Statehood for D.C.?

[pecksniff]

Actually I think it would make more sense for a State of Columbia or whatever they call it to include the whole Washington Metropolitan Area, but, constitutionally, that can't happen unless VA and MD agree to give up those counties. Never mind that. Is there any downside to DC statehood? The local government would continue more or less in its present form, minus Congressional oversight; the most important real difference would be representation in Congress.

And, yes, DC does have its own auto dealerships, etc. The only really new and anomalous problem in this city-state would be that this would be a state whose taxpaying population would be significantly larger than its at-night resident population/voting population -- so many of those suburbanites commute to DC to work. Talk about taxation without representation!

 

[Rightguide]

DC statehood is probably unconstitutional. So forget that bullshit.

 

[pecksniff]

DC statehood is probably unconstitutional. So forget that bullshit.

The Constitution requires a federal district, but it would be perfectly constitutional to shrink it to the area around the National Mall. DC has been shrunk before -- it once included Arlington and Alexandria, which were ceded back to Virginia because of slavery-related politics.

The reason DC exists is that shortly after the Revolution, a mob of veterans demanding back pay besieged Congress in Philadelphia -- and the governor of Pennsylvania did not lift a finger to defend them. At that point the national leaders, to the extent there were any, started to think they needed a national capital under exclusively federal control, and eventually they wrote that into the Constitution. But it seems an anachronistic concern now.

 

[Rightguide]

The Constitution requires a federal district, but it would be perfectly constitutional to shrink it to the area around the National Mall. DC has been shrunk before -- it once included Arlington and Alexandria, which were ceded back to Virginia because of slavery-related politics.

The reason DC exists is that shortly after the Revolution, a mob of veterans demanding back pay besieged Congress in Philadelphia -- and the governor of Pennsylvania did not lift a finger to defend them. At that point the national leaders, to the extent there were any, started to think they needed a national capital under exclusively federal control, and eventually they wrote that into the Constitution. But it seems an anachronistic concern now.

It exists because the Constitution requires it to exist. However if you want to "shrink it" as you say, we can simply cede the land and city back to Maryland and Virginia, and say "fuck you" to the subversive Democrat plan to give itself two more Senators.

 

[pecksniff]

It exists because the Constitution requires it to exist. However if you want to "shrink it" as you say, we can simply cede the land and city back to Maryland and Virginia, and say "fuck you" to the subversive Democrat plan to give itself two more Senators.

VA already got its share back. I once heard an AA pol refer to the retrocession-to-MD idea as "American apartheid," which never made any sense to me. Certainly making Washington just one more city of Maryland would make its own kind of sense -- then it would have the same constitutional status every other American city has -- but I've never heard what the government of Maryland thinks of that idea, which would give them a new rich tax base, but also saddle them with a whole new set of problems and expenses.

But, statehood, which would in effect give the Dems two more senators, forever, is hardly a "subversive" plan. I should hope even you will agree that nothing that increases the Dems' power in Congress is for that reason alone subversive.

Statehood or retrocession to Maryland would increase the Dems' representation in the HoR.

 

[jaF0]

Been a billion threads on this.

No. Dissolve the city of DC as it stands and merge the residents into the two states. Leave the Federal District as an overlaying authority for federal lands, buildings and personnel.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

While we are at it:

- Merge North and South into one "Dakota"
- Split California into 3 states
- Split Texas into 3 or 5 states
- Split NY into 2 states
- Split FL into 2 states
- Split OH into 2 states
- Split NC into 2 states
- Merge West Virginia back into Virginia

 

[jaF0]

You forgot splitting Michigan, or merging the UP with Wisconsin.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

You forgot splitting Michigan, or merging the UP with Wisconsin.

Works for me

 

[pecksniff]

While we are at it:

- Merge North and South into one "Dakota"
- Split California into 3 states
- Split Texas into 3 or 5 states
- Split NY into 2 states
- Split FL into 2 states
- Split OH into 2 states
- Split NC into 2 states
- Merge West Virginia back into Virginia

In Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here, Buzz Windrip's Corpo regime does do one thing that even its enemies acknowledge makes a certain sense: It abolishes the 48 (then) states and replaces them with eight provinces, divided into districts, divided into counties (each unit governed by a Corpo-appointed commissioner). The book ends with a rebellion in progress without addressing what happens if it wins, but I would hope any post-Corpo regime would not restore the old states, but, rather, simply graft elected assemblies onto the provinces and districts.

