Should the District of Columbia (Washington DC) be allowed to become the 51st State?

[MCheetah]

Should the District of Columbia be allowed to become the 51st US state?

Reasons for yes:
- The 700,000+ residents have no representation in Congress or the Senate, but still pay taxes, which is unfair.
- Their economy is bigger than several other states, like Wyoming, Vermont, Nebraska, and Arkansas, so they contribute more to the country than some US states.
- 41% of the population is African American.

Reasons for no:
- The city/area leans very heavily Democrat and are somewhat, kind of "woke." (Which is why Republicans have shot down the idea twice in the past, including in 2017 and 2021.)
- It would disrupt the balance of power in the House of Congress, Senate, and even the US flag.
- "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Political alignments aside, I have no real opinion on this, by the way. What do you think?

Yes, the District of Columbia should become the 51st state.

No, however the District of Columbia could be returned to Maryland, giving Washington city representation among Maryland.

No, nothing should be changed at all.

No opinion / don't care / not American.

[AviatorTom]

No, that would change the political balance in Congress and in national voting.

DC is very liberal, so to maintain the balance, a conservative state would have to be added at the same time. In 1959, that happened when Hawaii (liberal) and Alaska (conservative) became the 49th and 50th states.

There are no potential conservative candidate areas that are similar in size to DC. The territory of Guam is conservative, and has indicated a desire to become a state some day, but Guam's population is only 170 thousand, compared to DC's 700 thousand.

The reason DC exists in the first place is to make sure that the federal center of government is not part of, nor biased by, any individual state. It's probably better if it stays that way.

[monorprise]

The reality is democrats are EXCLUSIVELY interested in D. C. vote to pack the electorate and Senate with more far left democrats.

Otherwise they would have long ago:
1: Agreed to be treated like every other 'like' Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 federal district, and vote as the Marylanders they STILL are.

2: They would also have accepted self-rule by redrawing the Federal district as to return the inhabited parts back to the State of Maryland as Alexandra was to Virginia 100+ years before.

Neither of theses already established options were chosen for a good reason, instead Democrats pushed for the radical 23rd amendment and now D. C. Statehood EXCLUSIVELY and permanently to help pack the electorate and senate in their favor.

[AviatorTom]

Thanks for the mho

[monorprise]

Really the whole district needs to be abolished and the City of Washington returned to Maryland. The federal capital, to the extent it is even required anymore, should be moved to a more centrally neutral, uninhabited, and defensible location.

Perhaps a simple meeting place for congress inside a NORAD type bunker under the Ozarks mountain ranges near the border of Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma.

Today Congress can spend most of its time working remotely from their states where they might actually remain connected and representative thereof rather than Washington D. C. friends as is now normally the case.

[OlderAndWiser]

The DC economy would be a big fat zero without the federal government being there. If DC residents don’t like not having representation in Congress, why in the heel did they move there? Was this a surprise that they discovered after they arrived.

No, this is a Democrat trick just like their immigration policies.

[monorprise]

We should move D. C. to protect the neutrality of our Federal representation regardless. What remains of the historic City of Washington can vote in Maryland elections.

The new Federal district should be built in a location without people. It need not 10 square miles or really much more than a meeting room and dormitories for our Congressional staff.

Ideally as simple and basic as possible to keep them reminded of the fact that they are not princes who can treat we the people are NOT their personal wallet.

Ideally it should be a place our congressmen visit only occasionally doing most of their work remotely while remaining connected to the people they are suppose to represent.

[ManOnFire]

@OlderAndWiser Dude. Most of the D. C. residents ARE home grown. It's THEM who move out of D. C. to the outer parts of the DMV.

[monorprise]

@ManOnFire If D. C. Statehood movement were anything more than a Democratic party power grab to get 2 permanent senators, they would simply vote in Maryland elections as the residents of every other 'like' Article 1 Section 8 clause 17 district currently do.
They would never have had a 23rd amendment.

Making D. C. a state is no different than making San Francisco a State, its a power grab to pack the Senate and make a mockery of all existing States.

But as Democrats are determined to do it anyway, Democrats will have to deal with the consequences of a union where both sides redraw the lines with meaningless and helpless 'states' to try and secure their own permanent hold on federal power.

You think our commitment to the union is weak now with near majorities in various regions and outright majorities in some states wanting out. Just wait and see how we feel about a union when said lines are soo obviously and permanently ridged around rump "states" soo small they can do nothing for themself.

The best solution is to move D. C. all together. I don't think Maryland has the right to simply excommunicate the county of Washington, anymore than any other State including Maryland has the right to do like wise with every other Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 district.

The U. S. Supreme court already ruled against Maryland itself on this issue.

[RealMarek]

No. The founders kept the federal district out of the states so it would be free from taxation by a state government and so the state would not have leverage over the feds. The federal government has the right to directly administer the district, and they should probably get rid of the incompetent elected city government and restore order. Another thing that should be done is combining DC’s federal district court with one of the neighboring ones to stop politically motivated prosecutors taking advantage of leftist DC juries and using them for show trials.

