DC statehood expand to include VA & MD suburbs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statehood is constitutional. Period.

The senate just won’t do it.

Not even close. You would need an amendment. People who think otherwise are nuts.

Debatable.

Do you say “you’re nuts” in an actual debate?

Did not know we are in a debate. But the issue is not a close case. People who say it is are thinking with their heart not their head -- so yes they are nuts. Why --- even if you had an argument for another Supreme Court -- which there is not -- no way this Supreme Court would ever do it. The only question is it 6-3 or 9-0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statehood is constitutional. Period.

The senate just won’t do it.

Not even close. You would need an amendment. People who think otherwise are nuts.

Is it Constitutional for the federal district to be reduced in size and the residential and commercial portions of DC to become a State?

Yes. Article I. Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution sets only a maximum size (“…not exceeding ten Miles square…”) for the federal “Seat of the Government of the United States”. Congress has the authority to redefine the borders of the federal district.
Congress did so, for instance, in 1846 when a portion of the original territory of the District of Columbia west of the Potomac River was retroceded to Virginia.


Dc.gov

Sure but that is not the question. The question is whether a federal district created by the Consitution can be altered and become a state when that was never authorized by the Conistution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statehood is constitutional. Period.

The senate just won’t do it.

Not even close. You would need an amendment. People who think otherwise are nuts.

Is it Constitutional for the federal district to be reduced in size and the residential and commercial portions of DC to become a State?

Yes. Article I. Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution sets only a maximum size (“…not exceeding ten Miles square…”) for the federal “Seat of the Government of the United States”. Congress has the authority to redefine the borders of the federal district.
Congress did so, for instance, in 1846 when a portion of the original territory of the District of Columbia west of the Potomac River was retroceded to Virginia.


Dc.gov

Yep. The constitution outlines a maximum size for the federal district. As evidenced by the retrocession of Alexandria and Arlington back to Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statehood is constitutional. Period.

The senate just won’t do it.

Not even close. You would need an amendment. People who think otherwise are nuts.

Is it Constitutional for the federal district to be reduced in size and the residential and commercial portions of DC to become a State?

Yes. Article I. Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution sets only a maximum size (“…not exceeding ten Miles square…”) for the federal “Seat of the Government of the United States”. Congress has the authority to redefine the borders of the federal district.
Congress did so, for instance, in 1846 when a portion of the original territory of the District of Columbia west of the Potomac River was retroceded to Virginia.


Dc.gov

Sure but that is not the question. The question is whether a federal district created by the Consitution can be altered and become a state when that was never authorized by the Conistution.

Thats what Amendments are for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm what about a compromise?

DC gets added, 3 EVs and 3 Dems added to congress and we give a Red state 6 extra seats in the house or just disperse them among red states?

Seems equal to me to counter act DC.

You already got that with the Dakotas, Wyoming and Montana.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Should DC absorb suburbs when it becomes a state? Seems like the district is having trouble enforcing residency requirements for agency heads and since most of the city workforce aka commuters lives in the suburbs?

You aren’t even a little funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:680k Dems added to the rolls would ensure no GOP ever touches Government House again. Good job Republicans lol.

Maybe half of the 680k are eligible to vote and even less are registered and/or reliable voters. However, you should not also lose sight of the fact that Maryland Democrats also don't want to deal with DC voters that would dilute the electoral strength of every other part of the state.

Montgomery, PG, Howard, and -- to a lesser extent -- Baltimore have already diluted the electoral strength of every other part of Maryland. Adding DC wouldn't change much.

Also, Larry Hogan was a fluke -- just like Charlie Baker in Massachusetts.

He wasn't...a fluke would be serving 1 term and getting boat raced in 2018.

Agree 100% No fluke. This Democrat will vote again for a moderate Republican, particularly at the state level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm what about a compromise?

DC gets added, 3 EVs and 3 Dems added to congress and we give a Red state 6 extra seats in the house or just disperse them among red states?

Seems equal to me to counter act DC.

Why does this make sense?

Taxpayers in the 50 states are already represented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statehood is constitutional. Period.

The senate just won’t do it.

