Jon Ossoff Is 44th Democratic Senator To Back D.C. Statehood

[soothsayer]

Link to tweet

?s=21


Brad Beauregard Jr 🇺🇸
@BradBeauregardJ
·
Mar 23, 2021
Jon @ossoff is the 44th Senator to back #DCStatehood!!

We're waiting to hear from:

Jon Manchin - West Virginia
Kyrsten Sinema - Arizona
Mark Kelly - Arizona
Angus King - Maine
Jeanne Shaheen - New Hampshire
John Hickenlooper - Colorada

#DCStatehoodNow

Jon Ossoff Is 44th Democratic Senator To Back D.C. Statehood
huffpost.com

https://t.co/AOYiCd7R8Z

Brad Beauregard Jr 🇺🇸
@BradBeauregardJ
No other democratic nation disenfranchises the residents of its capital city.

If you live in AZ, CO, MA, NH or WV, you need to contact your Senators and tell them to support #DCStatehood

#DemCast #ONEV1

[ColinC]

1. Now how would it pass even if they get 50 votes?

How could they set it up to pass with a simple majority? Reconciliation? Put it I'ma defense spending bill?

[FBaggins]

2. Six more isn't enough

Even ignoring the likely filibuster - we would also need at least two additional SCOTUS justices to agree.

[Celerity]

6. SCOTUS cannot block it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_Union#Text

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:

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.


How the US Statehood Process Works

https://www.thoughtco.com/us-statehood-process-3322311

The process by which U.S. territories attain full statehood is, at best, an inexact art. While Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the U.S. Congress to grant statehood, the process for doing so is not specified.



The Constitution merely declares that new states cannot be created by merging or splitting existing states without the approval of both the U.S. Congress and the states' legislatures.

Otherwise, Congress is given the authority to determine the conditions for statehood.

"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…"
— U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, clause 2.

Congress typically requires the territory applying for statehood to have a certain minimum population. In addition, Congress requires the territory to provide evidence that a majority of its residents favor statehood.

Congress is under no constitutional obligation, however, to grant statehood, even in those territories whose population expresses a desire for statehood.

The Typical Process

Historically, Congress has applied the following general procedure when granting territories statehood:

The territory holds a referendum vote to determine the people's desire for or against statehood.
Should a majority vote to seek statehood, the territory petitions the U.S. Congress for statehood.
The territory, if it has not already done so, is required to adopt a form of government and constitution that are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Congress—both House and Senate—pass, by a simple majority vote, a joint resolution accepting the territory as a state.
The President of the United States signs the joint resolution and the territory is acknowledged as a U.S. state.

snip

[FBaggins]

8. Of course they can

Who do you think determines whether the constitution allows for DC Statehood in the first place?

It took an amendment to get DC three electoral votes as "if it were a state" but that amendment can be undone with a simple congressional majority?

Note the part about Congress not being able to create a state by splitting an existing state? Who gets to rule on whether splitting a state (MD) and then waiting a couple of centuries changes that?

[Celerity]

10. No they cannot, as long as it's done in accordance with the Admission Clause. You are wrong.

Also you are in error here

Note the part about Congress not being able to create a state by splitting an existing state?

you are leaving out a major part, the Clause does NOT a priori completely block creation by splitting and existing state (which doesn't even apply here in DC's case), it simply adds another requirement

again here is the relevant Clause in 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.

You are pushing incorrect information. The SCOTUS cannot block it as long as the Admission Clause is followed, which the DC Statehood Act does.

[FBaggins]

11. Lol... they're the ones who get to determine whether it fits the admissions clause

Nor is that the only constitutional provision that might apply. They could easily interpret the 23rd amendment to block DC statehood. Or Article I Sec8

it simply adds another requirement

A requirement that hasn’t been met... and perhaps can’t be.

Your argument boils down to a claim that SCOTUS can’t block congressional action as long as they follow the constitution... which is a semantic “duh”... since thats true of every congressional action they ever overturned.

Republicans take back Congress next year and decide to split WV into 15 states. Biden can’t veto it under this theory... but WV never consents. How is it blocked?

