BMX Bandit said:

---

Which raises an interesting question. If Congress can't shrink the size of the capital without a constitutional amendment, does Arlington County revert back to being part of DC ?

---

Returning land to Virginia is completely different than declaring Arlington County a state. I'm perfectly fine with D.C. going back to Maryland or just allowing D.C. residents to vote in Maryland senate elections.

slyfox07 said:

---

I believe that secession was legal, but in the real world the victor writes history and the rules.

---

Right. Now you see. And that same real world says (see Carthaginian Wars) what was attempted, can be done again. Its just a matter of will.

There is nothing other than the will to try needed, so DC needs to stop pushing. The 1860's arbitrary negation of the Founder's 1770 actions against London would not have been recognized by them, nor would it matter anyway.

When talking about an intending lawless despotic regime, speaking legaliese is a non-sequitur.

South Dakota rep put dems on blast and making them voice they just want power - bold and I like It

GAC06 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Which raises an interesting question. If Congress can't shrink the size of the capital without a constitutional amendment, does Arlington County revert back to being part of DC ?

---

Returning land to Virginia is completely different than declaring Arlington County a state. I'm perfectly fine with D.C. going back to Maryland or just allowing D.C. residents to vote in Maryland senate elections.

---

It's not completely different based on arguments on why this is unconstitutional.

The argument is is that Congress cannot unilaterally change the size of the District through simple legislation, but needs an amendment.

Artorias said:

---

Gotta give it to the Dems, when they have control they take full advantage of it. Wish Rs weren't so passive when they had power.

---

Joe Manchin is the only thing keeping this from happening

BMX Bandit said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

Maryland will not approve it as it's still a part of their state. This would open a can of worms as why cant any other city become it's own state. Statehood was performed as annexation.

---

Huh? It's not part of Maryland. It was, but not anymore.

As for what Maryland would do, 22 state AGs wrote Biden as to why this would be unconstitutional. Maryland wasn't one of them.

---

Since the land was ceded, Maryland still has the option to retrocede, which would solve the "we are not equal to other territories " argument. Similar to what Virginia did after the civil war.

Statehood would be stupid bc they have no true economy. I think like 70% of the states industry would be Lawyers and 1% is manufacturing.

Quote:

---

Maryland still has the option to retrocede,

---

Where is that law?

And this goes directly against the argument made that this bill is unconstitutional. Congress can't reduce the size of DC

BMX Bandit said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Which raises an interesting question. If Congress can't shrink the size of the capital without a constitutional amendment, does Arlington County revert back to being part of DC ?

---

Returning land to Virginia is completely different than declaring Arlington County a state. I'm perfectly fine with D.C. going back to Maryland or just allowing D.C. residents to vote in Maryland senate elections.

---

It's not completely different based on arguments on why this is unconstitutional.

The argument is is that Congress cannot unilaterally change the size of the District through simple legislation, but needs an amendment.

---

Under the 23rd Amendment.

Quote:

---

Congress passed the Twenty-Third Amendment on June 16, 1960. The proposed amendment was quickly ratified as part of the Constitution. On March 29, 1961, Ohio became the thirty-eighth State to approve the Amendment, thereby fulfilling the Constitution's Article V requirement that amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the States.

Six months later, Congress exercised its power under Section 2 of the Amendment to enact Public Law No. 87-389, establishing the mechanics of presidential election in the District of Columbia. After its ratification, two more States ratified the Amendment.

The Amendment allows American citizens residing in the District of Columbia to vote for presidential electors, who in turn vote in the Electoral College for President and Vice President. In layperson's terms, the Amendment means that residents of the District are able to vote for President and Vice President. Prior to the Amendment, citizens residing in the District could not vote for those offices unless they were validly registered to vote in one of the States.

Congress ultimately controls the District, but has allowed it a degree of self-rule. The Seat of Government Clause of the 1787 Constitution, which provided for the establishment of the District, grants Congress exclusive power to govern the District. Over the years, most recently pursuant to the 1973 Home Rule Act, Congress has exercised that power to extend to the District a measure of autonomy, including the power to elect a Mayor and a Council.

