What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

House passes bill to make Washington DC the 51st state (1 Viewer)

squistion

squistion

Footballguy
The Associated Press @AP 30m

The Democratic-controlled House approves a bill to make the District of Columbia the 51st state. The legislation now goes to the Republican-controlled Senate, where it faces insurmountable opposition.

https://apnews.com/af3f330e41c900e0e1aedda3af2e6c1d?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

It's the first time in history that either chamber has voted to make DC the 51st state. DC has more people than Wyoming or Vermont but no voting representation in Congress.  As Jerry Nadler noted on Twitter "D.C. residents pay taxes. They work in the government. They deserve to have a voice in the decisions that impact them." https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1276589164583104514

Obviously the process of moving towards DC statehood won't happen until Democrats regain control of the Senate. But I think that is inevitable that this will happen eventually - not a question of if but rather when.

 
Bills like this drive me crazy because I don’t believe that half the Democrats who voted for it are really for it. Let the Dems take over the Presidency and Senate and we’ll see if this bill ever comes back up. If it does then I’ll believe it. 

 
This is indeed curiously timed but what are the genuine arguments against equal representation for the district's citizens?

 
roadkill1292 said:
This is indeed curiously timed but what are the genuine arguments against equal representation for the district's citizens?
Click to expand...
Genuine? There aren’t any. 
But Republicans will never go for it because it means two more Democratic senators. And half the Democrats won’t go for it because it means two more LEFTIST Democratic Senators. 
 

So it’s not going to happen. 

 
Abolish the senate, then we do not need to worry about adding states purely due to political considerations. Expand the house to a few thousand seats. 

Edit: Actually, with calculations below, that is not necessary:

Make the population required for a house seat the unit equal to the population of the state with the lowest pop (aka a Wyoming). That means the US will have ~567 house seats. Those seats could also be used for electoral college numbers (though while we are dreaming might as well just abolish that too). 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
huthut said:
Abolish the senate, then we do not need to worry about adding states purely due to political considerations. Expand the house to a few thousand seats. 

Edit: Actually, with calculations below, that is not necessary:

Make the population required for a house seat the unit equal to the population of the state with the lowest pop (aka a Wyoming). That means the US will have ~567 house seats. Those seats could also be used for electoral college numbers (though while we are dreaming might as well just abolish that too). 
Click to expand...
I've heard about this so called "Wyoming Rule" somewhere .

 
roadkill1292 said:
This is indeed curiously timed but what are the genuine arguments against equal representation for the district's citizens?
Click to expand...
Really short answer, it was...

1 having a state control the seat of national government creates a massive federalism issue if the state legislature tries to pass a law about the use or control of the federal building and what that could do to the federal government,

2 the first congress was basically removed from Pennsylvania when the state wouldn't support it because it was in Pennsylvania territory and several congressmen were threatened and had no recourse anywhere because other states couldn't send troops into Philadelphia to protect them without ****ing off Pennsylvania,

Those are the big 2. There are others. 

 
beef said:
kwille said:
Shrink it and give all but the capital, White House, memorials, and mall to Virginia and Maryland so the citizens get representation.
Click to expand...
I'd be much more in favor of this route.  
Click to expand...
Not exactly like adding two senetors but it would probably be enough to ensure Virgina finish its transition to solid blue and maybe get it another congressional seat / electoral vote. Not going to happen but fun to speculate.

 
timschochet said:
Genuine? There aren’t any. 
But Republicans will never go for it because it means two more Democratic senators. And half the Democrats won’t go for it because it means two more LEFTIST Democratic Senators. 
 

So it’s not going to happen. 
Click to expand...
Just be glad that Trump wasn't smart enough to realize that if this was done "right" that the first family could exclusively control three electoral votes.  If he was this would have already happened.  Not like he cares about senate and house seats (as long as there aren't enough senators to remove him at least).

 
timschochet said:
Genuine? There aren’t any. 
But Republicans will never go for it because it means two more Democratic senators. And half the Democrats won’t go for it because it means two more LEFTIST Democratic Senators. 
 

So it’s not going to happen. 
Click to expand...
Tim, you just know as much about Democrats or their thinking as you do about rock music.

I will guarantee you and would make a bet if it was allowed here (which it isn't) that not one Democrat would oppose such a bill in the Senate. Not one. And they would love another two votes of Democratic Senators to oppose or approve SCOTUS nominees or anything else on the Democratic legislative agenda.

 
Malcontent Gladwell did an podcast episode on this on his Revisionist History pod.  Was absolutely fascinating.  Here the description of the episode.  Worth a listen....

"Divide and Conquer" covered Texas's right to divide into 5 separate states. What if Washington, D.C. -- a non-state territory -- tried to divide their city into 127 separate states? A recent anonymous note in the Harvard Law Review proposes just that. It's just the kind of bananas idea Malcolm loves to dissect, and Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law Professor and Constitutional law expert is the perfect foil. Noah's podcast, Deep Background with Noah Feldman, is available wherever you get your podcasts.

 
huthut said:
Abolish the senate, then we do not need to worry about adding states purely due to political considerations. Expand the house to a few thousand seats. 

Edit: Actually, with calculations below, that is not necessary:

Make the population required for a house seat the unit equal to the population of the state with the lowest pop (aka a Wyoming). That means the US will have ~567 house seats. Those seats could also be used for electoral college numbers (though while we are dreaming might as well just abolish that too). 
Click to expand...
How about we abolish the House instead?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The new state of Dakota would climb to 40th in the population rankings and become a true electoral powerhouse.

Edit: this is not actually true.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
How about we abolish the House instead?
Click to expand...
The senate is inherently undemocratic and no longer has a purpose due to the strengthening of the federal government relative to state governments in the last few hundred years. States themselves no longer need representation, people do. Someone in rural Illinois probably has more in common with someone in rural California than someone in Chicago, which could be captured with a greater local representation in the House, but not in the Senate. 

What rationale leads you to think the House should be abolished?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
OrtonToOlsen said:
An easier solution would be to take away Wyoming and Vermont’s reps.
Click to expand...
Right, cuz those people shouldn't have a voice.

DC is a crap hole.  I'm sure the only reason the Dems want it as a state is because it will work to their advantage in elections.  So they're for it and the Repubs are against it.....shocking

 
Yankee23Fan said:
Really short answer, it was...

1 having a state control the seat of national government creates a massive federalism issue if the state legislature tries to pass a law about the use or control of the federal building and what that could do to the federal government,

2 the first congress was basically removed from Pennsylvania when the state wouldn't support it because it was in Pennsylvania territory and several congressmen were threatened and had no recourse anywhere because other states couldn't send troops into Philadelphia to protect them without ****ing off Pennsylvania,

Those are the big 2. There are others. 
Click to expand...
These rules from two and a half centuries ago don't appear to be very relevant now. Getting 700,000 citizens equal representation would appear to be more important than the concerns listed.

Easy for me to say, though, since I'm probably the least federalist guy on this board.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
DC as 51st state
4 5 6
Replies
298
Views
7K
Dinsy Ejotuz
Dinsy Ejotuz
GordonGekko
Schumer's Radical Abortion Gamble Of "Up To The Moment Of Birth" Will Backfire (5/11/22 00:52 PST)
Replies
19
Views
709
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Did Democrats Transition From Complacent 'Pro-Choice' To No Limit Pro Abortion Extremists? (6/28/22 21:38 PST)
Replies
11
Views
474
jon_mx
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top