Houses Passes Bill for DC Statehood.

[[DHT]Osiris]

I... don't care who come up with it? Really, I don't. It's a giant turd of a plutocrat bill that the lobbying groups were more than happy to endorse and make a few changes to.

That isn't bi-partisan. It's just plutocracy. The fact that you took an idea from one singular jurisdiction that was owned by a plutocrat republican at the time and nationalized it with lobbying groups and 6-dictionary thick stacks of rules/regulations on it doesn't make it bi-partisan in anyway.

So are you concerned with bipartisanship or top-down class warfare? I fully support you on the class warfare, but Republicans have long decided (sometime around Obama's first term) they're not interested in coming to the table to work together.

Would you support the ACA if it was fully bipartisan, exactly as it is now?

 

[fskimospy]

I do wish left wing people would just say “we now suddenly support this because it is good for us politically” and refrain from opening Pandora’s boxes that they will later incessantly whine about when it circles back to bite them.

There’s no Pandora’s box here, that’s silliness.

Democrats are very upfront that it’s good for them politically. I’ve said as much!

The good news is that what happens to be good for the Democrats also happens to align with long held principles of this country and would have good effects of diminishing the massive pro-rural skew of the senate.

It’s really just wins all around unless you think doing what Republicans want is more important than all that.

 

[fskimospy]

If you want something to be bi-partisan, you work to craft the original bill together with an associate at the opposite party.

You don't throw turds across the fence to the Senate and then cry when you get shit flinged back at you.



Also FUCKING LOL acting as if the ACA was bi-partisan. That was 100% passed with essentially a super majority democrats. The problem isn't "bi-partisan republican support" - it's that your party is just as-much in the DEEP DEEP corporate pockets as establishment republicans.

Why are you attempting to blame Democrats for Republicans’ scorched earth partisanship?

Obama’s stimulus and the ACA were passed with no, or nearly no Republican votes because Republicans made a conscious decision to refuse to cooperate with anything Obama did in an attempt to get him blamed for things so he would lose re-election.

I mean you can read the recounting of this yourself, it happened on the night of his inauguration. You’re just acting as a useful idiot for Republicans where they know you’ll blame Democrats for their bad actions.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So are you concerned with bipartisanship or top-down class warfare? I fully support you on the class warfare, but Republicans have long decided (sometime around Obama's first term) they're not interested in coming to the table to work together.

Would you support the ACA if it was fully bipartisan, exactly as it is now?

If it were fully bipartisan, I feel that it would have been a much different bill. But suffice it to say if it were bipartisan I wouldn't have room to bitch about it from a party perspective, now would I?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

If it were fully bipartisan, I feel that it would have been a much different bill. But suffice it to say if it were bipartisan I wouldn't have room to bitch about it from a party perspective, now would I?

I'm trying to determine if you actually care about the bipartisan nature of the bill, or the fact that it's 'plutocratic' (which you were far more vociferous about in the post I quoted). If it was exactly the same as now, but bipartisan, would you still dislike it?

 

[fskimospy]

If it were fully bipartisan, I feel that it would have been a much different bill. But suffice it to say if it were bipartisan I wouldn't have room to bitch about it from a party perspective, now would I?

I would love to know what changes you think could have been made that would have gotten Republicans onboard. This is fantasy land.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I’ve said it, I’ll say it again. Democrats have been fucked playing by the old rules for the last 10 years. Time to stop playing by the old rules and:
Having a Supreme Court pick stolen
Having minimal Judges seated/awarding a huge corrupt turd to seat a record number
Having the census screwed with
Having voter rights act disappear and suddenly D voting districts have problems
Having a turd of a President ignore DC

Fuck’em. I am all for making DC a State

Good luck

 

[Starbuck1975]

Because that isn't true. Elenore Holmes Norton has been pushing this since 1993.

We all know why Tom Cotton doesn't want it. He essentially said too many of those dark people. I want them to look my state.

I wish people from the right would just admit it. Also admit they are ok with "taxation without representation"

This is just red meat for the base. Democrats have momentum for police reform, but since that is proving difficult and would require they actually take principled and perhaps politically inconvenient stances on a complex issue, its far easier to throw DC statehood into the mix.

What’s the compelling argument against shrinking the federal zone and redistricting the rest into Virginia and/or Maryland.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Good luck

Thanks could be two epic years *if* Democrats get the trifecta.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I'm trying to determine if you actually care about the bipartisan nature of the bill, or the fact that it's 'plutocratic' (which you were far more vociferous about in the post I quoted). If it was exactly the same as now, but bipartisan, would you still dislike it?

I think healthcare is one of those issues where the divide is so massive that it's hard to come together.

