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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opposition to D.C. statehood is pretty much the same as the opposition was to Alaska and Hawaii statehood ... don't want to add liberals (anti-segregationist, pro-civil rights, etc, etc.) to Congress. "Legitimate reason" is in the eye of the beholder.

As I re-read our Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), I'm reminded there's a Federalist argument to support D.C. statehood ... the Constitution doesn't set a MINIMUM size for the Seat of the Government of the United States!

SHRINK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH D.C. STATEHOOD!!!

While it doesn’t set a minimum size, they can’t turn it into a island completely surrounded by DC or you completely defeat a lot of the protections. SO how do you draw a seat that isn’t an island and that doesn’t include at least some residential areas?

Serious question to the PP or anyone else that knows the answer: what "protections" is he referring to, and how would any plausible state boundary change that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps people have missed that Wyoming and Vermont have less residents?

What’s your point? Vermont wouldn’t become a state today. Wyoming actually provides a lot through oil and gas drilling. So even though the amount of residents isn’t high, the tax dollars are.

In fiscal 2018, Wyoming paid $4,930,650 in federal tax revenue. The District of Columbia paid $28,443,717:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state#Fiscal_Year_2018

If we start doing stuff like this, Fairfax County is more qualified to be a state. How about North Virginia?

Fairfax County is already part of a state. This is by far the dumbest argument on here and it’s full of dumb ones. Residents of VA already get Congressional representation. Can anyone really be this dumb?

[Anonymous]

Fairfax County has a larger population than my former home state of Delaware.

I’d be fine teaming up with DC to form a state. The state of VA treats NoVA like shit anyway. We’re just their cash cow

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps people have missed that Wyoming and Vermont have less residents?

So what.

DC is the 20th largest city in the US. Why should it be a state and not NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philly, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville, Fort Worth, San Francisco, Columbus, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Seattle, or Denver?

Because unlike NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philly, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville, Fort Worth, San Francisco, Columbus, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Seattle, or Denver, which are all parts of states and have representation in Congress, DC is not part of a state and does not have representation in Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps people have missed that Wyoming and Vermont have less residents?

So what.

DC is the 20th largest city in the US. Why should it be a state and not NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philly, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville, Fort Worth, San Francisco, Columbus, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Seattle, or Denver?

Because unlike NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philly, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville, Fort Worth, San Francisco, Columbus, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Seattle, or Denver, which are all parts of states and have representation in Congress, DC is not part of a state and does not have representation in Congress.

So, carve out the part with government buildings (specifically the Mall, Capitol, White House,. Let the rest revert back to Maryland. Why should a city get to be a state?

In any case, wouldn't there need to be a consitutional amendment?

[Anonymous]

Why should Wyoming and Vermont get to be states with less residents than DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps people have missed that Wyoming and Vermont have less residents?

So what.

DC is the 20th largest city in the US. Why should it be a state and not NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philly, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville, Fort Worth, San Francisco, Columbus, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Seattle, or Denver?

Because unlike NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philly, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville, Fort Worth, San Francisco, Columbus, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Seattle, or Denver, which are all parts of states and have representation in Congress, DC is not part of a state and does not have representation in Congress.

So, carve out the part with government buildings (specifically the Mall, Capitol, White House,. Let the rest revert back to Maryland. Why should a city get to be a state?

In any case, wouldn't there need to be a consitutional amendment?

Why? We've added states without constitutional amendments before. And we've taken land away from DC without an amendment.

It's true that most current proposals would lead to a situation where it would make sense to repeal the 23rd amendment, although you wouldn't have to...

[Anonymous]

As a practical matter, creating a moderately-large seat of government without voting rights was a bad idea. I realize DC grew larger than originally expected, but Georgetown and Alexandria already existed at the time DC was established. It should have been clear it was a bad idea to include those areas in DC.

