We fixed the keg said:

---

Quote:

---

... The fact that an idea is stupid (like, say, Wyoming having the same number of Senators as California) does not alter the meaning of the Constitution.

---

Wait, what? Stupid as in a union formed by a collection of states forming a representative republic? Almost like the framers intentionally steered away from a pure democracy.

---

At the time the Constitution was ratified, the population of the largest state (Virginia) was about 12 times larger than that of the smallest state.

Currently, the population of California is about 66 times that of Wyoming.

It is also worth remembering that the original version of the Bill of Rights would have had a Congressional representative for every 50,000 persons (and the GOP, in its current configuration, would have no chance whatsoever of holding the House majority under this schema). That would be a true "people's House"!

Of course, you think that the failure of this amendment to pass and the subsequent incorporation of vast, sparsely populated swaths of Western territory as separate states is evidence of some kind of genius from the "Founders", rather than the confluence of an accident of history and the ordinary operation of self-interest.

eric76 said:

---

Don't many of those live outside of DC? DC itself is not really all that big.

---

Yeah, the population of DC proper is ~15% of the metropolitan statistical area.

It doesn't change the fact that there are 700,000 Americans in DC (more than Wyoming) who are the only people in the US proper who have no representation in Congress.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

Gumby said:

---

I get that but in reality, that House member does far less for his voters than what residents in DC get from living in the seat of Federal government. The largesse is real and DC residents benefit greatly from it.

---

Yeah, but people in Boston, NY, San Francisco, etc. get similar benefits and they also get Congressional representation.

---

No they don't. Not at all.

They can move if it is that important. If you want ocean front property don't live in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Of course, you think that the failure of this amendment to pass and the subsequent incorporation of vast, sparsely populated swaths of Western territory as separate states is evidence of some kind of genius from the "Founders", rather than the confluence of an accident of history and the ordinary operation of self-interest.

---

Absolutely! The fact that both statements in your final paragraph are true points to how right they were. Could they have possibly envisioned the country we live in the 21st century? No, hell, in 2005 I could would not have believed what this country would become by 2021. They knew this and provided a mechanism to make changes. The fact that calling a constitutional convention requires 2/3rds of the states and ratifying any amendments requires 3/4ths of the states, shows they had foresight.....{in my words} to protect us from ourselves.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Don't many of those live outside of DC? DC itself is not really all that big.

---

Yeah, the population of DC proper is ~15% of the metropolitan statistical area.

It doesn't change the fact that there are 700,000 Americans in DC (more than Wyoming) who are the only people in the US proper who have no representation in Congress.

---

Give them the option to claim MD or VA if they live in DC proper.

Otherwise, they already do.

eric76 said:

---

TxAgswin said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

What kind of unelected idiot lives in DC?

---

Tons of military that work at the Pentagon, college students and professors (about 20 Universities in DC), doctors, nurses, police, firefighters, school teachers, taxi drivers, shop owners, garbage men, consultants, lobbyists, lawyers, athletes, mailmen, bankers, engineers, construction workers, butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers.

---

Don't many of those live outside of DC? DC itself is not really all that big.

---

Yes, most of the people who work in the Pentagon do not live in DC. From a commute and cost of living standpoint, Virginia is more appealing.

Different story for Federal buildings located in DC. For those agencies (State, USAID, OMB, etc.) many employees live in DC. But even then the majority probably live in Virginia or Maryland.

Housing in DC is limited and small and expensive. The schools are not good. And crime is still high in a lot of areas. So its not really a desirable place for a family to live. Mostly young govt workers that live in the district.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Don't many of those live outside of DC? DC itself is not really all that big.

---

Yeah, the population of DC proper is ~15% of the metropolitan statistical area.

It doesn't change the fact that there are 700,000 Americans in DC (more than Wyoming) who are the only people in the US proper who have no representation in Congress.

---

That's not true - every congressman represents the District.