To be honest - in order to appease the most people I think the best way is a bi-partisan bill where there is a public option that is 100% owned and managed by the government. This would essentially set the "minimum coverage" and be the equivalency of a safety net. Competition would also be invited to come in and compete - with the public option as the minimum coverage standards. If government option blows everything else out of the water (doubtful - but I'm open to it) then it will naturally over time become the only option. Also this wouldn't interfere with people that are happy with their employer coverage - but allows for people to quickly be insured should they lose their employment.

The tricky part is evaluating how much to charge for this public option - and if citizens who are poor should get subsidies... and if they do get subsidies - what is it based on? Pre-existing conditions? Income level? etc.. Again, that's a part where the bi-partisanship comes in. Personally, I'm not in any favor of programs where they put a glass ceiling above your head that says "If you make above $x you lose all your coverage". That isn't healthy and anyone with half a brain knows that people in life take the path of least resistance.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I would love to know what changes you think could have been made that would have gotten Republicans onboard. This is fantasy land.

It's not about "getting republicans onboard" it's about starting and crafting the original bill with the other party.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not about "getting republicans onboard" it's about starting and crafting the original bill with the other party.

Okay so let's assume they did that - what would a bill that Republicans would have supported looked like in a broad sense?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I think healthcare is one of those issues where the divide is so massive that it's hard to come together.

To be honest - in order to appease the most people I think the best way is a bi-partisan bill where there is a public option that is 100% owned and managed by the government. This would essentially set the "minimum coverage" and be the equivalency of a safety net. Competition would also be invited to come in and compete - with the public option as the minimum coverage standards. If government option blows everything else out of the water (doubtful - but I'm open to it) then it will naturally over time become the only option. Also this wouldn't interfere with people that are happy with their employer coverage - but allows for people to quickly be insured should they lose their employment.

The tricky part is evaluating how much to charge for this public option - and if citizens who are poor should get subsidies... and if they do get subsidies - what is it based on? Pre-existing conditions? Income level? etc.. Again, that's a part where the bi-partisanship comes in. Personally, I'm not in any favor of programs where they put a glass ceiling above your head that says "If you make above $x you lose all your coverage". That isn't healthy and anyone with half a brain knows that people in life take the path of least resistance.

While I don't necessarily disagree with what you said, you still didn't answer the question. Would you hate the ACA if it was as it is now, if it was a bipartisan effort?

 

[brycejones]

Haha, you're so petty. Btw, how's that dictionary coming?

Define dictionary.

 

[HurleyBird]

Why is being a State primarily based upon land mass vs population?

It's both, but primarily it's geography. It's also both about administration and representation, but mostly the former. If the population of Alaska were placed in a 10 square mile area completely engulfed in another state, then statehood would be questionable. You're introducing a lot of overhead versus keeping that area as a single state. On the other hand, you could reduce the population of Alaska to a quarter of its present level and statehood would still be easily justified based on geography and sheer size.

Arguably, certain states like Rode Island and Delaware don't need to be states based mostly on geography, and others like California could be two or more states based on population and the fact that there's plenty of land mass to go around.

The Constitution has nothing to do with this.

It might. You're not breaking the literal written letter of the law, but you're still violating the spirit. It's not difficult to make an argument that, stripping D.C. down to the core buildings of government while granting the surrounding area statehood would still leave the federal government largely beholden to this new entity, which is exactly what the constitution is trying to avoid.

I would not be at all surprised if that, combined with the sheer naked opportunism of the move, given that for the purpose of granting better representation to D.C residents giving land back to Virginia makes more sense administratively and yields less risk to the autonomy of the federal government, might be enough to sway the conservative justices.

It could even be enough to sway some of the liberal justices. After all, taken to it's logical extreme, any party that controls the house, senate, and presidency in the future can, at a whim, create a multitude of new states out of thin air such that the party will never lose control of the senate. And if you don't think that, should Republicans gain such control of the levers of power after Democrats grant themselves two permanent senators that they aren't liable to do exactly that, then you're naive.

It's the same reason why expanding the size of the supreme court to pack it with your cronies is such a bad idea. These kinds of moves only serve to destabilise a nation where people are already at one another's throats.

 

[zinfamous]

If you want something to be bi-partisan, you work to craft the original bill together with an associate at the opposite party.

You don't throw turds across the fence to the Senate and then cry when you get shit flinged back at you.



Also FUCKING LOL acting as if the ACA was bi-partisan. That was 100% passed with essentially a super majority democrats. The problem isn't "bi-partisan republican support" - it's that your party is just as-much in the DEEP DEEP corporate pockets as establishment republicans.

amazing that the Dems passed a purely Republican bill, which was crafted by Republicans, without Republican support, no?

it's funny that you think that makes the Democrats the problem. ....but you are a funny person.