In their present form, the 50 states are too large to be democratic and too small to be efficient.

Most countries systematically reorganize their internal territorial divisions every few decades -- constitutionally impossible in the U.S., of course.

 

[CornusKousa]

In Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here, Buzz Windrip's Corpo regime does do one thing that even its enemies acknowledge makes a certain sense: It abolishes the 48 (then) states and replaces them with eight provinces, divided into districts, divided into counties (each unit governed by a Corpo-appointed commissioner). The book ends with a rebellion in progress without addressing what happens if it wins, but I would hope any post-Corpo regime would not restore the old states, but, rather, simply graft elected assemblies onto the provinces and districts.

In their present form, the 50 states are too large to be democratic and too small to be efficient.

Most of them anyhow, let's say you could restructure the US how would you go about doing it?

 

[pecksniff]

Most of them anyhow, let's say you could restructure the US how would you go about doing it?

I've seen several proposals. I would begin with noting the actual cultural divisions, as identified by Colin Woodard in American Nations -- see this map.

 

[CornusKousa]

I've seen several proposals. I would begin with noting the actual cultural divisions, as identified by Colin Woodard in American Nations -- see this map.

That's cool, but I meant in the US specifically.

Because we could in theory restructure our nation if the leadership was there to make it happen.

I mean maybe we could pull CA and Mexico in on it?? But that's even more far fetched lol

I've seen several proposals myself, everything from combining rural areas and letting city states separate off to smaller stuf like what BND suggested.

 

[pecksniff]

That's cool, but I meant in the US specifically.

Just look at the same map and cut it off at the existing national borders.

I've seen several proposals myself, everything from combining rural areas and letting city states separate off to smaller stuf like what BND suggested.

I think every one of America's metropolitan areas should have a single consolidated metro government, encompassing its suburbs and exurbs, so there would be a government that could plan for metro needs such as local transportation; and the 25 or so largest-by-population should be states of the Union. Many of the resulting leftover-states would be predominantly rural. E.g., if the NY metro area were consolidated, what is now "upstate New York" could be the State of Hudson.

But, again, that would be constitutionally impossible in the U.S. -- no state can be deprived of territory without its consent.

 

[CornusKousa]

Just look at the same map and cut it off at the existing national borders.

Right on.

I think every one of America's metropolitan areas should have a single consolidated metro government, encompassing its suburbs and exurbs, so there would be a government that could plan for metro needs such as local transportation; and the 25 or so largest-by-population should be states of the Union.

Many of the resulting leftover-states would be predominantly rural. E.g., if the NY metro area were consolidated, what is now "upstate New York" could be the State of Hudson.

Cool idea.

The only problem I see with the city state idea is the same problem that has always plagued city states, cities need resources, or access to them.

We no doubt have the tech to remedy some of that already, but not entirely yet.

Might become a realistic way to do that soon.

My idea is less ambitious.

I give primary consideration to cultural/political divisions along geographical regions and zones. Similar to the map you put forth but along more traditional lines and what people are familiar with. But giving consideration to resources.

But, again, that would be constitutionally impossible in the U.S. -- no state can be deprived of territory without its consent.

I'm not saying any of these ideas but....

This is where I hope more reasonable leadership prevails and gets people on board with finding a way to live and let live instead of a way to force each others crap down each others throat.

Like you said, we're to big and too diverse to live under 1 size fits all policy and too many states are too small to go at it on their own.

There's got to be a solution better than fighting about it.

 

[pecksniff]

The only problem I see with the city state idea is the same problem that has always plagued city states, cities need resources, or access to them.

An independent country needs its own farmland and other resources, but a state of the Union, which is among other things a vast customs union, does not. DC can be a viable state with nothing but urbanized territory.

 

[CornusKousa]

An independent country needs its own farmland and other resources, but a state of the Union, which is among other things a vast customs union, does not. DC can be a viable state with nothing but urbanized territory.

Depends on the type of union.

In your model it seems effectively a unitary state where the cities democratically enslave, bully and ransack the rest of the country.

In my model we have a union of 13 states who share a great many things, but economic policy is very limited and social policy is simply not among them and are largely responsible for themselves.