Anyway, if they want their very own rep, the solution is returning them to Maryland. There's precedent and everything for that.

We fixed the keg said:

---

Quote:

---

They knew this and provided a mechanism to make changes.

---

---

These are the same all knowing "Founders" who ratified a Presidential election system so obviously broken that a ten year old child with an elementary understanding of game theory (or Aaron Burr) could see through like a pane of glass.

You're fetishizing an inept and unrepresentative system because it is the only way you can hope to hold on to some modicum of power.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Don't many of those live outside of DC? DC itself is not really all that big.

---

Yeah, the population of DC proper is ~15% of the metropolitan statistical area.

It doesn't change the fact that there are 700,000 Americans in DC (more than Wyoming) who are the only people in the US proper who have no representation in Congress.

---

So then simply follow the precedent set in 1846 when 31 square miles were returned to Virginia. Remain independent, with no representation, or be returned to the state which ceded you and have your representation.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

We fixed the keg said:

---

Quote:

---

They knew this and provided a mechanism to make changes.

---

---

These are the same all knowing "Founders" who ratified a Presidential election system so obviously broken that a ten year old child with an elementary understanding of game theory (or Aaron Burr) could see through like a pane of glass.

You're fetishizing an inept and unrepresentative system because it is the only way you can hope to hold on to some modicum of power.

---

You're trying to change the constitution in order to gain power. If you don't like it you're free to move as well.

It was designed to prevent the exact type of person you're showing to be. Like tu - change the rules to tilt the playing field.

We are three pages into this thread and I asked for constitutional arguments why a constitutional amendment is NOT required for DC to gain statehood. The case for statehood is much stronger for Puerto Rico (not that I am in favor of that either), in my view, not DC.

I'm not sure but that mayor of DC Is one of the most corrupt in our country and that's saying a lot. I think she's at Marion Barry level

aggiehawg said:

---

We are three pages into this thread and I asked for constitutional arguments why a constitutional amendment is NOT required for DC to gain statehood. The case for statehood is much stronger for Puerto Rico (not that I am in favor of that either), in my view, not DC.

---

No one has presented an arguement because there isn't one. The Constitution was quite clear on this issue.

PR has a much stronger case. Not sure why the people there would want to burden themselves with that tax burden, though.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

These are the same all knowing "Founders" who ratified a Presidential election system so obviously broken that a ten year old child with an elementary understanding of game theory (or Aaron Burr) could see through like a pane of glass.

You're fetishizing an inept and unrepresentative system because it is the only way you can hope to hold on to some modicum of power.

---

No, I am showing the appropriate respect for our "imperfect" system and those who risked everything to give it to us. The same system that allowed you to achieve the success you have and freedoms you enjoy. What you pose as an argument for representation is a slippery slope. Just as stacking the Supreme Court, having a single representative body based on population, getting rid of the Electoral College, etc. All of these will erode our nation and lead us to single party, mob rule.

You can be as dismissive and snarky as you want to me and posters who think like me, but the checks and balances our founders put in place allow for states to have autonomy. How long do you think that would last with today's progressives in unchecked control?

Texas should divide up into 5 states and immediately add 8 senators.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

We fixed the keg said:

---

Quote:

---

They knew this and provided a mechanism to make changes.

---

---

These are the same all knowing "Founders" who ratified a Presidential election system so obviously broken that a ten year old child with an elementary understanding of game theory (or Aaron Burr) could see through like a pane of glass.

You're fetishizing an inept and unrepresentative system because it is the only way you can hope to hold on to some modicum of power.

---

You do realize that at different times in our history, what you just posted is seditious speech, right?

aggieh said:

---

We are three pages into this thread and I asked for constitutional arguments why a constitutional amendment is NOT required for DC to gain statehood. The case for statehood is much stronger for Puerto Rico (not that I am in favor of that either), in my view, not DC.

---

I believe it is because there isn't one. Hell, I have yet to read a plan that isn't written in a "how can we 'game' this across the finish line?" tone.

