DC can vote in Congress?!?!?

[Beerina]

The Senate, fancying itself a constitutional convention, decided the DC observer representative in Congress Shall Now Be A Voting One (http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/26/senate-approves-dc-voting-bill/). On actual laws.

Well, isn't that special?

Of course, some will begin the narrative sophistry that It's Only Fair They Can Vote On Laws Too. That's not the point.

The point is left as an exercise to the reader.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I would comment, but I wouldn't want to get in the way of you actually stating your position.

[Thunder]

D.C. should totally get at least one Congressman. That, or make the residents of Washington D.C. ineligible for the Federal income tax.

[Freddy]

D.C. should totally get at least one Congressman. That, or make the residents of Washington D.C. ineligible for the Federal income tax.

I think his beef is that the Senate is exceeding its constitutional powers by going about this the way they have.

[WildCat]

I think his beef is that the Senate is exceeding its constitutional powers by going about this the way they have.
Yep. The Constitution grants Representatives to the states and only the states. I don't see this withstanding court scrutiny.

As an aside, if DC gets a representative how about Puerto Rico? American Samoa? The US Virgin Islands? Overseas military bases?

[gumboot]

Yep. The Constitution grants Representatives to the states and only the states. I don't see this withstanding court scrutiny.

As an aside, if DC gets a representative how about Puerto Rico? American Samoa? The US Virgin Islands? Overseas military bases?


Unlike DC, the other US territories have their own governments and have a degree of self-determination. Citizens of Washington DC are somewhat unique amongst all US Citizens in that they have absolutely no say in how their government governs their lives.

Guam, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa all have their own locally elected governments, local legislature, and local judiciary.

[Cleon]

Unlike DC, the other US territories have their own governments and have a degree of self-determination. Citizens of Washington DC are somewhat unique amongst all US Citizens in that they have absolutely no say in how their government governs their lives.

Guam, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa all have their own locally elected governments, local legislature, and local judiciary.

DC has a mayor and an elected council.

[NobbyNobbs]

I have always found it ironic that "No taxation without representation", one of the most famous mottos of the American Revolution and the reason for fighting it, still applies in our country's capital over 200 years later.

[gumboot]

DC has a mayor and an elected council.

Well colour me stupid...

[gumboot]

I have always found it ironic that "No taxation without representation", one of the most famous mottos of the American Revolution and the reason for fighting it, still applies in our country's capital over 200 years later.

So basically Americans are, fundamentally, hypocrites. :D

[WildCat]

DC has a mayor and an elected council.
And by far the highest municipal workforce per capita of any city in the US.

[WildCat]

I have always found it ironic that "No taxation without representation", one of the most famous mottos of the American Revolution and the reason for fighting it, still applies in our country's capital over 200 years later.
The founders didn't want the country's Capitol to belong to any state.

If you think that's no longer a good reason 220 years later then change it properly via an amendment to the Constitution, not by vote of Congress.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yep. The Constitution grants Representatives to the states and only the states. I don't see this withstanding court scrutiny.

As an aside, if DC gets a representative how about Puerto Rico? American Samoa? The US Virgin Islands? Overseas military bases?

Do they pay the same taxes?

(Not facetious, I don't know)

[Roadtoad]

The founders didn't want the country's Capitol to belong to any state.

If you think that's no longer a good reason 220 years later then change it properly via an amendment to the Constitution, not by vote of Congress.

And get in the way of progress? How dare you. :p

Seriously, this is a genuine overstep. Has anyone mentioned bringing this to the courts? I can't see it standing up to judicial scrutiny.

[BPSCG]

From the Constitution of the United States:

Article I

Section 2 - The House

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

(...snip...)

Section 3 - The Senate
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

(...snip...)

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States...
I don't think the language can get much plainer than that.

Washington, DC, is not a state. There is no provision in the Constitution for giving it congressmen or senators. Argue that it's unjust if you like - I won't argue against you - but there are several ways to remedy the injustice:


Retrocede (give back) the residential portion of DC to Maryland, and adjust Maryland's representation in the House as appropriate. There is precedent for this; the county of Arlington, Virginia was part of the District of Columbia until the 19th century, when it was retroceded back to Virginia. There in fact was a bill to do just that today, but it was defeated.
Exempt residents of the District of Columbia from federal income tax. Let me tell you something - if Mrs. BPSCG and I could be exempt from federal income tax, we'd move to DC in a heartbeat, and so would a lot of other people. We'd still get to vote in presidential elections.
Amend the U.S. Constitution. That's a long process, but it has the advantage of not being unconstitutional, which today's bill clearly is.

