Bernie Sanders calls for statehood of D.C.

[TheDemSocialist]

No, Congress has no authority under the US Constitution to create a State from a district. Article I would need to be amended, and the 23rd Amendment would need to be repealed for legislative efforts to be constitutional and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Adams v Clinton in 2000 ruled this way.

Also a new State can't be created out of an existing State, meaning You can't "shrink the size" of DC without it reverting back to Maryland and Maryland deciding the issue and not the Federal Government. Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution:

“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State 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.”

DC is a district. Congress only has the ability to make States out of territories. Alaska and Hawaii were territories and were for almost 100 years before they became States.

Congress has the power to shrink the size of DC and as you stated in your post it cannot shrink DC and admit it into Maryland without the consent of the Maryland state legislature. However under the constitution there is nowhere that bars Congress from shrinking the size of DC and in the same measure introduce DC into the Union. There is nowhere in the Constitution that bars this from happening.

Also the 23rd amendment problems would not need to be addressed immediately because if the size of DC shrunk the tiny number of residents left in the federal area would still stand entitled to three presidential electoral votes. True it would need to be addressed further down the road but it does not block the actual process of shrinking the size of DC to where federal business is not conducted and entering it into the union.

Also article one would not need to be amended. Article one "doesn’t say you can’t shrink the federal district; it only says it can’t be larger than “ten miles square” (100 square miles, in modern English). The District has been shrunk before without any changes to the U.S. Constitution"

 

[austrianecon]

Congress has the power to shrink the size of DC and as you stated in your post it cannot shrink DC and admit it into Maryland without the consent of the Maryland state legislature. However under the constitution there is nowhere that bars Congress from shrinking the size of DC and in the same measure introduce DC into the Union. There is nowhere in the Constitution that bars this from happening.

Yes, which means DC would remain under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government as a district. DC can't be created a State without amendments to the US constitution as Congress has zero power to create a State which is not a territory Article 1 is clear on this:

"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"

Congress and the Federal Government can't cede a power delegated to it without an amendment.

Also the 23rd amendment problems would not need to be addressed immediately because if the size of DC shrunk the tiny number of residents left in the federal area would still stand entitled to three presidential electoral votes. True it would need to be addressed further down the road but it does not block the actual process of shrinking the size of DC to where federal business is not conducted and entering it into the union.

Actually, it would have to be addressed first as if you want DC to become a state, you need a manner is which House seats can be added or subtracted based on size of population. 23rd Amendment sets a fixed number so DC would have only 3 electoral votes (reps) despite the fact DC is growing at a rate of 5 to 10% every 10 years. So come when 2040 (24 years from now) DC will have 1m plus million population which would give it an extra Rep (electoral vote). SO basically what you are saying is you are settling for half-assed statehood now to get the two Democratic Senators yet not actually apply TRUE representation.

So you either truly believe in representation (what is fair) or you believe in using DC as a political weapon (and screwing over DC in 2040).

Also article one would not need to be amended. Article one "doesn’t say you can’t shrink the federal district; it only says it can’t be larger than “ten miles square” (100 square miles, in modern English). The District has been shrunk before without any changes to the U.S. Constitution"

It's like Obama taught you Constitutional law. Congress has the sole authority of DC, Congress can't create a state with that authority because it's not granted to them to do that.

 

[Celebrity]

https://www.nolanchart.com/article6...gally-dissolve-the-us-federal-government-html

Could Congress dissolve the Union? If so why can't they dissolve a district, or a state?

If Congress can dissolve the US, what's stopping Congress from modifying the number of states?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Yes, which means DC would remain under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government as a district. DC can't be created a State without amendments to the US constitution as Congress has zero power to create a State which is not a territory Article 1 is clear on this:

This is false. See below

"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,

This simply says that Congress can create a federal district for the seat of government in the US as long as the state they are taking territory away from a state to create such district is agreed to and there is an act of congress. Also it cannot be larger than "10 square miles" (and in today terms would be 100 square miles). This in no way says anything about admitting territory, district, land, etc into the union. This is about creating a district for the seat of government for the USA.

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"

Irrelevant in our discussion.

Congress and the Federal Government can't cede a power delegated to it without an amendment.

What? Your above quoted portion of Article 1 Clause 17 simply says that Congress has the power to create a federal district at the consent of the states.

I will repeat myself again, "under the constitution there is nowhere that bars Congress from shrinking the size of DC and in the same measure introduce DC into the Union. There is nowhere in the Constitution that bars this from happening. "

Actually, it would have to be addressed first as if you want DC to become a state,

Nope.

you need a manner is which House seats can be added or subtracted based on size of population. 23rd Amendment sets a fixed number so DC would have only 3 electoral votes (reps) despite the fact DC is growing at a rate of 5 to 10% every 10 years. So come when 2040 (24 years from now) DC will have 1m plus million population which would give it an extra Rep (electoral vote). SO basically what you are saying is you are settling for half-assed statehood now to get the two Democratic Senators yet not actually apply TRUE representation.

The 23rd amendment simply says the district that is the seat of the federal governments residents have the right to vote for president and the districts electors cannot exceed the state with the smallest population. Under the scenario that I laid out the district would be shrunk to simply include the areas where federal government actions take place, AKA in those blocks that house the congress and other fed gov agencies. All other areas outside that shrunken district would be entered into the Union as a new state. Those areas that were shrunk to house the actions of the federal government could still continued to be covered under the 23rd amendment because if the size of DC shrunk the tiny number of residents left in the federal area would still stand entitled to three presidential electoral votes.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]So you either truly believe in representation (what is fair) or you believe in using DC as a political weapon (and screwing over DC in 2040).

Uh what? A "political weapon"? I simply believe that those citizens who live in DC should have the right to vote for representatives and senators that have the same voting power as all other representatives and senators.

It's like Obama taught you Constitutional law. Congress has the sole authority of DC, Congress can't create a state with that authority because it's not granted to them to do that.

Oh boy! That damn Obama! I bet he is behind this!
But ayways what did I say here is incorrect?