Not even close. You would need an amendment. People who think otherwise are nuts.

Is it Constitutional for the federal district to be reduced in size and the residential and commercial portions of DC to become a State?

Yes. Article I. Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution sets only a maximum size (“…not exceeding ten Miles square…”) for the federal “Seat of the Government of the United States”. Congress has the authority to redefine the borders of the federal district.
Congress did so, for instance, in 1846 when a portion of the original territory of the District of Columbia west of the Potomac River was retroceded to Virginia.


Dc.gov

Sure but that is not the question. The question is whether a federal district created by the Consitution can be altered and become a state when that was never authorized by the Conistution.

Read again. It can be altered. It’s already happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statehood is constitutional. Period.

The senate just won’t do it.

Not even close. You would need an amendment. People who think otherwise are nuts.

Debatable.

Do you say “you’re nuts” in an actual debate?

Did not know we are in a debate. But the issue is not a close case. People who say it is are thinking with their heart not their head -- so yes they are nuts. Why --- even if you had an argument for another Supreme Court -- which there is not -- no way this Supreme Court would ever do it. The only question is it 6-3 or 9-0.

They’re thinking with their hearts only?

No. They’re looking at what Congress has the authority to do and has already done.

[Anonymous]

DC telling the people of NOVA what to do, and how they will live, and what they will accept.

Haha, bring it on. That would last five minutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:680k Dems added to the rolls would ensure no GOP ever touches Government House again. Good job Republicans lol.

Maybe half of the 680k are eligible to vote and even less are registered and/or reliable voters. However, you should not also lose sight of the fact that Maryland Democrats also don't want to deal with DC voters that would dilute the electoral strength of every other part of the state.

Montgomery, PG, Howard, and -- to a lesser extent -- Baltimore have already diluted the electoral strength of every other part of Maryland. Adding DC wouldn't change much.

Also, Larry Hogan was a fluke -- just like Charlie Baker in Massachusetts.

He wasn't...a fluke would be serving 1 term and getting boat raced in 2018.

Agree 100% No fluke. This Democrat will vote again for a moderate Republican, particularly at the state level.

I think the fluke was the GOP in MD and Mass. putting forth Hogan and Baker respectively to begin with, not that they were elected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:680k Dems added to the rolls would ensure no GOP ever touches Government House again. Good job Republicans lol.

Maybe half of the 680k are eligible to vote and even less are registered and/or reliable voters. However, you should not also lose sight of the fact that Maryland Democrats also don't want to deal with DC voters that would dilute the electoral strength of every other part of the state.

Montgomery, PG, Howard, and -- to a lesser extent -- Baltimore have already diluted the electoral strength of every other part of Maryland. Adding DC wouldn't change much.

Also, Larry Hogan was a fluke -- just like Charlie Baker in Massachusetts.

He wasn't...a fluke would be serving 1 term and getting boat raced in 2018.

Agree 100% No fluke. This Democrat will vote again for a moderate Republican, particularly at the state level.

I think the fluke was the GOP in MD and Mass. putting forth Hogan and Baker respectively to begin with, not that they were elected.

Massachusetts almost always has a republican gov.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:680k Dems added to the rolls would ensure no GOP ever touches Government House again. Good job Republicans lol.

Maybe half of the 680k are eligible to vote and even less are registered and/or reliable voters. However, you should not also lose sight of the fact that Maryland Democrats also don't want to deal with DC voters that would dilute the electoral strength of every other part of the state.

Montgomery, PG, Howard, and -- to a lesser extent -- Baltimore have already diluted the electoral strength of every other part of Maryland. Adding DC wouldn't change much.

Also, Larry Hogan was a fluke -- just like Charlie Baker in Massachusetts.

He wasn't...a fluke would be serving 1 term and getting boat raced in 2018.

Agree 100% No fluke. This Democrat will vote again for a moderate Republican, particularly at the state level.

I think the fluke was the GOP in MD and Mass. putting forth Hogan and Baker respectively to begin with, not that they were elected.

Massachusetts almost always has a republican gov.

They're about to make history as the first state to have a female Governor and female Lt. Governor elected.

[Anonymous]

Yay for retrocession!