Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee
You're right that is hard to imagine - like impossibly hard. I see absolutely no indication of such a shift and I think its more likely the GOP won't even be a thing in 15 years. Not sure what political winds you are listing to. As for the motivation behind the DC statehood movement, I sort of resent your position that it is nothing more than a Democratic motivated push to more safely hold the majority in Congress. In case you didn't know, the DC statehood push has been around for decades and it strains credulity it was always about national Democratic politics, especially considering the Democrats held strong majorities for decades without the "need" for DC statehood. The primary motivation has always been about fair representation and representation that can actually vote, you know, like Wyoming. My position is they should stop framing it as "statehood" and just frame it as right and fair representation. No need to eff up the national flag, no need to rename anything. The District of Columbia would still be the District of Columbia outside of the small designated federal zone, it would just have a seat in the House and 2 seats in the Senate. Then when every American has the same democratic representation, let the political chips fall where they may.
|
Politics aside, there is still the issue of Constitutional law at state.
Article 1 Section 8 defines the "Powers of Congress". The clause establishing the District of Columbia falls under the "Powers of Congress". So obviously, Congress could change its powers when it decides to do so.
When was the last time you saw Congress surrender a Constitutional power?
Like what happen to the section of the District south of the Potomac, the land was surrendered back to Virginia, therefore most likely the section of the District north of the Potomac would probably be surrendered back to Maryland. At least Maryland would have a very strong claim for it.
The Constitution also states what is required to add a new State.
Article 4 - The States ; Section 3 - New States
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
Can the northern section of the District be made into a new State or would it return back to Maryland? Maryland gave up that territory to make the District, not to make a new State 200 plus years later. It would make an interesting constitutional case in the Supreme Court.
Which bring up the possibilities about breaking states up into 2, 3, or more states. How many States do you know desire giving up tax revenues?
Anything is possible, and given the right circumstances anything can be probable. But I do not ever see the circumstances where States will be willing to give up tax revenues and surrendering territory to another State.
Prev
Linear Mode