[Roadtoad]

Do they pay the same taxes?

(Not facetious, I don't know)

As an American GI in Germany, I only paid Federal Income tax. At one point, I was looking at moving to Guam for a job; as an American citizen, I would be held to pay income tax, but for the local Chamorro residents, their income taxes go to support their local government, per an act of Congress.

As to others, I'm not sure myself, but I'm sure the info is on Wikipedia.

[Cleon]

From the Constitution of the United States:

I don't think the language can get much plainer than that.


It also says DC can't be larger than ten square miles. It's now almost 70.

[KingMerv00]

And get in the way of progress? How dare you. :p

Seriously, this is a genuine overstep. Has anyone mentioned bringing this to the courts? I can't see it standing up to judicial scrutiny.

Courts are not supposed to comment on prospective issues so they won't be able to act until after Congress acts.

DC has become a large city since its founding so it probably should have a vote. On the other hand, Congress is going about it the wrong way.

[geni]

Retrocede (give back) the residential portion of DC to Maryland, and adjust Maryland's representation in the House as appropriate. There is precedent for this; the county of Arlington, Virginia was part of the District of Columbia until the 19th century, when it was retroceded back to Virginia. There in fact was a bill to do just that today, but it was defeated.
Exempt residents of the District of Columbia from federal income tax. Let me tell you something - if Mrs. BPSCG and I could be exempt from federal income tax, we'd move to DC in a heartbeat, and so would a lot of other people. We'd still get to vote in presidential elections.
Amend the U.S. Constitution. That's a long process, but it has the advantage of not being unconstitutional, which today's bill clearly is.


4)Relocate the seat of goverment to somewhere with a lower population and start again.

[rwguinn]

It also says DC can't be larger than ten square miles. It's now almost 70.
do not speak where you have no knowledge.
It is 70 square miles, but less than 10 miles square
Do you ever think, or do you always shoot from the hip and ignorance?

[Roadtoad]

do not speak where you have no knowledge.
It is 70 square miles, but less than 10 miles square
Do you ever think, or do you always shoot from the hip and ignorance?

Is it that time of the month or something? What is it with people today?

IT'S NOT THAT BIG A FRIGGING DEAL! IT WAS A MIS-READ! GEEZ!

For God's sake, have a beer and chill out!

[rwguinn]

Is it that time of the month or something? What is it with people today?

IT'S NOT THAT BIG A FRIGGING DEAL! IT WAS A MIS-READ! GEEZ!

For God's sake, have a beer and chill out!
Nope-
it was another individual who "won" seeing a chance to snipe at those of us who actually believe the Constitution MEANS something, even if we did "lose" the election

[Roadtoad]

rw, I've been talking with Cleon for a few years now. Trust me. It was likely a mis-read.

Seriously.

I'm even willing to bet that Cleon realizes it.

[Cleon]

do not speak where you have no knowledge.
It is 70 square miles, but less than 10 miles square
Do you ever think, or do you always shoot from the hip and ignorance?

Well, normally at this point I'd hang my head in shame, make a joke about my own stupidity, and admit error.

Instead, I'm just embarrassed for you.

[KingMerv00]

Nope-
it was another individual who "won" seeing a chance to snipe at those of us who actually believe the Constitution MEANS something, even if we did "lose" the election

To quote Family Guy:

"I'll be on the veranda since you're already on the cross."

[Allen773]

The reason DC has no voting representative is because they are overwhelmingly Democratic.

[KingMerv00]

The reason DC has no voting representative is because they are overwhelmingly Democratic.

...and that Constitution thing too.

[Roadtoad]

The reason DC has no voting representative is because they are overwhelmingly Democratic.

What Merv said.

[Texas]

The reason DC has no voting representative is because they are overwhelmingly Democratic.No it is because it is in the constitution.

