Pirate's Cove

They should have tried packing the Supreme Court before doing this, because it is clearly un-Constitutional, but, then, when did Democrats ever care about that? If they really want people in D.C. to have clear representation, well, move the federal government somewhere else and suck D.C. back into Maryland. Or, all those people who reside in D.C. can move not far away to Maryland or Virginia. D.C. was never meant to have permanent residents

House to vote on DC statehood bill during week of April 19

The House will vote on making Washington, D.C., the 51st state during the week of April 19, the district’s non-voting representative in Congress announced Wednesday.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the D.C. delegate, said the House Oversight Committee will vote on her statehood bill on April 14 and then send the legislation for a full House vote the following week.

“The week of April 19th the House will take a historic step in righting the monumental wrong of denying the 712,000 federal taxpaying American citizens who live in the nation’s capital voting representation in Congress and self-government without congressional interference into local affairs,” Norton said in a statement.

They chose to live there. That’s on them. The only really Constitutional way of doing this cute little carve up they think will solve the issue, basically leaving the area where most of the federal buildings are and turning the rest into a state would be to revert it to being a part of Maryland, which would mean there wouldn’t be two extra senators in the Dems back pocket. Just the same two from Maryland.

D.C. has a population of more than 700,000 residents — greater than Wyoming and Vermont — but the residents don’t have voting members in Congress or full control over local affairs. However, the District of Columbia pays more in federal taxes than 21 states and more per capita than any state, according to the 2019 IRS data book.

They aren’t supposed to have control over their affairs. The Constitution gives that to Congress. Any power local government has is given to them by Congress, and can taken back in heartbeat. Like was done with Alexandria. Which is no longer part of D.C., but, was given back to Virginia.

Under the plan, the 51st state would be called “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth,” named for Frederick Douglass.

D.C. would have full control over local affairs and full representation in Congress, which would amount to two senators and one representative in the House based on the current population.

The area around the White House, Capitol, Supreme Court and National Mall would be carved out into a federal district controlled by Congress and named the “Capital.” (snip)

However, the legislation needs 60 votes to advance and therefore will die again in the Senate without GOP support.

Unless Dems want to kill the filibuster (reconciliation is not on the table), it won’t move forward. Let’s say they do make it a majority vote: we knew this back in 1993

D.C. Statehood: Not Without a Constitutional Amendment

Statehood proposals for the District of Columbia have been around for years. Today, however, we have a President pledged to support D.C. statehood. Congress is controlled by the Democrats, whose platform supports statehood. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the so-called non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives from D.C., has introduced a statehood proposal in the current session of Congress.1 Jesse Jackson, the “Shadow Senator” from the District, was recently arrested while leading a group of pro-statehood protesters blocking an intersection near the Capitol.2 And readers of The Washington Post received an Independence Day issue of the Post’s Sunday magazine devoted to the statehood cause.3 In short, statehood matters may be coming to a head in the political arena.

Yeah, this was Bill Clinton’s first year in office

What most statehood proponents ignore, however, is a fundamental question that should precede their political campaign: even if it were a good idea, can Congress make D.C. a state without a constitutional amendment? As a partisan matter, support for statehood is almost exclusively Democratic, as would be New Columbia’s congressional delegation. As a constitutional matter, however, the Justice Department under both Democratic and Republican administrations has consistently agreed that statehood for the District requires a constitutional amendment; it cannot be done by mere majority vote in Congress. A review of the District’s history, the terms of the Constitution, and the practicalities of making D.C. a state, reveals that statehood legislation is ill-conceived at best.

A simple vote cannot Constitutionally create this new state out of D.C.

By the 1950s, support for some form of local and national representation for the District’s residents began to swell. President Eisenhower supported Home Rule—the grant of certain powers of local administration to officials elected from the District.11 In 1961, the states ratified the 23rd Amendment, giving District residents for the first time the right to vote for President and Vice President.12 The District was granted Home Rule in 1974, and Walter Washington, previously the Commissioner of the District, became its first modem elected mayor.13

And that amendment complicates the simple vote of no representation as the first Constitutional hurdle. If you read the entire piece, you will see that it would also violate Article 1, Section 8: Permanent Congressional Power, which gives Congress power over the district. But, the carve out! Wouldn’t that take care of this?

Article IV, Section 3: Maryland’s Permission

Statehood’s second constitutional problem is Article IV, Section 3, which provides that no new state may be created out of the territory of an existing state without that state’s permission.27 Under this clause, doesn’t Maryland need to give permission before a state can be created out of the District? It gave the territory that became the District to the federal government for use as the seat of government, not for making a new state.

This means that the grant of land would mean that the carve out could be given back to Maryland, letting those people be Maryland residents, not a new state.