Since its creation, the District has sometimes been treated like a State. The District is deemed to be a State for the purpose of levying and collecting federal and local taxes, for service in the armed forces, for diversity jurisdiction, and for regulating commerce. But it still remains that, at present, the District is not considered a State for purposes of congressional representation.

Nothing in the Twenty-Third Amendment changes that: the Amendment neither grants the District statehood, nor does it provide residents with representation in the Senate or the House of Representatives, though, by congressional legislation, residents have long had the right to elect a non-voting delegate to the House.

---

Link

Not sure what that has to do with my post.

To those that oppose, what is your specific opposition to it other than it will give democrats 2 more seats in the Senate? Honest question.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Not sure what that has to do with my post.

---

I was agreeing with you. There's a Constitutional issue here.

NATE AG03 said:

---

To those that oppose, what is your specific opposition to it other than it will give democrats 2 more seats in the Senate? Honest question.

---

Because the only reason to do it is to give democrats 2 more seats in the Senate.

It's a power play, pure and simple.

All of the arguments about congressional representation fall on extremely deaf ears. That was the way it was lined out in the constitution, purposefully. Don't change the rules just to give yourself more power.

How about this: we give DC statehood, but don't give them any senate seats?

Any interest from ANYBODY doing that?

I didn't think so.

Somebody tell that moron Hoyer that 70% of the country opposes DC statehood when polled...

Or at least they did before the dems and the media told them what to think about it

Clob94 said:

---

Cool.

Straight up trade. Like the Big 12. You get DC, Texas gets to leave.

50 + 1 - 1

---

1 - 50 + 1

Western CA, OR, and WA need to form new states now.

JW said:

---

Western CA, OR, and WA need to form new states now.

---

Or we can merge them into one State.

Cascadia.

6 Senate seats down to 2.

slyfox07 said:

---

JW said:

---

Western CA, OR, and WA need to form new states now.

---

Or we can merge them into one State.

Cascadia.

6 Senate seats down to 2.

---

I prefer Greater Idaho

slyfox07 said:

---

The precedent was set, and in the aftermath the supreme court upheld the union as "indestructible" in 1868

---

When a state wants to leave, there are always three possibilities:
1) that the national government will allow it to leave.
2) that there will be armed conflict and the state will win.
3) that there will be armed conflict and the National government will win.

The Civil War (which was actually a war of secession) was settled under option 3. That tells us absolutely nothing about future scenarios.

So you think Texas could defeat the modern US military in armed conflict?

I don't.

slyfox07 said:

---

So you think Texas could defeat the modern US military in armed conflict?

I don't.

---

If you think it would be just Texas vs. USA, you are mistaken.

I don't see how any combination of US states would organize a military force that could defeat the power of the US military and its intelligence and law enforcement arms.

This isn't 1861.

Can we keep the fanfiction on the texit thread? No need to derail this one

As soon as Texas attempts to leave, many other states would follow suit. Russia and China would also get involved. This conflict would not be restricted to the boundaries of the current USA.

If you cannot leave and are held captive by force, you are not free, you are a slave.

Nztntkarma said:

---

If you cannot leave and are held captive by force, you are not free, you are a slave.

---

No argument.

Secession is why the civil war was fought.

Slavery is why the south seceded, but the union didn't decide to fight them because of slavery. That's the biggest lie that taught in school.

They invaded the south because they tried to leave.

The important thing to remind oneself is that any idiot 'moderate' who voted for Biden (or against GOP senators) should be reminded that zero 'moderate' Dems voted against this, or will in the Senate. Maybe, maybe Sinema and Manchin hold firm, but it's iffy. Heck, Romney and Murk might support it anyway which would make it irrelevant.

Politics vs. the left is always a my team vs. yours battle. There's no "oh I just want no more mean tweets" party.

BusterAg said:

---

How about this: we give DC statehood, but don't give them any senate seats?

Any interest from ANYBODY doing that?

I didn't think so.

---

Rght.

Much like allowing bulk immigration but no vote till next generation. You would see support for open borders drop steeply.

So which "city" in this new state will be the state capital and which one will be the nation's capital?