[MCheetah]

Yes, but that's before there were permanent residents there. They probably should've also made it illegal to have residence there as well, while they were at it.

[RealMarek]

I think it’s pretty obscene that so much wealth and bureaucracy has been concentrated in the DC area. It has driven up the cost of living, which is not good for the residents who always lived there. Also, it encouraged the detachment of the bureaucracy from the common people. There should be a regulation mandating that 90% of the federal bureaucracy above a certain minimum number must be distributed among the states. They should also not be permitted to constitute more than a small percentage of the workforce of any given city.

[monorprise]

@mcheetah There were a few people living in the district on both side when it was established. Granted they should have been forced out then.

But contrary to what @RealMarek said the reason for the Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 "exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" over federal districts was not simply about taxes but every other sort of law and undue influence the local population my unfairly wield over the rest of the federation.

This is indeed a very real problem today since the District has been given self-rule It has become increasingly clear Republicans can expect neither equal treatment not justice under the law administrated by people living there in that culture who's interest in power are so diametrically opposed to the idea. This ever more diffiuclt situation is precisely what the Founders were concerned about, not mere taxation.(which by the way the Fed's ignore regardless of being in said district)

[RealMarek]

@monorprise That’s correct, it’s what I meant by “leverage” that a state could exert.

[Avicenna]

Make the non-federal parts part of Maryland. The federal district was never intended to be a state and even with the federal parts it's too small to be one. No need for the complexity of another jurisdiction when it can be appended to Maryland.

[monorprise]

I agree, although to the limited extent we even need a Federal Capital anymore, we would be far better off moving the entire district to a more uninhabited, centrally neutral and defensible location.

Maryland can resume governing all of the city of Washington D. C.

[Avicenna]

@monorprise: I agree- West Virginia would be a great location

[monorprise]

@Avicenna I would prefer something a lot more centrally located further to the west.

At this point I would be in favor of any uninhabited place over the current self-governing political cesspool of Washington D. C.. A place we have learned no republican can expect equal treatment much-less justice under the law.

That Republicans in other states find it very difficult to get and retain faithful representation in-D. C. precisely because most of the pandering politicians we send there eventually end up more pandering to their friends and family of that City's political culture rather than the state and districts they are suppose to represent.

Democrats just want a political Rump State to pack the Senate with 2 new democrats. As with most of their other harebrained power grabbing schemes they have yet to begin to imagine the dire long term political consequences of attempting to gerrymander the Federal Government in this way.

[Avicenna]

@monorprise: Quite true. But I don't want to waste farmland in the country's midsection. Hence WV, which could use the economic boost.

[A_Bell]

The US capital was never intended to be a state, it says so in the Constitution.

So, it would even require an admendment to make it a state or at least a law moving the US capital.

[monorprise]

All other Article 1 Section 8 clause 17 districts as treated as part of the state in which they exist allowing said residents to vote as citizens of the same state.

I don't understand why D. C. is any different then the other "like" districts beyond possibly the 23rd amendment. I guess 1960's democratic party power grabs have consequences.

[A_Bell]

@monorprise there is a cleat seperation in the clause. The first part refers to the district of up to 10 sq miles ceded to the us government to act as the seat of government. I. e. they are no longet part of the state.

For forts and other buildings, it grants authority to congress ovet those "places" not "districts" in the states that they be. I. e. they remain part of the state.

If DC voters want to vote, move to Arlington or Baltimore or petition Congress to yield the residential areas back to Maryland.

[monorprise]

@A_Bell Here is the full clause in question: "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, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; "

A district is "A division of an area, as for administrative purposes", in other words a subset of place.
Cession is "The act of yielding or giving way" what is yelded or given away depends upon context in this case the aforementioned exclusive legislative authority in all cases whatsoever.

The "exercise like Authority" referring to the aforementioned exclusive legislative authority means the clause cannot be not separated as the part defining the superset of places over which such "like" authority is exercised depends upon the definition of said authority in the first part.

[TroyDT2]

No. The populated areas should be returned to Maryland and the 23rd should at the same time be repealed.

[ManOnFire]

I have always believed that D. C. should become a state. Taxation without representation should no longer exist. Only problem though is that statehood won't make their crazy ass labyrinth streets any better.

[monorprise]

Why is it that every other Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 Federal district retains their voting rights in the state in which they exist but Not Washington D. C? Maryland owes them representation not the Federal Government. Although you might argue Democrats kind of screwed them over for power with the 23rd amendment.

[spartan55]

Has the Maryland proposal been floated? Come close to reality. I like that to not upset the balance in congress.

[monorprise]

Republicans have pointed it out. The democrats in congress, in Maryland and in D. C. are not interested in any option that doesn't help them achieve their ONLY goal of packing the electorate and Senate with more reliable democrats.

1) They don't want to vote as part of Maryland like people of every other place under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17.

2) They don't want for congress to simply redraw the lines of D. C. to exclude the non-government areas of the county of Washington as Congress did for the other half Alexandra in 1846 thus legitimately relinquishing their "exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever"

The ONLY option they are interested in is one that gives a tiny 68 sq mile city the same power as entire State which are on average 1111 times its size.

