The Founding Fathers Never ...

[ItsjustMe]

[elleng]

1. or non-landholding white men, as I recall.

[FBaggins]

2. I'm not sure why they're wasting time on such arguments

Democratic and Republican administrations for decades have agreed that DC statehood would almost certainly require a constitutional amendment (where in other cases it could be done with legislation).

So what good does it do them to make other arguments? They should just say "the constitution doesn't permit it"

Though I suppose that could make a clever retort to the reply above. "Yeah... they didn't. Which is why we had to amend the constitution"

[JHB]

6. IIRC, the Constitution only stipulates that the Federal District not exceed 10 miles square.

I don't think it specifies other details.

Changing the size of the Federal District from its current borders to a few core areas would allow statehood for the rest, allowing the rest (city proper and suburbs) to govern itself without grandstanding interference from Congress.

[FBaggins]

7. Heavens no... there's MUCH more than that

DC has its own amendment already (the 23rd) granting it the ability to appoint the number of presidential electors that it would have "if it were a state". Congress can't undo a constitutional amendment by legislation.

Then there's Article IV (sec 3) which prohibits creating a new state out of the territory of an existing state without that state's permission. The land that would become the new state was originally part of Maryland - which only consented to cede it to the new federal district. I wouldn't want to argue to Gorsuch (etc.) that Congress can get around Art IV by having a state first give the land for some other purpose. I suppose that Maryland could be asked to vote again... but I'm not sure how that would go. The NOVA suburbs of DC are incredibly profitable for VA. MD might prefer to get that benefit for themselves.

Article I Section 8 gives Congress exclusive legislative authority over the District "in all cases whatsoever". Can that "all cases" be argued to go away upon some legislative action?

[PJMcK]

3. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution

They wrote the explanation for amending the Constitution.

Ergo, they intended for the document to be "living document" that would reflect the American people as time progressed.

The Founding Fathers were progressive thinkers, especially for their time. They NEVER intended for the United States to be cast in concrete, never to be changed.

Republicans who make these arguments are ignorant of the history they are attempting to invoke.

[abqtommy]

4. Well, Senator Mike, the founding fathers never said anything about you either. They

wisely left dealing with you to us, their inheritors, knowing that we'd do the right thing.

[DFW]

5. The Founding Fathers never envisioned a state called "South Dakota," either

Senator Rounds had better resign before some history professor reminds him that electricity, running water, telephones and air conditioning were never intended to be offered to members of Congress in 1787, either.