Had this problem been rectified earlier, retrocession back to Maryland would have been the clearly sensible choice. But there's over 200 years separating DC from Maryland- it doesn't make sense to force them back together now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opposition to D.C. statehood is pretty much the same as the opposition was to Alaska and Hawaii statehood ... don't want to add liberals (anti-segregationist, pro-civil rights, etc, etc.) to Congress. "Legitimate reason" is in the eye of the beholder.

As I re-read our Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), I'm reminded there's a Federalist argument to support D.C. statehood ... the Constitution doesn't set a MINIMUM size for the Seat of the Government of the United States!

SHRINK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH D.C. STATEHOOD!!!

While it doesn’t set a minimum size, they can’t turn it into a island completely surrounded by DC or you completely defeat a lot of the protections. SO how do you draw a seat that isn’t an island and that doesn’t include at least some residential areas?

Serious question to the PP or anyone else that knows the answer: what "protections" is he referring to, and how would any plausible state boundary change that?

One big concern is the ability of a single state to effectively shut down the federal government by, for instance, closing down roadways and other transportation routes into the federal seat to block Congress from reconvening. DC is bordered by two states and has access to a waterway, so Virginia or Maryland could get into as much of a snit as it wanted and the government could still function.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opposition to D.C. statehood is pretty much the same as the opposition was to Alaska and Hawaii statehood ... don't want to add liberals (anti-segregationist, pro-civil rights, etc, etc.) to Congress. "Legitimate reason" is in the eye of the beholder.

As I re-read our Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), I'm reminded there's a Federalist argument to support D.C. statehood ... the Constitution doesn't set a MINIMUM size for the Seat of the Government of the United States!

SHRINK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH D.C. STATEHOOD!!!

While it doesn’t set a minimum size, they can’t turn it into a island completely surrounded by DC or you completely defeat a lot of the protections. SO how do you draw a seat that isn’t an island and that doesn’t include at least some residential areas?

Serious question to the PP or anyone else that knows the answer: what "protections" is he referring to, and how would any plausible state boundary change that?

One big concern is the ability of a single state to effectively shut down the federal government by, for instance, closing down roadways and other transportation routes into the federal seat to block Congress from reconvening. DC is bordered by two states and has access to a waterway, so Virginia or Maryland could get into as much of a snit as it wanted and the government could still function.

I can't tell if that's a serious concern. Any proposal would seem to keep paths into DC from both Maryland and Virginia, as well as at least a theoretical route from the Potomac. How is that particularly different than today?

It seems like an awfully contrived concern...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opposition to D.C. statehood is pretty much the same as the opposition was to Alaska and Hawaii statehood ... don't want to add liberals (anti-segregationist, pro-civil rights, etc, etc.) to Congress. "Legitimate reason" is in the eye of the beholder.

As I re-read our Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), I'm reminded there's a Federalist argument to support D.C. statehood ... the Constitution doesn't set a MINIMUM size for the Seat of the Government of the United States!

SHRINK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH D.C. STATEHOOD!!!

While it doesn’t set a minimum size, they can’t turn it into a island completely surrounded by DC or you completely defeat a lot of the protections. SO how do you draw a seat that isn’t an island and that doesn’t include at least some residential areas?

Serious question to the PP or anyone else that knows the answer: what "protections" is he referring to, and how would any plausible state boundary change that?

One big concern is the ability of a single state to effectively shut down the federal government by, for instance, closing down roadways and other transportation routes into the federal seat to block Congress from reconvening. DC is bordered by two states and has access to a waterway, so Virginia or Maryland could get into as much of a snit as it wanted and the government could still function.

I can't tell if that's a serious concern. Any proposal would seem to keep paths into DC from both Maryland and Virginia, as well as at least a theoretical route from the Potomac. How is that particularly different than today?

It seems like an awfully contrived concern...

What kind of map are you envisioning that would allow the White House and Congress direct access to Maryland and Virginia without passing through The state of DC, doesn’t include any residential areas and would provide a contiguous state for DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opposition to D.C. statehood is pretty much the same as the opposition was to Alaska and Hawaii statehood ... don't want to add liberals (anti-segregationist, pro-civil rights, etc, etc.) to Congress. "Legitimate reason" is in the eye of the beholder.