[linusrichard]

I have always found it ironic that "No taxation without representation", one of the most famous mottos of the American Revolution and the reason for fighting it, still applies in our country's capital over 200 years later.

So basically Americans are, fundamentally, hypocrites. :D

I really like DC's license plate:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2349/2067895529_d8944e6f1d.jpg?v=0



I'm really surprised about this bill. It's probably the most obviously unconstitutional bill I've ever heard of. I mean, most of the time, when Congress passes an unconstitutional law, it's because of a specific reading or interpretation of the Constitution. This is just right in there, in black and white.

[KingMerv00]

The reason DC has no voting representative is because they are overwhelmingly Democratic.

Btw, have the democrats had control of Congress at anytime in the last 218 years?

*Looks it up*

Yup. (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm)

[FlamingMoe]

Here's what I had to say to my one and only senator, who voted in favor of the bill:
You are an embarrassment to the State of Minnesota.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several STATES..." (emphasis added).

It's pathetic that one can rise to the office of Senator and be (apparently) illiterate at the same time. You had a perfectly good opportunity to rectify the denial of congressional representation for the residents of the District of Columbia in Senator Kyl's Amdt. 585, but you voted "nay" on that sensible alternative and decided to take the "Constitution? Who needs that ratty ol' thing?" route.

You're either incompetent in your office or willfully disregarding the document you swore to uphold. Either way, you have no business holding your office.

Hugs,
{my name}
{my town}


ETA: Senator Kyl's amendment was the one Beeps referred to in option 1 of his list of constitutional alternatives to the bill they ended up passing.

[linusrichard]

Found this on Wikipedia, it's from the Supreme Court, Loughborough v. Blake:
The difference between requiring a continent, with an immense population, to submit to be taxed by a government having no common interest with it, separated from it by a vast ocean, restrained by no principle of apportionment, and associated with it by no common feelings; and permitting the representatives of the American people, under the restrictions of our constitution, to tax a part of the society...which has voluntarily relinquished the right of representation, and has adopted the whole body of Congress for its legitimate government, as is the case with the district, is too obvious not to present itself to the minds of all. Although in theory it might be more congenial to the spirit of our institutions to admit a representative from the district, it may be doubted whether, in fact, its interests would be rendered thereby the more secure; and certainly the constitution does not consider their want of a representative in Congress as exempting it from equal taxation.

I was trying to say something like that.

[KoihimeNakamura]

After looking at the amendment.. sorta surprised they just didn't try that.

[Beerina]

I think his beef is that the Senate is exceeding its constitutional powers by going about this the way they have.

I learned a long time ago some things are obvious to me that are not obvious to everybody. It only took until this post before someone figured it out. Congrats, Freddy! :)

[Beerina]

I don't think the language can get much plainer than that.

Washington, DC, is not a state. There is no provision in the Constitution for giving it congressmen or senators. Argue that it's unjust if you like - I won't argue against you - but there are several ways to remedy the injustice:


Retrocede (give back) the residential portion of DC to Maryland, and adjust Maryland's representation in the House as appropriate. There is precedent for this; the county of Arlington, Virginia was part of the District of Columbia until the 19th century, when it was retroceded back to Virginia. There in fact was a bill to do just that today, but it was defeated.


Remember the power of a theory is its predictive capability, which gives credence to it's likelihood of being correct.

According to the theory that this is all politics (Democrats want more guaranteed Democrats in Congress), and not about concern for the "taxation without representation" issue, I will make this prediction:

If it's about taxation without representation then returning it to Maryland would be not just acceptable, but the preferred and just solution, since Maryland gave it up. (I always did wonder why the diamond was missing a chunk -- it went back to Virginia :) ).

If it's about cheap-ass political power grabs, the Democrats will fight tooth-and-nail against that solution because it does not give them more guaranteed seats in Congress.


Any bet takers? Anyone wanna bet?

I now sit humbly and wait the power-grabbing meme's response belittling or pooh-poohing the above analysis. But blow hot air as you might, a theory's power is in its predictive capacity. If you don't believe the above, you have nobody to blame but the mirror.

[BPSCG]

According to the theory that this is all politics (Democrats want more guaranteed Democrats in Congress), and not about concern for the "taxation without representation" issue, I will make this prediction:

If it's about taxation without representation then returning it to Maryland would be not just acceptable, but the preferred and just solution, since Maryland gave it up. (I always did wonder why the diamond was missing a chunk -- it went back to Virginia :) ).