 

[fskimospy]

It's both, but primarily it's geography. It's also both about administration and representation, but mostly the former. If the population of Alaska were placed in a 10 square mile area completely engulfed in another state, then statehood would be questionable. You're introducing a lot of overhead versus keeping that area as a single state. On the other hand, you could reduce the population of Alaska to a quarter of its present level and statehood would still be easily justified based on geography and sheer size.

Arguably, certain states like Rode Island and Delaware don't need to be states based mostly on geography, and others like California could be two or more states based on population and the fact that there's plenty of land mass to go around.



It might. You're not breaking the literal written letter of the law, but you're still violating the spirit. It's not difficult to make an argument that, stripping D.C. down to the core buildings of government while granting the surrounding area statehood would still leave the federal government largely beholden to this new entity, which is exactly what the constitution is trying to avoid.

I would not be at all surprised if that, combined with the sheer naked opportunism of the move, given that for the purpose of granting better representation to D.C residents giving land back to Virginia makes more sense administratively and yields less risk to the autonomy of the federal government, might be enough to sway the conservative justices.

It could even be enough to sway some of the liberal justices. After all, taken to it's logical extreme, any party that controls the house, senate, and presidency in the future can, at a whim, create a multitude of new states out of thin air such that the party will never lose control of the senate. And if you don't think that, should Republicans gain such control of the levers of power after Democrats grant themselves two permanent senators that they aren't liable to do exactly that, then you're naive.

It's the same reason why expanding the size of the supreme court to pack it with your cronies is such a bad idea. These kinds of moves only serve to destabilise a nation where people are already at one another's throats.

Your knowledge of the US Constitution and US history leaves much to be desired.

First, there is nothing in the Constitution that makes any mention of it being unconstitutional for the federal district area to be entirely within one state. Literally nothing. What the Constitution DOES say is that the federal district will be wherever Congress wants it to be so long as it does not exceed ten square miles in area.

The idea that SCOTUS would block this exercise of a clearly enumerated power based on some vague idea that despite putting nothing about it in the constitution that the capital cannot be entirely within one state is absurd and lawless. It would subvert the Constitution.

Second, the idea that this is some sort of unprecedented power grab is ridiculous and ahistorical. Basically every state admitted to the union after the first 13 was done at least in part with senatorial politics in mind. It’s a big reason why there are two Dakotas instead of one. Basically, there was originally only going to be one Dakota but the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress and the Democrats had to cut a deal.

Finally, exactly how are the Republicans going to create a bevy of new states? Out of what land? Also, the idea that Republicans wouldn’t do this if they had an advantageous situation to do so out of their respect for governing norms is...hahahaha.

In short you made up some new constitutional jurisprudence and ignored large portions of US history when it comes to the creation of new states. Not great!

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The idea that SCOTUS would block this exercise of a clearly enumerated power based on some vague idea that despite putting nothing about it in the constitution that the capital cannot be entirely within one state is absurd and lawless. It would subvert the Constitution.

Which means of course the block would squeak by with a 5:4 vote, at best.

 

[fskimospy]

Which means of course the block would squeak by with a 5:4 vote, at best.

Haha these days you never know, but if anything that would be a good argument for adding more SCOTUS seats. If an idea as radical as SCOTUS preventing Congress from making a new state based on reasons entirely absent from the Constitution and based in a paternalistic desire to protect Congress from being dominated by its own new creation is what passes for law in the US Supreme Court then the institution is dead anyway.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

But wouldn't creating any new state be inherently political for this reason? Is the answer to never make any more states? I don't think that makes much sense, if anything we probably should have carved up California into a few different states by this point.

Regardless, keeping the states and senate in the imbalanced way it is now is a political choice the same as making more states. The Senate is badly broken, in significant part because we made a whole bunch of states out of empty land with nobody living in it. Adding DC and PR would help restore the Senate to how it was originally envisioned.

- Would creating a new state be inherently political? Yes. Should we keep doing it? No.

Are there methods of getting more/equal representation that do not require the creation of additional beaurocracy (such as reworking the electoral college)? Yes.

Should those options be explored? Yes.

 

[HurleyBird]

First, there is nothing in the Constitution that makes any mention of it being unconstitutional for the federal district area to be entirely within one state.

Good thing I didn't make that claim then, isn't it?

The idea that SCOTUS would block this exercise of a clearly enumerated power based on some vague idea that despite putting nothing about it in the constitution that the capital cannot be entirely within one state is absurd and lawless. It would subvert the Constitution.

It would be extremely difficult to construct a non-tortured argument on a purely textual basis, so while an arch-textualist like Gorsuch might be opposed to DC statehood, I doubt that he would step in to intervene. But do consider the concern about enveloping/neighbouring states exerting undue influence on the federal government, the entire reason why the constitution authorises the establishment of an area like D.C., increases exponentially when the federal government is constricted to just the buildings of statecraft and is enveloped by a city-state a mere 10 miles in diameter. That threatens the autonomy of the federal government far more than just ceding back the land, and effectively nullifies that portion of the constitution. As I said before, it's not against the letter of the law, but It's not at all a vague notion one would be defying the spirit of the law.