As I re-read our Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), I'm reminded there's a Federalist argument to support D.C. statehood ... the Constitution doesn't set a MINIMUM size for the Seat of the Government of the United States!

SHRINK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH D.C. STATEHOOD!!!

While it doesn’t set a minimum size, they can’t turn it into a island completely surrounded by DC or you completely defeat a lot of the protections. SO how do you draw a seat that isn’t an island and that doesn’t include at least some residential areas?

Serious question to the PP or anyone else that knows the answer: what "protections" is he referring to, and how would any plausible state boundary change that?

One big concern is the ability of a single state to effectively shut down the federal government by, for instance, closing down roadways and other transportation routes into the federal seat to block Congress from reconvening. DC is bordered by two states and has access to a waterway, so Virginia or Maryland could get into as much of a snit as it wanted and the government could still function.

I can't tell if that's a serious concern. Any proposal would seem to keep paths into DC from both Maryland and Virginia, as well as at least a theoretical route from the Potomac. How is that particularly different than today?

It seems like an awfully contrived concern...

What kind of map are you envisioning that would allow the White House and Congress direct access to Maryland and Virginia without passing through The state of DC, doesn’t include any residential areas and would provide a contiguous state for DC?

As for contrived, given the things that have gone on at state levels recently (e.g., state legislatures trying to strip power from the governorship before the opposing party takes office, minority party legislators going’s into hiding and having to be hunted down by law enforcement so that the state legislature can do it’s job), I don’t think it’s contrived anymore to imagine a state trying to shut down the federal government to prevent it from doing something the state finds abhorrent.

[Anonymous]

It just seems silly to let a small-ish city become a state with equal power to Texas, Ca, FL, etc.

Yes there are a couple other small population states, but that doesn’t fix the logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It just seems silly to let a small-ish city become a state with equal power to Texas, Ca, FL, etc.

Yes there are a couple other small population states, but that doesn’t fix the logic.

Well it fixes the problem of not having representation. If you don’t like small states having 2 senators, let’s fix that too. But first let’s give DC representation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opposition to D.C. statehood is pretty much the same as the opposition was to Alaska and Hawaii statehood ... don't want to add liberals (anti-segregationist, pro-civil rights, etc, etc.) to Congress. "Legitimate reason" is in the eye of the beholder.

As I re-read our Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), I'm reminded there's a Federalist argument to support D.C. statehood ... the Constitution doesn't set a MINIMUM size for the Seat of the Government of the United States!

SHRINK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH D.C. STATEHOOD!!!

While it doesn’t set a minimum size, they can’t turn it into a island completely surrounded by DC or you completely defeat a lot of the protections. SO how do you draw a seat that isn’t an island and that doesn’t include at least some residential areas?

Serious question to the PP or anyone else that knows the answer: what "protections" is he referring to, and how would any plausible state boundary change that?

One big concern is the ability of a single state to effectively shut down the federal government by, for instance, closing down roadways and other transportation routes into the federal seat to block Congress from reconvening. DC is bordered by two states and has access to a waterway, so Virginia or Maryland could get into as much of a snit as it wanted and the government could still function.

I can't tell if that's a serious concern. Any proposal would seem to keep paths into DC from both Maryland and Virginia, as well as at least a theoretical route from the Potomac. How is that particularly different than today?

It seems like an awfully contrived concern...

What kind of map are you envisioning that would allow the White House and Congress direct access to Maryland and Virginia without passing through The state of DC, doesn’t include any residential areas and would provide a contiguous state for DC?

I should have said Columbia, rather than Maryland. You'd still retain entry points from two different states, plus the river.

As for the map, why not just keep the National Mall and East Potomac Park in DC? That would give you multiple river crossings by road and rail, be contiguous, and have no residential areas I'm aware of (besides the WH).