 

[pecksniff]

Here's an interesting point: Washington is for the most part a one-industry town. DC would be a state in which an extraordinarily large percentage of the population are either civil servants, politicians, or in some ancillary way involved in government or politics, e.g., journalists, attorneys and lobbyists.

What sort of state government would that produce, I wonder?

 

[pecksniff]

You forgot splitting Michigan, or merging the UP with Wisconsin.

You wrote "UP," not "Occupied Wisconsin."

The State Police will be knocking on your door shortly.

 

[pecksniff]

In my model we have a union of 13 states who share a great many things, but economic policy is very limited and social policy is simply not among them and are largely responsible for themselves.

Well, it would still be a customs union, wouldn't it? No border checks at the DC city/state line?

 

[KeithD]

Here's an interesting point: Washington is for the most part a one-industry town. DC would be a state in which an extraordinarily large percentage of the population are either civil servants, politicians, or in some ancillary way involved in government or politics, e.g., journalists, attorneys and lobbyists.

What sort of state government would that produce, I wonder?

These government-related occupations require huge services support and there are a bunch of major universities in the District. Thus, it's not exactly a one-plant town anything like most of the small towns in the country are.

 

[pecksniff]

These government-related occupations require huge services support and there are a bunch of major universities in the District. Thus, it's not exactly a one-plant town anything like most of the small towns in the country are.

Still, it would be a state in which more of the population is in government-related work than in any other, adjusted for numbers. What kind of state political culture would that produce? Perhaps the Libertarian Party would be frozen out from even the marginal role it plays elsewhere.

 

[Rightguide]

VA already got its share back. I once heard an AA pol refer to the retrocession-to-MD idea as "American apartheid," which never made any sense to me. Certainly making Washington just one more city of Maryland would make its own kind of sense -- then it would have the same constitutional status every other American city has -- but I've never heard what the government of Maryland thinks of that idea, which would give them a new rich tax base, but also saddle them with a whole new set of problems and expenses.

But, statehood, which would in effect give the Dems two more senators, forever, is hardly a "subversive" plan. I should hope even you will agree that nothing that increases the Dems' power in Congress is for that reason alone subversive.

Statehood or retrocession to Maryland would increase the Dems' representation in the HoR.

The Constitution requires the federal government itself to be in it's own district, not a state. So, Maryland could be given legal jurisdiction over all property and buildings not belonging to the federal government. The federal district was designed to be politically neutral and not subject to state law.

 

[pecksniff]

The Constitution requires the federal government itself to be in it's own district, not a state. So, Maryland could be given legal jurisdiction over all property and buildings not belonging to the federal government. The federal district was designed to be politically neutral and not subject to state law.

True, but irrelevant.

 

[pecksniff]

SCOTUS declines to hear case for D.C. representation in Congress.

Before the matter reached the Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit both ruled against District residents. D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) expressed her displeasure with the high court’s decision.

“I am disappointed that the Supreme Court summarily affirmed a three-judge panel’s ruling that D.C. residents do not have the constitutional right to voting representation in the House,” Norton said. “However, the ruling has no bearing on the constitutionality of D.C. statehood, which would give D.C. residents voting representation in the House and Senate and full control over local affairs.”

“In fact, the three-judge panel expressly referred to ‘statehood’ as a remedy for D.C. statehood. Thank you to the D.C. residents who served as plaintiffs and their pro bono attorneys for their efforts in this case,” she said.

Jamal Holtz serves as a lead organizer for 51 for 51, an organization seeking to get the U.S. Senate to gut the filibuster and allow a vote on Sen. Thomas Carper’s (D-Del.) D.C. statehood bill. Holtz said the Supreme Court’s ruling, while disappointing, won’t stop the statehood movement from achieving its goal.

“The Supreme Court failed to advance representation for D.C. residents and now we need Congress to do its job,” Holtz said. “Constitutional scholars have debunked Republican arguments against statehood and we can’t let racist rhetoric — or racist rules like the filibuster — block statehood any longer. With voter suppression bills spreading across the country, D.C. statehood must be part of the solution to fulfill the promises of our democracy. We’re closer than we’ve ever been to D.C. statehood and we can’t let the Jim Crow filibuster stand in the way.”