congress, the vast majority of members of which live here for months on end.

If voting rights was really the issue, anyone living in DC has the option, by a $4.00 Metro ride, to move to MD or VA. I've lived in all three (DC, VA and MD) -- not a big deal -- and voting rights was never a consideration. Red herring.

Right - cause I can call Moscow Mitch to assist with my veterans claims issues. Sorry that you take civics so lightly, guessing it’s your white male privilege?

Leaving aside your odd race and gender assumptions, you think DC should get two senators and a representative to take care of your veteran’s claim issues? Each senate office costs about $4 million, so figure $10 million total (4+4+2). Why don’t we just send you a bigger check so we can all save on taxes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than not liking the way DC residents might vote? What could be the arguments against?

The city is already extremely over-represented in Congress, the vast majority of members of which live here for months on end.

If voting rights was really the issue, anyone living in DC has the option, by a $4.00 Metro ride, to move to MD or VA. I've lived in all three (DC, VA and MD) -- not a big deal -- and voting rights was never a consideration. Red herring.

Right - cause I can call Moscow Mitch to assist with my veterans claims issues. Sorry that you take civics so lightly, guessing it’s your white male privilege?

Leaving aside your odd race and gender assumptions, you think DC should get two senators and a representative to take care of your veteran’s claim issues? Each senate office costs about $4 million, so figure $10 million total (4+4+2). Why don’t we just send you a bigger check so we can all save on taxes?

Not so odd, actually.

Why does Vermont get two senators and congressman? As you obviously don’t know (or care), half of the children in DC live in poverty. You can pretend that this not a consequence or lack of congressional representative, but assuming you have a conscience, but do you think Moscow Mitch devotes two seconds of his day thinking about them. His children who incidentally are DC statehood activists, think he was a shitty parent to them.

[Anonymous]

I've been a District resident for the majority of my life and I'm opposed to statehood. We're a city - a populated one - but share none of the characteristics of a state. No other city has statehood. Plus I've been waiting a lifetime for our local elected leaders to prove they are worthy of the responsibility of statehood and not continue our sad legacy of self-serving corruption. I care about job creation, good schools, and safe streets, and having statehood won't measurably improve those things. Given my low confidence in our Congress, I'm not sure giving leader-for-life EHN will make much of a difference for our local interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC is too small to be a state.

There are no consitutional requirements for designating a state, either by population or land mass.