And that's more than enough to construct legal arguments. Any time you see a 5:4 decision, at least one side is arguing from conclusions rather than to them. I have no doubt the same would happen here.

Second, the idea that this is some sort of unprecedented power grab is ridiculous and ahistorical.

Good thing I didn't make that claim then, isn't it?

Finally, exactly how are the Republicans going to create a bevy of new states? Out of what land?

Any land in any state that is firmly Republican, with a governor who is willing to play ball? Which after D.C. statehood, I'm sure they could find.

Also, the idea that Republicans wouldn’t do this if they had an advantageous situation to do so out of their respect for governing norms is...hahahaha.

Good thing I didn't make that claim then, isn't it?

 

[fskimospy]

- Would creating a new state be inherently political? Yes. Should we keep doing it? No.

Are there methods of getting more/equal representation that do not require the creation of additional beaurocracy (such as reworking the electoral college)? Yes.

Should those options be explored? Yes.

Besides the creation of new states there is no way to get more/equal representation in the Senate outside of a constitutional amendment. Without a working Senate we don't have a working government.

Really, how do you fix the Senate? Estimates are that by 2040 states with 1/3rd of the US population will control 70% of senators. Doesn't that sound like a catastrophe waiting to happen?

 

[fskimospy]

Good thing I didn't make that claim then, isn't it?

It would be extremely difficult to construct a non-tortured argument on a purely textual basis, so while an arch-textualist like Gorsuch might be opposed to DC statehood, I doubt that he would step in to intervene. But do consider the concern about enveloping/neighbouring states exerting undue influence on the federal government, the entire reason why the constitution authorises the establishment of an area like D.C., increases exponentially when the federal government is constricted to just the buildings of statecraft and is enveloped by a city-state a mere 10 miles in diameter. That threatens the autonomy of the federal government far more than just ceding back the land, and effectively nullifies that portion of the constitution. As I said before, it's not against the letter of the law, but It's not at all a vague notion one would be defying the spirit of the law.

It in no way nullifies that part of the Constitution as it is Congress itself making those determinations - that's the whole point of the clause! What WOULD be nullifying that part of the Constitution is the Supreme Court telling them it's not their call.

And that's more than enough to construct legal arguments. Any time you see a 5:4 decision, at least one side is arguing from conclusions rather than to them. I have no doubt the same would happen here.

That's not accurate, but in this case yes one side would be arguing from conclusions as opposed to the plain, unambiguous meaning of the Constitution. The Constitution is generally purposefully vague and so there really is a lot of room for reasonable disagreement in 5-4 decisions but in this case it's super clear on exactly what requirements exist.

Good thing I didn't make that claim then, isn't it?

Well you seemed to think the 'sheer naked opportunism' of the move potentially justified such an extreme intervention against enumerated Congressional power by SCOTUS. Considering that 'naked opportunism' has existed in the creation of many states, I'm struggling to understand why intervention was not merited then but would be merited now. The only thing that made sense is if you didn't know that's how states in the US are created because otherwise it would be clear there's nothing out of the ordinary here.

Any land in any state that is firmly Republican, with a governor who is willing to play ball? Which after D.C. statehood, I'm sure they could find.

You would need the entire state legislature to work with the feds on chopping up the state and getting rid of their own power. This is... unlikely. A more likely answer would be the conversion of federal lands in some western states to new states but that's likely not feasible.

Good thing I didn't make that claim then, isn't it?

Well if you didn't claim that Republicans would respect those norms unless Democrats 'violated' them here then there's no reason to worry that Republicans might retaliate because what they will do is already baked in.

 

[vi edit]

Besides the creation of new states there is no way to get more/equal representation in the Senate outside of a constitutional amendment. Without a working Senate we don't have a working government.

Really, how do you fix the Senate? Estimates are that by 2040 states with 1/3rd of the US population will control 70% of senators. Doesn't that sound like a catastrophe waiting to happen?

Yep. I'm honestly waiting for some ultra billionaire like Bezos to look at a state like Wyoming or North Dakota and go "I'll pay any Democratic voting family $1,000,000 to uproot and move here and vote Democrat". With enough money and power you *could* shift a state like that.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yep. I'm honestly waiting for some ultra billionaire like Bezos to look at a state like Wyoming or North Dakota and go "I'll pay any Democratic voting family $1,000,000 to uproot and move here and vote Democrat". With enough money and power you *could* shift a state like that.

$100k a year/10 years could work and would be affordable for the under wealthy.