D.C. Statehood and why it's problematic

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

We've obviously had discussions on this topic, on multiple occasions. I read this article on Politico which I thought it would be an interesting read for those of you who otherwise would not have come across it. It's clearly labeled to attract Bel, so I'm posting it for that reason alone.

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


https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/05/16/washington-dc-statehood-guide-constitutional-workaround-political-obstacles-488349

[Au165]

I’m in the, yes Puerto Rico/Guam (if they want it) and no D.C. group.

[*michaelsean*]

Having Don and Melania choose three electors would have been worth it.

[Belsnickel]

This is actually why I'm not a proponent of the federal enclave, route, actually. The amount of autonomy I advocate for DC is actually a small amount, not more than what it has now, to be honest. The only part I advocate for is that the residents of DC have representation in Congress. Now, for the sake of this particular article, I could formulate an argument in favor of carving out this enclave.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 lays out the authority of Congress over DC. However, DC is limited to ten square miles. Herein lies the problem with arguments that making DC a state is unconstitutional according to this clause. The current DC, which is smaller than it was at its creation because Virginia demanded their part back, is 68.34 square miles. So, really, constitutionally, Congress should not have the authority it has over 58.34 square miles of the district. I could argue that not only would a federal enclave be prudent, it would be absolutely essential given the unconstitutional nature of the current governance of the district.

Now, we could argue over whether the remaining 58.34 square miles be given back to Maryland, but we need to determine which parts. In addition, that still doesn't solve the problem of any citizens with a residence inside that ten square miles lacking representation. Good grief, in thinking about this article, I am realizing that the application of the 23rd Amendment is, itself, constitutionally contrary with nothing having been done to reconcile it. Technically speaking, only the people within the ten square miles are really entitled to vote for electors. This whole situation goes beyond just a statehood discussion.

It's too early for this, I need coffee.

[Au165]

(05-18-2021, 07:08 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is actually why I'm not a proponent of the federal enclave, route, actually. The amount of autonomy I advocate for DC is actually a small amount, not more than what it has now, to be honest. The only part I advocate for is that the residents of DC have representation in Congress. Now, for the sake of this particular article, I could formulate an argument in favor of carving out this enclave.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 lays out the authority of Congress over DC. However, DC is limited to ten square miles. Herein lies the problem with arguments that making DC a state is unconstitutional according to this clause. The current DC, which is smaller than it was at its creation because Virginia demanded their part back, is 68.34 square miles. So, really, constitutionally, Congress should not have the authority it has over 58.34 square miles of the district. I could argue that not only would a federal enclave be prudent, it would be absolutely essential given the unconstitutional nature of the current governance of the district.

Now, we could argue over whether the remaining 58.34 square miles be given back to Maryland, but we need to determine which parts. In addition, that still doesn't solve the problem of any citizens with a residence inside that ten square miles lacking representation. Good grief, in thinking about this article, I am realizing that the application of the 23rd Amendment is, itself, constitutionally contrary with nothing having been done to reconcile it. Technically speaking, only the people within the ten square miles are really entitled to vote for electors. This whole situation goes beyond just a statehood discussion.

It's too early for this, I need coffee.

Have you read about the Mississippi medical marijuana Supreme Court ruling? It is kind of one of these interesting paradoxes. They invalidated the voter-approved medical marijuana initiative because the state constitution allows for voter-passed initiatives but it requires a certain amount of voters from the state's five districts. The problem is they have only had four since 2003 which makes it impossible to meet, but also makes passing an initiative, which is allowed per the constitution, impossible. They have essentially invalidated the ability for voters to pass these initiatives, BUT more interestingly they have just nuked every voter passes initiative since 2003 once they are challenged. 

It is one of those things where the constitution contradicts itself which creates chaos.