If it's about cheap-ass political power grabs, the Democrats will fight tooth-and-nail against that solution because it does not give them more guaranteed seats in Congress.Well, some years ago, there was a "statehood-for-DC" drive here because (it was claimed) taxation without representation was tyranny. Those who proposed retrocession were scorned, even though it would have solved the vexing question of taxation without representation.

That was when I recognized it for what it really was: a naked grab for power. It reminded me of what someone said about South Carolina when it seceded from the Union in 1860: "It's too small to be a country and too large to be an insane asylum."

[NoZed Avenger]

D.C. should totally get at least one Congressman. That, or make the residents of Washington D.C. ineligible for the Federal income tax.

Cool. And stop collecting federal benefits.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Do they pay the same taxes?

(Not facetious, I don't know)

In general, no. Guam and Puerto Rico do not pay federal income tax on locally generated income.

Residents of Washington, D.C. do, yet they have no representation in Congress. Certainly one thing or the other has got to give, and I don't think anyone's going to let them out of paying taxes.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think the constitutional objection is bogus. I think the primary reason for the resistance is that Republicans realize that any representative from D.C. would likely be a Democrat.

[rwguinn]

I think the constitutional objection is bogus. I think the primary reason for the resistance is that Republicans realize that any representative from D.C. would likely be a Democrat.
And you guys said that the Republicans trampled the Constitution.
Depends on whose Ox, etc., etc. huh?

[Cleon]

If it's about cheap-ass political power grabs, the Democrats will fight tooth-and-nail against that solution because it does not give them more guaranteed seats in Congress.


Yes, I suspected that much of this "outrage" was less about Constitutional issues and more about the fact that DC tends to vote Democratic. Thank you for confirming that.

[BPSCG]

Yes, I suspected that much of this "outrage" was less about Constitutional issues and more about the fact that DC tends to vote Democratic. Thank you for confirming that.Yeah, it's such a bitch when that goddam Constitution gets in the way of your naked power grab. What's this country coming to?

And do you think the Democrats would give a rat's ass about DC voting rights if it weren't a few guaranteed Democratic votes in Congress?

[Cleon]

Yeah, it's such a bitch when that goddam Constitution gets in the way of your naked power grab. What's this country coming to?

"Naked power grab." Riiiiiight. The Democrats had a majority without DC, but giving DC a voting representative is a "naked power grab." :rolleyes:

You'll have to excuse me. After eight years of "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" and other excuses, I have a tough time taking this newfound Republican outrage at Constitutional violations remotely seriously.

Yeah, it's probably a Constitutional violation. I'm not going to argue the point. It will likely be shot down by SCOTUS, and they'll have to go through the Amendment route--which means you'll have to think of new reasons to oppose the idea.

But at the end of the day, a Constitutional violation that gives people in DC representation just doesn't set off my Outrage-o-Meter.

Holding people indefinitely without trial? That pisses me off.
DC's gun ban? That pissed me off.
Torture? That really pisses me off.
Giving people in Washington DC a voting representative in Congress? Not so much.

[BPSCG]

Yeah, it's probably a Constitutional violation. I'm not going to argue the point. It will likely be shot down by SCOTUS, and they'll have to go through the Amendment route--which means you'll have to think of new reasons to oppose the idea. The only problem with that last sentence is that it's wrong. I don't oppose representation for DC residents. And they don't "have to go through the Amendment route."

As Beerina said, the issue could be easily resolved, even without a constitutional amendment, by simply retroceding the parts of DC that do not include the core of federal buildings back to Maryland. Maryland would likely pick up an additional congressman - almost certainly a Democrat. Would I like that politically? No. Would I accept it as a reasonable solution? Yes.

That's a solution that could be enacted relatively quickly and easily; it would require only the acquiescence of the people of DC and Maryland. DC statehood, or congressional representation for DC as it exists today, would require a constitutional amendment, which would require the acquiescence of 3/5 of all the states. That would take a lot of time and be be far less certain of passage. If simple justice for DC taxpayers is all that the Democrats want, they should line up behind retrocession.