Never mind the same city is already entirely depended upon the 50 states for its only industry most of which have a solid reason to drastically reduce or move said industry to a more politically & geographically neutral, and defensible location further west. Given what has been increasingly happening to their representation since Congress first unconstitutional gave such city self-rule.

[moosesixty]

S*** we were going to let stupid ass panema bestate

[exitseven]

No, we should annex it to Russia.

[tfan1]

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

[monorprise]

Its increasingly clear to Republicans D. C.'s unconstitutional home rule is very much a problem for Republicans getting any kind of Equal treatment much less justice under the law administrated by the people living there.

The district has become a radical cesspool where Democrats are allowed to riot, threaten (assault and even shoot) republican representation, loot, and set fires on a regular basis with little more than a slap on the wrist.
While if a Republican associated group even so much as steps across a line they end up spending a year in jail without charge.

Mean while the Federal agents who's friends and families increasingly reside there are likewise evermore unequal in their application of Federal law against anyone with whom 92% of that district disagrees with.

The Federal District of Columbia needs to be moved to a new location ideally without a local population and NO local goverment.

Making the current country of Washington a political Rump State just to guarantee democrats 2 senate Senates would only make theses problems even worse.

[msc545]

Yes, it should.

[monorprise]

Even if it were legally possible, it would make a mockery of the federal union.
Making a single city incapable of supporting itself for lack of resources and room to expand to the equal status of State would be insulting all 50 other states.

Most of whom including D. C.'s neighbor Virginia, and legitimate owner Maryland would crush D. C. with hardly a thought.

[msc545]

@monorprise They would get along just fine - this is not a war. I think your real problem with it is the probable influx of people who would vote for Democrats.

[monorprise]

@msc545 If by adding 2 new democratic senators elected reliability with a 92% majority, yes I am aware that is the ONLY Motivation for the D. C. Statehood movement.

Otherwise they would agree to be treated like every other 'like' Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 federal district, and vote as Marylanders they STILL are.
They would also have accepted self-rule by redrawing the Federal district as to return the inhabited parts back to the State of Maryland as Alexandra was to Virginia 100+ years before.

Instead as Democrats are exclusively interested in a power grab to pack the electorate and now Senate in their favor they moved to give D. C. its own vote.

[Agagagagaga]

@monorprise It’s like everything else they do. If they can’t win or don’t like the outcome they just change the rules. Make DC and Puerto Rico a state—even though it was never important to do so until it became politically expedient to do so. Why have only 9 Chief Justices on SCOTUS? Why not 11? 13? Surely that will give the result they want!

Never mind that when SCOTUS passed gay marriage they were all wise and learned sages, beacons of humanism, but when they rule against the constitutionality of abortion, well they are activist hacks and right-wing bigots. 🙄

It gets really tiresome. The incessant double-standards and changing of the rules. This is just what politics is now in America. A fucking joke.

[monorprise]

@Agagagagaga It's scary because in the long run the only possible recourse to theses power grabs and abuses is the now increasingly popular secession and if they don't accept that peacefully a real Civil War.

We really don't want to go down that route given the enormous costs necessary for the defense of liberty under such conditions.

But if this is what they do to effectively cut off our representation and ignore our consent what choice is there?

The truth may be from what I can gather that the left also very much feels the same way, hence why large portions of their population share the same desire to be separate. That we may both in fact be mere pawns being played against each other by power hungry Federal politicians (and their effective media masters) who are really seeking to secure their own hold on power.

But even thou this hypotheses is backed by clear self-interests of such people it doesn't change the fact that they really are playing upon and being elected to push the local political interest of the people of each region. Nor does it change the almost inevitable outcome of despotism, separation, or war.

[msc545]

@monorprise Stop whining. I was not talking about their motivation, I was speaking of yours.

[monorprise]

@msc545 Until said action is taken non-Democrat motivation is inconsequential except in considering the consequences of what they will eventually need and be willing to do in response.
Indeed Democrat motivation is similarly of little value compared to the consequences of said choices and the doors it opens & closes for everyone.

Democrat's could very easily as most of us were by virtue of the carefully cherry picked information and history they shared have been genuinely motivated by a desire for the people of D. C. to have representation. It would not change the significant consequences of their only proposed as acceptable solution of giving an independent vote.

Nor would it change the other more appropriate for a city, less radical, less harmful, easier to do, and actually precedented (done before) options of:

1: Simply voting as Marylanders like every other 'like' Article 1 Section 8 clause 17 Federal district.
2: Ceasing to be a Federal District so that they may have legitimate legislative power again as part of their state Maryland.

The fact that those other options are rejected out of hand only goes to prove Democrats have but one true motivate behind the D. C. Vote/Statehood movement which cannot be achieved via said options which is to help pack the electorate/ senate with more far left Big Federal Government orientated Democrats.

This is obviously not in the interest of the rest of the union who doesn't share D. C.'s new political culture's interest, only at most the mere political factional interest of the Federal Democratic party.

[jimmy2]

No they aren't