General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSomeone needs to tell Joe Manchin, Re: DC statehood to read the following:
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.
We don't need a constitutional amendment, you fool.
elleng
(130,865 posts)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.
The 'Travis Translation' of Article 4, Section 3: ... Congress can let new states into the Union, but no states can be formed inside another State.
AZLD4Candidate
(5,684 posts)Last time I checked, WV seceded from VA and was formed into a state.
former9thward
(31,987 posts)states within itself in 1845. Congress has never revoked that permission.
hlthe2b
(102,234 posts)civics and constitutional history exam--at least as rigorous as what our newly minted US citizens face after immigrating to the US.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Manchin cites the similar opinion of others on this issue, including that of Robert F. Kennedy.
ColinC
(8,291 posts)That being said, the new law differntiates between the district and the area around it that is separate from it. Congress designating that area as a state is fully within their authority if the president approves.
Amishman
(5,556 posts)A portion of a city simply doesn't make sense as a state.
There are other ways to fix the representation issue - namely restore most of DC to Maryland - as was already done with the VA portion
ColinC
(8,291 posts)Wyoming. Making dc a state with extra electoral votes makes far more sense than arbitrarily drawing lines and designating them states -as was the case with so much of the west and midwest.
AZLD4Candidate
(5,684 posts)He can count George Fitzhugh for all I care. Or do you believe that Americans should be taxed without representation in Congress, as the DC license plate says. These are American citizens. . .they require at least one Congressperson and two Senators.
That is the end of discuss. Our colonies are different (they aren't protectorates, they are colonies). They can also apply for statehood, as Puerto Rico has.
former9thward
(31,987 posts)WarGamer
(12,439 posts)If he says it's a no, it's a no.
But go ahead and fight with him.
One phone call and Manchin can sign in McConnell as speaker in less than 24 hours.
AZLD4Candidate
(5,684 posts)By your resignation, do you support Joe's decision?
WarGamer
(12,439 posts)AZLD4Candidate
(5,684 posts)WarGamer
(12,439 posts)No I'm not defeated or deflated.
We work with Manchin where we can.
HR1 (or w/e it's called now) is dead. DC Statehood is dead, as is PR...
So let's focus political JUICE and MOMENTUM on tax reform, infrastructure, Social Security reform and Healthcare.
THOSE are things we can get 50 DEMS and VP Harris to all agree on.
AZLD4Candidate
(5,684 posts)I hope the rest of the country realizes this and votes out vulnerable GOP senators, or elects Democrats in open senate seats.
That way Manchin can drop the DINO act and cross sides.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)of the popular vote, with a gerrymandered House that will also be Republican, and again, minority ruled, as will the Senate. At this point, Joe Manchin stands against democracy itself, not just the Democratic Party. Unless the filibuster is removed, democracy is dead in the United States, we are no longer backsliding, its just not going to be there, Russia 2.0.
WarGamer
(12,439 posts)Joe made promises. FOr example, the $15,200 MINIMUM Social Security level... that's a BFD as Joe would say.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)these bastards, our votes barely matter, and in 4 years, they won't matter at all. Without some way to shore up voting rights, reduce gerrymandering, etc. none of this will really matter. Joe Manchin is pushing a stake into the heart of our democracy that trump placed there, and you want to go through with the motions of what? Pretending he's on the side of democracy?
WarGamer
(12,439 posts)Shouldn't have to eat dirt and live in a cardboard box...
Pass legislation that's POSSIBLE... NOW.
We may not have the chance next year. You know how election years make politicians squeamish.
Jose Garcia
(2,595 posts)AZLD4Candidate
(5,684 posts)Did I fail math?
Jose Garcia
(2,595 posts)Celerity
(43,333 posts)specifically spelled out in the Constitution.
One of the biggest myths going (and SO often used by Manchin, Sinema, Feinstein, a few other Dems, and most all of the Rethugs) is that the Founding fathers intended the Senate from the beginning to NOT be a majoritarian body. That is a flat out lie. The filibuster only was made possible by an 1806 mistake that came from Aaron Burr's foolish suggestion in 1805 (ie. the removal of the previous question motion).
Senate Filibuster Was Created By Mistake (in 1805/1806)
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2013/11/20/senate-filibuster-was-created-by-mistake/
In 2010, Brookings Senior Fellow Sarah Binder, an expert on Congress and congressional history, testified to the Senate that the filibuster was created by mistake. We have many received wisdoms about the filibuster. However, most of them are not true. The most persistent myth is that the filibuster was part of the founding fathers constitutional vision for the Senate: It is said that the upper chamber was designed to be a slow-moving, deliberative body that cherished minority rights. In this version of history, the filibuster was a critical part of the framers Senate.
However, when we dig into the history of Congress, it seems that the filibuster was created by mistake. Let me explain. The House and Senate rulebooks in 1789 were nearly identical. Both rulebooks included what is known as the previous question motion. The House kept their motion, and today it empowers a simple majority to cut off debate. The Senate no longer has that rule on its books.
What happened to the Senates rule? In 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr was presiding over the Senate (freshly indicted for the murder of Alexander Hamilton), and he offered this advice. He said something like this. You are a great deliberative body. But a truly great Senate would have a cleaner rule book. Yours is a mess. You have lots of rules that do the same thing. And he singles out the previous question motion. Now, today, we know that a simple majority in the House can use the rule to cut off debate. But in 1805, neither chamber used the rule that way. Majorities were still experimenting with it. And so when Aaron Burr said, get rid of the previous question motion, the Senate didnt think twice. When they met in 1806, they dropped the motion from the Senate rule book.
Why? Not because senators in 1806 sought to protect minority rights and extended debate. They got rid of the rule by mistake: Because Aaron Burr told them to. Once the rule was gone, senators still did not filibuster. Deletion of the rule made possible the filibuster because the Senate no longer had a rule that could have empowered a simple majority to cut off debate. It took several decades until the minority exploited the lax limits on debate, leading to the first real-live filibuster in 1837.
snip
Jose Garcia
(2,595 posts)Celerity
(43,333 posts)that is not a factual statement
'require' and 'option to use' are two different things
budkin
(6,700 posts)Because he wont be voting for anything in Bidens agenda unless 10 Rs decide to join. So I say get it over with.
Silent3
(15,206 posts)...without Manchin, so please, while I too am frustrated by Manchin, it is ridiculous in the extreme to think having Mitch running the Senate would be pretty much the same. What we have with Manchin is much, MUCH better.
My frustration with Manchin comes from all the extra good the he (and Sinema too) stand in the way of, and the fact that he knows how important he his, and I think he likes that way too damned much.
EndlessWire
(6,514 posts)But, he's not much better. And, The People are tired of it. He shouldn't wonder why he's hated by his own side.
At least most people can see now. The Repubs are more than just Americans with a different point of view; they are fascists. Whatever they were before, they are not now. And, he is thus siding with fascism. It's Party Over Country with them.
Why is it that people are now conditioned to know automatically that "Joe" won't approve? He's an obstructionist. He's probably receiving instructions from Trump through McConnell.