“People in the District of Columbia pay taxes, fight our wars, risk their lives for our democracy. And yet ... they have no vote in the House or the Senate about whether we go to war, and how those taxes are exacted and how this is all played” https://thehill.com/homenews/house/504746-house-approves-statehood-for-dc-in-232-180-vote Which raises the question, why isn’t DC a State? It has more people than Wyoming and New Hampshire, and pays more in taxes than twenty two other States. I could understand New Hampshire as an original colony, but if Wyoming, with a sparse population, could qualify as a State, why shouldn’t DC be a State?
because the US Constitution requires the federal govt to be in a federal district not a state...see Art 1 Secr 8
Yup. Going to have to wait until Next Year. When the Dems take the senate and eliminate the filibuster.
D.C. + Puerto Rico The follow up by implementing the Wyoming Rule in the HoR And with Texas turning purple... I hope Republicans feel they rammed through enough partisan judges to overrule the will of the people through the courts for a few decades because they may not be able to do it much longer through the EC...
Actually, they can't. It would require a Constitutional Amendment, which Congress can START, but it would require 3/4ths of the States to agree to finish it.
“House approves statehood for DC in 232-180 vote“ Almost the exact same votes for as Trump’s Articles of Impeachment, and we all know how that turned out
It does seem quite unfair to tax people but not allow them to be represented in the Senate. I can think of one solution that would be fair and not require a constitutional amendment: change tax laws so people are not subject to income tax unless they live in a place that allows them to vote for a senator.
You didn't study that in your civics classes Federalist No. 43 “the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single State, and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to abridge its necessary independence.” Or as Madison wrote "“the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity,” and “a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence” As National Review writes ....Today, that threat is back out in the open. In recent weeks, Muriel Bowser, the mayor of the city, has lobbied for statehood as an expansion of her authority at federal expense: "I think what we saw from this president is something that we haven’t seen in our city, and that was federal troops on the ready, federal police, policing a local city, National Guard troops hauled in from all over the country. So I decided, when we saw those federal police out on D.C. streets, that we had to push back."..... .....D.C. statehood is neither necessary nor likely to happen, and its proponents have not thought through its consequences — or worse, they have. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...river&utm_content=most-popular&utm_term=first Just more partisan nonsense by the Democrats rather than dealing with the REAL issues we face.
OK and deny them any federal money. People who live in that federal district know the circumstances in which they do and they already have a HUGE influence on the federal government.
Or just retrocede the residents of DC back to Maryland and keep the official govt buildings and offices as Washington DC.
I did study in civics, enough to know the same Founding Fathers also wrote into the Constitution the Third Amendment, along with State Legislature selection of Senators, and one the right loves to say is irrelevant, the Emoluments Clause. And later generations gave us the 18th Amendment, and in 1961 DC finally got to vote in national elections, reversing Madison’s concern, so it seems that all the thoughts of the 18th Century aren’t always relevant to the 21st Century
Doesn’t mean the question shouldn’t be raised, if Wyoming has a say in national affairs why can’t the citizens of DC?
The Constitution also includes the Third Amendment, State legislature selection of Senators, and other provisions that have become obsolete In addition, you can still have that District within DC without disengaging the American citizens who reside there
Don’t need one, Congress can establish a federal district to include all three branches of Gov’t within the city of DC