[Celerity]

12. Your example is not germane to the DC (or the Puerto Rico) case. There is no pre-existing state

being carved up.

If what you claim is true (that SCOTUS can block it) then please explain why this theory has never come into the discussion (as it surely would if you are correct, due to the makeup of the current SOTUS).

You are simply incorrect, I am sorry.

[FBaggins]

13. Same problem

It’s not germane because that would be unconstitutional so of course they would be able to do something?

And who determines whether it’s within or without the constitution? They do.

Why hasn’t it come into the conversation? What makes you think that it hasn’t???

The reason there hasn’t been much debate is that for decades there was little disagreement about it.

Note that there was a constitutional amendment to give them 3 EVs and (in 1978 IIRC) congress approved an amendment to further enfranchise DC. It didn’t get through the states, but it had 2/3 support in both chambers of Congress.

We had overwhelming majorities and controlled the White House. Why didn’t we just pass a concurrent resolution and make them a state?

Because there was little debate that it could be done without amending the constitution

[Celerity]

14. chalk and cheese

You are conflating entirely different issues.

There is no point to continuing this.

I stand by all my positings and you will not admit you are wrong, thus this is a classic 'we are going to have to agree to disagree' stalemate.

cheers

[kcr]

21. You're wrong re SCOTUS

Congress has the power to grant statehood. It's been established.

[Haggard Celine]

3. Waste of time. Not going to happen, not even

if there were some Republican support, which there isn't. I guess it's something that a few Democratic Senators can point to so they can say that they didn't support all of the Democratic agenda. But seriously, a lot of things will have to change before this will be possible.

[Celerity]

17. if all 50 Dem senators signed on, then the only thing stopping it is the filibuster. It can either

be modified for this specific case, or changed in other ways, or binned altogether.

The only reason it would not happen (if we had all 50 Dems on board) is Manchin, Sinema, and Feinstein (the 3 Dems who are refusing to do away with it, or, in Manchin's case, even modify it in most ways).

I guess it's something that a few Democratic Senators can point to so they can say that they didn't support all of the Democratic agenda.

Assuming that all but Manchin and Sinema sign onto it, and Feinstein agrees to filibuster modification, then IT IS on those two obstructionists. They are indeed blocking a vital part of our agenda. Literally. and likely (especially in Manchin's case) a lot of other parts as well.

Manchin isn't even up for re-election almost 4 more years, and is hardly a lock to even win, yet he is one course to toss multiple and massive spanners into the works, spanners that have horrific potential to fuck up the entire country for years to come.

[Haggard Celine]

19. It will take an amendment to get it done,

and it will be a long time before any amendments get passed again, if ever. It's really rather surprising that some people think that D.C. can become a state with a simple majority vote from Congress. If that were the case, it would have been done long before now.

[Elessar Zappa]

20. Many experts say otherwise.

There are plenty of examples of constitutional law experts saying DC can become a state with a simple majority vote. Not everyone agrees but it’s certainly not a settled issue.

[Celerity]

23. Of course it doesn't take a Constitutional Amendment.

Just look at the other states added. That poster is simply wrong. Doubt me? Simply read the Admission Clause.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:

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.

[Celerity]

22. It doesnt take a Constitutional Amendment. I am ao disappointed to see

the multiple posters here pushing all sorts of flawed information about the Admission Clause. I already had a far too long colloquy with a person who ludicrously insisted that the SCOTUS had to approve any new state.

You are also wrong, just in a diffrent manner.

[mcar]

4. I was today years old when I learned that we have

2 Dakota states so that the PTB at the time could have 4 senators.

Statehood for DC!

[brer cat]

5. Interesting how that works.

I agree with statehood for DC!

[a kennedy]

7. Curious.....why haven't Kelly, Hickenlooper, and King said anything.......

[crickets]

9. It's so bizarre to live in GA and have both Senators doing the right thing!

I've gone from "No point calling. Neither will listen." to "No need to call except to say thanks!" It's amazing. Keep plugging away, Dems. Get it done.

[Lucinda]

16. ❤️ ✿❧🌿❧✿ ❤️

May the rest of the South follow suit...

[soothsayer]

18. Seriously, they're rock stars

[Lucinda]

15. KNR