I would think Maryland has the first right of refusal here. 69 square miles of their land was taken to form DC and there is precedent for returning it as was done with Virginia. Gotta love the emotional '700,000 citizens living without representation' argument, but the simple fix isn't the goal or it would have already been done.

We fixed the keg said:

---

I would think Maryland has the first right of refusal here.

---

As I said on the first page, do you think Larry Hogan wants 300,000 extra voters who vote Democrat 95-5% added to the Maryland electorate?

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

We fixed the keg said:

---

I would think Maryland has the first right of refusal here.

---

As I said on the first page, do you think Larry Hogan wants 300,000 extra voters who vote Democrat 95-5% added to the Maryland electorate?

---

I dont think he cares about that at all.

CrottyKid said:

---

Texas should divide up into 5 states and immediately add 8 senators.

---

10-2 = 8

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

We fixed the keg said:

---

I would think Maryland has the first right of refusal here.

---

As I said on the first page, do you think Larry Hogan wants 300,000 extra voters who vote Democrat 95-5% added to the Maryland electorate?

---

If Maryland's congress supports retrocession he can use his veto and hope they don't have 3/5ths of the upper and lower house in favor. There is precedent for all of this.

wbt5845 said:

---

CrottyKid said:

---

Texas should divide up into 5 states and immediately add 8 senators.

---

---

LOL. Yeah. Gumby said what I meant. We already have 2, so moving to 10 means that we added 8.

CrottyKid said:

---

Texas should divide up into 5 states and immediately add 8 senators.

---

One problem with 5 states might be that some of the 5 states would include major metropolitan centers that are more likely to vote Democrat and those major population centers would probably have too many voters on the left for the rural voters to outvote.

If we could split it into 254 states, one per county, it would be entirely different.

eric76 said:

---

CrottyKid said:

---

Texas should divide up into 5 states and immediately add 8 senators.

---

One problem with 5 states might be that some of the 5 states would include major metropolitan centers that are more likely to vote Democrat and those major population centers would probably have too many voters on the left for the rural voters to outvote.

If we could split it into 254 states, one per county, it would be entirely different.

---

Yeah, Republicans might not get them all, but it would definitely be a net gain.

Would depend on how you chopped it up.

If Austin and San Antonio ended up in the same "state" that would be deep blue. Strategically, it might make sense for Republicans to just go ahead and concede those so they don't get split into two different states, You're going to lose Austin no matter what, so you may as well try and get San Antonio in there so it can't make another region a dogfight.

The states with Houston and Dallas would probably end up being battleground states no matter how you draw it.

I think the rest (the other 2) would be reliably red.

If Texas somehow pulled that off, California would try it and then the whole thing would backfire, because they would carry the whole thing without lifting a finger. I can't think of any way you could chop up California to deliver even a single Republican "state". Maybe way up North and away from the coast, but the Bay Area is right there, so it would require some very creative gerrymandering.

Quote:

---

PR has a much stronger case. Not sure why the people there would want to burden themselves with that tax burden, though.

---

From what I understand, they are deeply divided on this. Many Puerto Ricans are not just opposed to statehood, they are in favor of sovereignty.

TxAgswin said:

---

Quote:

---

PR has a much stronger case. Not sure why the people there would want to burden themselves with that tax burden, though.

---

From what I understand, they are deeply divided on this. Many Puerto Ricans are not just opposed to statehood, they are in favor of sovereignty.

---

Once they get their first Federal tax bill they will probably secede the next day.

TxAgswin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

CrottyKid said:

---

Texas should divide up into 5 states and immediately add 8 senators.

---

One problem with 5 states might be that some of the 5 states would include major metropolitan centers that are more likely to vote Democrat and those major population centers would probably have too many voters on the left for the rural voters to outvote.

If we could split it into 254 states, one per county, it would be entirely different.