[Roadtoad]

Well, some years ago, there was a "statehood-for-DC" drive here because (it was claimed) taxation without representation was tyranny. Those who proposed retrocession were scorned, even though it would have solved the vexing question of taxation without representation.

That was when I recognized it for what it really was: a naked grab for power. It reminded me of what someone said about South Carolina when it seceded from the Union in 1860: "It's too small to be a country and too large to be an insane asylum."

You should come to California. It's become both.

[kittynh]

I was born in DC. DC has always been unique. At one time congress cared enough to allocate funds for keeping the tourist areas nice and were commited to taking care of the city. But try to justify voting pro DC anything with the folks back home.

Puerto Rico actually votes on their status and what they wish it to be. They actually voted a bit back that they like it just as it is thank you very much. Their taxation system is a little better than a states by remaining the way they are, and they get a lot of nice money for schools and such by remaining tied to the US. They don't really LIKE the US (as in protests resulting in the closing of the ROosevelt Roads Naval Station), but they like things like socials system support. Not faulting it, because the people there are quite happy (Puerto Ricans are often rated the most happy people in the world, strong sense of family and a laid back lifestyle are often cited). They could become a state, they could be their own country.

Oh and thanks for remembering the O!!!

DC is great and a treasure our nation should take care of. Giving them the vote wouldn't be a horror and it would be fair. A lot of opposition to it was because Republicans felt it would be another Democrat vote. So when you cut to the chase, the real reason is DC is a Democrat stronghold and no way were the Republicans going to give them a vote.

[BPSCG]

I was born in DC. DC has always been unique. At one time congress cared enough to allocate funds for keeping the tourist areas nice and were commited to taking care of the city. I read the other day that DC has the biggest ratio of dollars received from Uncle Sam to dollars paid - gets something like $5.50 back for every dollar sent to the US treasury. That's evidently in part due to the fact that a lot of the land and buildings there, being federal property, can't be taxed.

And you know what? DC is still a nice city. Yes, there are dreadful parts of it - name a big city that can't say that - but it's a great place to visit, there are wonderful neighborhoods, more concentrated US history in a few square miles than anywhere else in the country, lots of excellent restaurants, museums that charge no admission (okay, your tax dollars pay for them), excellent theater and concert options, major league baseball, football, basketball, and hockey, and the air is pretty clean, since there's little manufacturing in the area.

And it's gotten better over the last ten years. It's had two good mayors in a row - Anthony Williams and Adrian Fenty - who have made great strides in making the city financially sound again and getting rid of a lot of the stink of corruption that befouled the Marion Barry years. Anyone who says that DC isn't fit to govern itself doesn't know what he's talking about. The schools are awful, but Fenty has brought in a tough new chancellor, Michelle Rhee, who has taken on the entrenched unions and is actually firing people who can't or won't do their jobs. They still have a very long way to go, but things are looking up.

A lot of opposition to it was because Republicans felt it would be another Democrat vote. So when you cut to the chase, the real reason is DC is a Democrat stronghold and no way were the Republicans going to give them a vote.So are you saying that we should ignore the Constitution because it happens to coincide with the Republicans' political interests?

[Meadmaker]

D.C. should totally get at least one Congressman. That, or make the residents of Washington D.C. ineligible for the Federal income tax.

I agree, but they don't have one and they can't have one until the Constitution is ammended to give them one.

ETA: Or, as others have said, the residential and commercial portions become part of Maryland.

[joobz]

I'd be fine for the retrocede, but would that provide any special privileges to Maryland. I can't think of any except bragging rights. Also, it's likely to raise the taxes on DC people, as they will then be subject to state taxes as well.



BTW, I'm democrat and completely against the DC representative. If it's not constitutional, it can't be done. If you want to change the constitution because you believe it wrong, then do that. It's got provisions allowing such changes. To try and bypass it is simply against the basic fundementals of our government.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think given the 23rd Amendment (which gave D.C. 3 electoral votes--something otherwise reserved for states) points out that that's the way to go.

However, those who object to an amendment giving D.C. representation in Congress do so out of partisan concerns and not for any defensible principle.

[Upchurch]

And by far the highest municipal workforce per capita of any city in the US.

