It probably is.
1 Like
What? Why would DC have to be given back to Maryland? We don’t have a cap limit on states. I don’t see any evidence that it HAS to go back to Maryland, vs being it’s own state.
Nah, they are just concerned with giving everyone an opportunity to vote. Just like the GoP is actually just concerned with election security. The difference between the two is the former is justifiable if you think democracy is a good thing. The latter is only justifiable if there is need for it, and there isn’t.
Nah. Dont really feel like engaging with someone who mostly puts out sarcastic, hyperbolic posts and gets recreationally offended about things no one said or implied despite multiple posters attempts to clear up any misunderstanding. So, ill do what i do IRL with people like that, and just ignore them. Lot of other folks to engage with and learn from.
@Californiagrown It’s okay to directly insult me by name. You don’t have to be passive aggressive about it all the time. It might even sting a bit if you didn’t use clumsy rhetorical gymnastics to misrepresent what I say, but that’s just part of your woke charm I suppose.
I’ll happily admit when I’m wrong, unlike a certain someone who will argue with LEOs about lethal force in the Lethal Force thread and spout woke nonsense du jour like your early enthusiasm for defunding the police and related policies, now easily seen to be disastrous. Or the time you advocated for “anti racist” activism by using race as a lens to judge a situation like a black guy not getting expedient service at a bar.
But hey, you’re a well meaning liberal and you shouldn’t have to explain your positions either. It especially means that you don’t need to explain the outcomes of the policies you support.
It can all be explained away with the right set of vague narratives.
2 Likes
It was created originally from land ceded by both Virginia and Maryland. It’s a federal district controlled by Congress. They would have to cede the current land back to Maryland much like they did in 1846 with what is a chunk of present day Alexandria.
As much as I hate agreeing with a Kennedy
This would all be in keeping with the constitution, but it’s not like people even give a shit anymore. It’s become just a piece of paper instead of the foundation of the Republic.
1 Like
I think I understand what you are getting at. You may not be able to make a new state without ratification (IE not just doing it by a bill). It still could be a separate state, but it may require more steps than just this bill.
Edit: It appears that if congress and the president agree a territory could become a state. It wouldn’t have to be ratified.
How Do New States Become Part of the U.S.? | HowStuffWorks to Article IV, Section 3 of the,more states without Congressional approval [source: Monk ].
1 Like
So, how has the rolled back immigration been working out? Not too good since last time I looked.
2 Likes
Depends on who you’re asking. Some might say its going as planned.
Chaos is like the ‘one ring’. You think you can wield it to your advantage, but it’s unwieldy. It ends up owning you. It’s clear it wasn’t planned because it’s completely out of hand, by any measure.
It also goes against the reasoning and general consensus leading up to the ratification of the 23rd amendment.
I haven’t researched that.
I will say I am not convinced it shouldn’t be a state. It seems inconsistent to think (and agree with) one of the primary reasons we are a country (a desire for the citizens of this country to have representation), and at the same time, not grant this to all citizens of the country. I think statehood gives DC representation that matches one of our foundational principles of representation.
If you’re interested the founders argued it at length, wasn’t by mistake. Federalist 43 Madison explains why DC should not be a state. Jefferson and Hamilton had a lot say on the matter as well, including a debt compromise to ensure the capital not be NY.
2 Likes
Cliff notes? I assume it had something to do with wanting the capital to be independent from statehood so it would be a place for the whole country to argue policy without a “home court advantage” of sorts?
Kind of, but not the whole argument. Here’s a little summary.
3 Likes
I mean, you have to do certain things to prevent white people from enslaving black ones. You do know that’s the reason behind all of the above, right? Oh, and preventing mass lynchings.
2 Likes
Things like… war?
DC should retrocede the Maryland portion which doesn’t have Federal buildings, leaving the district with a minimum of residents (ie Federal elected officials). But that would make too much sense. Constitution only prescribed 10 sq miles
And your assumption is probably somewhat true, while security against mutineers (sound familiar) was considered necessary.
1 Like
Maybe. It depends upon how profitable that is for your marionettist/s.
1 Like
There is no maybe when it’s an historical fact.
This would make the most sense in giving everybody what they SAY they want.
2 Likes