---

Yeah, Republicans might not get them all, but it would definitely be a net gain.

Would depend on how you chopped it up.

If Austin and San Antonio ended up in the same "state" that would be deep blue. Strategically, it might make sense for Republicans to just go ahead and concede those so they don't get split into two different states, You're going to lose Austin no matter what, so you may as well try and get San Antonio in there so it can't make another region a dogfight.

The states with Houston and Dallas would probably end up being battleground states no matter how you draw it.

I think the rest (the other 2) would be reliably red.

If Texas somehow pulled that off, California would try it and then the whole thing would backfire, because they would carry the whole thing without lifting a finger. I can't think of any way you could chop up California to deliver even a single Republican "state". Maybe way up North and away from the coast, but the Bay Area is right there, so it would require some very creative gerrymandering.

---

If El Paso was in one state, San Antonio and Austin in another, Houston in another, Dallas-Fort Worth in another, and then Lubbock and Amarillo in the fifth, the only state that would probably be reliably Republican would be the one with Lubbock and Amarillo. If El Paso had Midland and Odessa, it might also be reliably Republican.

If we could split it up and put Houston, Dallas-Ft Worth, Austin, San Antonio, and El Paso in the same state, (does the portions of a state have to be contiguous), then we might end up with four Republican and one Democrat state.

This is a completely stupid debate with a relatively easy fix. First of all, D.C. comprises 70 square miles, we are really going to make a state that is 70 square miles? D.C. has a population of 700K that actually live there. By contrast, the smallest state is Rhode Island with a land mass of 1200 sq. miles, 17x that of DC, with a larger population. So, what's next, Houston becomes a separate state from Texas? NYC from NY? Miami from FL? LA and SF from CA?

DC only borders on state via land, Maryland. Given this is 2021 the solution is very simple, The Federal Government retains all federal buildings and land within D.C. and has the authority and administration over those properties and R/E, everything else becomes Maryland and only currently living in D.C. immediately becomes a resident of Maryland.

It was always intended that there would be a federal district that the federal government had sole authority and power over, it was NEVER intended that the district would have residents. It is supposed to be the seat. of the federal government, NOT a state, and NOT have any residents.

Making DC a state would be in direct conflict for the very reasons the framers established a federal district.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Don't many of those live outside of DC? DC itself is not really all that big.

---

Yeah, the population of DC proper is ~15% of the metropolitan statistical area.

It doesn't change the fact that there are 700,000 Americans in DC (more than Wyoming) who are the only people in the US proper who have no representation in Congress.

---

If it is population you are worried about, ok. Dallas will be a state. And Fort Worth. And Houston. And Austin. San Antonio....

The population argument is worthless.

He uses the population arguement to avoid the fact this would be a Vatican City sized state.

Jarrin' Jay said:

---

This is a completely stupid debate with a relatively easy fix. First of all, D.C. comprises 70 square miles, we are really going to make a state that is 70 square miles? D.C. has a population of 700K that actually live there. By contrast, the smallest state is Rhode Island with a land mass of 1200 sq. miles, 17x that of DC, with a larger population. So, what's next, Houston becomes a separate state from Texas? NYC from NY? Miami from FL? LA and SF from CA?

DC only borders on state via land, Maryland. Given this is 2021 the solution is very simple, The Federal Government retains all federal buildings and land within D.C. and has the authority and administration over those properties and R/E, everything else becomes Maryland and only currently living in D.C. immediately becomes a resident of Maryland.

It was always intended that there would be a federal district that the federal government had sole authority and power over, it was NEVER intended that the district would have residents. It is supposed to be the seat. of the federal government, NOT a state, and NOT have any residents.

Making DC a state would be in direct conflict for the very reasons the framers established a federal district.

---

That's an excellent idea.

Would it be possible for the voters to make the voters all Maryland residents without having to actually carve it up into Federal and non-Federal?

If they want statehood, they need to give up being the seat of the federal government.....period