What? Pot isn't illegal in DC?

[BPSCG]

However, those who object to an amendment giving D.C. representation in Congress do so out of partisan concerns and not for any defensible principle.I don't think there are many people who object to giving DC voters representation in Congress. They object to doing it in a manner which violates the Constitution.

I think an amendment would face much tougher sledding, because it would mean treating DC as a state. It would put not just an extra congressman in the Democratic column, but two more senators. You'd have to get thirty states legislatures to agree to that. That's a pretty tough hurdle - it's only been done 17 times in over 200 years.

The Dems should agree to retroceding, getting that sure extra vote in the House (for Maryland), rather than going for the risky two extra senators and getting nothing. A bird in the hand, etc.

[Drudgewire]

DC's gun ban? That pissed me off.


The cool thing is they're trying to rectify that (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/26/AR2009022601678.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR) with this measure. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/clint.gif

The gun amendment is similar to a sweeping measure approved by the House last year that was fought by the D.C. government. It would remove the city's gun-registration requirements, limit its authority to restrict firearms and repeal the District's ban on semiautomatic guns.

[joobz]

I think an amendment would face much tougher sledding, because it would mean treating DC as a state. It would put not just an extra congressman in the Democratic column, but two more senators. You'd have to get thirty states legislatures to agree to that. That's a pretty tough hurdle - it's only been done 17 times in over 200 years.

Why would they have to be given consideration as a state? Why not limit it to house representation? Like JoetheJuggler mentioned, the 23rd amendment gave special consideration to DC. Why couldn't they do the same with house representation and block senate representation on grounds of statehood.

This would keep DC a district, give them a representative, and not increase the local taxes by having them pay state taxes(unlike if they were to retrocede).

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think there are many people who object to giving DC voters representation in Congress. They object to doing it in a manner which violates the Constitution.
Yeah right.


I think an amendment would face much tougher sledding, because it would mean treating DC as a state.
Nope. The 23rd Amendment didn't have that effect, so why would one giving them representatives?

It would put not just an extra congressman in the Democratic column, but two more senators. You'd have to get thirty states legislatures to agree to that.
But if there isn't objection other than the constitutional argument, then there shouldn't be this objection. I agree with you it will be a difficult thing to pass, but I think the motivation for opposition is not constitutional concerns.

[KingMerv00]

Nope. The 23rd Amendment didn't have that effect, so why would one giving them representatives?

You are right, an Amendment could be written a thousand different ways.


I agree with you it will be a difficult thing to pass, but I think the motivation for opposition is not constitutional concerns.

That is my motivation and I consider myself somewhat liberal. I admit I'd like to see more democrats in Congress but not at the expense of the Constitution.

[BPSCG]

Why would they have to be given consideration as a state? Why not limit it to house representation? Because "Taxation without representation!" would then give way to "One-third representation, one-third taxes!" and "DC residents are second-class citizens!" You can throw the obligatory accusations of racism into the second one.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Possibly, but I doubt they'll make it a state..

[ejk]

The constitutional argument isn't as clear-cut as some in this thread seem to think. The "District clause", Article I, § 8, clause 17, gives Congress authority "[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District." Courts have interpreted this to provide a broad scope of authority, and some pretty respected legal scholars have concluded this extends to providing for voting representation of the citizens of the District.

See:
http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/congress/vietdinh112004.pdf

You can reasonably disagree, and I honestly haven't done the research myself to conclude which is the stronger position, but it is unfair to depict anyone who supported the (now defunct) bill as indefensibly ignoring the Constitution.

[Beerina]

Why would they have to be given consideration as a state? Why not limit it to house representation? Like JoetheJuggler mentioned, the 23rd amendment gave special consideration to DC. Why couldn't they do the same with house representation and block senate representation on grounds of statehood.

This would keep DC a district, give them a representative, and not increase the local taxes by having them pay state taxes(unlike if they were to retrocede).

Because that's not the goal!

The goal is to gain 2 more guaranteed Democratic Senate seats. Your reasonable solution does not address the real machinations behind the scenes. And it never will because the Democrats will never agree to it. Why?


Because then the pressure would be off to give DC Senate representation. Since that's their real goal, they will not allow this to go thru.

And that's a scientific prediction you can take to the bank.