bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,440
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 28, 2021 16:08:26 GMT -5
This has never been a criteria for statehood. What are the "criteria for statehood"? It has always been pure politics. Usually involving a compromise. The last time - neither Hawaii or Alaska would have gotten the votes for statehood by themselves. Ironically, Hawaii was the 'Republican' state and Alaska the 'Democratic' state. DC does have representation. There is also the constitutional issue - but these have been discussed and potential remedies.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 28, 2021 16:32:05 GMT -5
Tell me more about what "representation" DC has.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,440
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 28, 2021 16:33:51 GMT -5
Tell me more about what "representation" DC has. 3 electoral votes.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 28, 2021 16:52:55 GMT -5
So less representation than almost every other American citizen? Cool.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 28, 2021 16:53:44 GMT -5
Ignoring the fact that EC votes are not actual representation.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 28, 2021 16:59:00 GMT -5
"Here, we'll give you access to one of our most antidemocratic institutions but completely deny you representation in our slightly less antidemocratic institutions.
Hey, at least it's more than the Puerto Ricans get, right"
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 28, 2021 17:05:00 GMT -5
ironic for a conservative to claim the EC gives individuals representation in DC
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Jul 1, 2021 11:50:30 GMT -5
And wow would you look at that Alito comes up with the term "mere inconvenience" in upholding voting restrictions in AZ. Very originalist and cool!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2021 13:33:55 GMT -5
Congress has the power to determine statehood Article IV, Sec. 3, Clause 2.
In the past, for Congress to consider this, there is first a referendum in the area wanting to be a state. With a clear majority in favor, then there needs to be a government setup that mirrors the state government elsewhere--state constitution and such--at which point Congress can vote with simple majorities in both houses necessary for acceptance as a state. Once that happens, the president has signed it into being (whether this is necessary or not is questionable--but I think because it is 'law', it does require presidential signature which would make statehood legislation veto-able).
DC does not have the ability to create a state-like government. Ultimately, it is a city. Just as important is the issue that it is land ceded to be 'neutral' and intentionally without representation.
Puerto Rico has a different issue. The last time they held a referendum, there was a clear preference for statehood but less than 1/3 of eligible voters voted, thus not reaching the criteria of a majority of residents wishing to be a state. Puerto Rico does have a state-like constitution in place--if they were to have a voting referendum where a majority of adults supported statehood, I think you'd see Puerto Rico quickly receive statehood. As far as I know, the federal government has never denied statehood to a territory that meets all of the criteria--referendum, state-like setup, etc.
The other strike with DC is secession. Once DC is a state, what stops Chicago, LA, Houston and such from petitioning for statehood (presuming their state legislature consented)?
Basically, Puerto Rico should be a state. The Pacific mandate islands have an argument to be a state(s). DC, not so much.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 1, 2021 13:51:34 GMT -5
Once DC is a state, what stops Chicago, LA, Houston and such from petitioning for statehood (presuming their state legislature consented)? That's a huge presumption. And given the presumption, what would be wrong with it? If a region of a current state wanted to leave that state, and the rest of the state also agreed that they wanted that too, what would be the issue? In Washington, Oregon, and California there are various movements to break the states up, but none of them have gotten anywhere close to showing either a majority local desire for this or a willingness of the state legislature to agree to it. The point that you are trying to avoid here is that DC *has* taken a majority vote to become a state. They also do have a government. There is no requirement that one state government be like another. And crucially, right now they have no parent state government that would have to approve it. As for the history of the other states ceeding the land, so what? Maine used to be part of Massachusetts. Virginia used to claim about 1/4 of the continental US and also part of what is now Canada. Etc. This did not stop us from recognizing new states in the land once claimed by other states.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2021 14:01:32 GMT -5
Maine, Virginia are irrelevant tangents. Maine's status was part of the issue with slavery. Virginia gave up its land before there was even a Constitution.
No, there's no requirement states all be the same. There is the requirement that they have state constitutions. Can you point me to the DC constitution, please?
What you are advocating by permitting cities to secede is the same logic as secession in 1861. Dislike your federal gov't--secede. Dislike the state gov't--secede. So does a county have a right to secede from a state? A town from a county? A landholder from a town? Where does this 'right' of self-determination stop?
DC is 'neutral' so that one state cannot unduly influence the federal government. Whose rights take precedence? Because now, not only the silliness of a city as a state, you now will need to untangle legal jurisdictions and the determination of what is/isn't federal business because commerce from within a state isn't governable by the federal government.
DC's statehood is NOTHING more than an attempt to create two guaranteed Democratic senators and a couple House reps.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 1, 2021 14:22:26 GMT -5
What you are advocating by permitting cities to secede is the same logic as secession in 1861. Dislike your federal gov't--secede. Dislike the state gov't--secede. So does a county have a right to secede from a state? A town from a county? A landholder from a town? Where does this 'right' of self-determination stop? What??? You YOURSELF agreed that it would have to be done with the permission of the existing state government. There is currently no law or SCOTUS ruling against a state seceding from the United States *if* Congress approves it. Congress did not approve the CSA secession. It's pretty simple -- if the locality wants to secede and the thing they want to secede away from AGREES TO IT, then what's the problem? It's an uncontested divorce.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jul 1, 2021 14:38:01 GMT -5
DC's statehood is NOTHING more than an attempt to create two guaranteed Democratic senators and a couple House reps. lol 1) It's an attempt to ensure representation for 600,000+ people. Ya know, democracy? 2) Shall we explore the Republican Party's attempt to use statehood to regain control of the Senate? See: North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming. The admission of those states pretty much teed up the minority rule problem we have today.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 1, 2021 16:21:47 GMT -5
DC's statehood is NOTHING more than an attempt to create two guaranteed Democratic senators and a couple House reps. lol 1) It's an attempt to ensure representation for 600,000+ people. Ya know, democracy? So you'd be equally content with DC residents being allowed to vote for Senators and representatives in Virginia or Maryland? That seems like a much less controversial fix.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 1, 2021 16:34:13 GMT -5
lol 1) It's an attempt to ensure representation for 600,000+ people. Ya know, democracy? So you'd be equally content with DC residents being allowed to vote for Senators and representatives in Virginia or Maryland? That seems like a much less controversial fix. Except that 1) Virginia's portion of DC was already retroceded to Virginia, uh, 175 years ago, 2) Maryland doesn't want DC, and 3) who cares what's "controversial" to n00b? Oh, and 4) DC residents don't want to be part of Maryland and in fact voted overwhelmingly to *not* be part of Maryland.
|
|