Washington, D.C. Will Become a State if Democrats Win in 2020
Written by Luis Miguel
There’s suddenly a lot more at stake in the 2020 election.
In a 232-180 vote on Friday, House Democrats passed a bill to make Washington, D.C,. the nation’s 51st state.
Democrats have long wanted to make a state out of America’s capital, arguing that residents of the city deserve to have representatives in Congress.
It doesn’t hurt that the one representative and two senators D.C. would gain would be Democrats, given the city’s political demographics. This would particularly upset the current balance in the Senate, where Republicans hold a slim 3-vote majority.
Not surprisingly, Republicans oppose D.C. statehood (as do two-thirds of Americans).
“D.C. will never be a state,” President Trump told the New York Post last month. “You mean District of Columbia, a state? Why? So we can have two more Democratic — Democrat senators and five more congressmen? No, thank you. That’ll never happen.” (D.C., with its population of approximately 700,000 would only gain one representative in the House, not five as the president said).
Thus, Democrats’ effort is unlikely to go anywhere at present. But all that could change if Democrats take back the Senate and White House in November.
Yet Republicans’ opposition to D.C. statehood goes beyond party politics. The Constitution explicitly states that the capital should not be a state.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution assigns to Congress power and responsibility to:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.
The Constitution, then, establishes that the capital is not to be a state, but an area governed by Congress made up of land ceded from states.
Democrats, however, found a way of getting around the Constitution: Their plan is to shrink the size of the official District of Columbia to a small area comprising the National Mall, White House, Capitol Hill, and a few other federal buildings. The rest of the city would be separated and that would be turned into the state of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth.
There is a precedent for retrocession, the process of the federal government returning to the states land that had been ceded for the capital. In the 1840s, for example, areas west of the Potomac River were returned to Virginia.
But Democrats aren’t talking about retrocession. Their idea of shrinking the capital and then creating a state out of the remaining neighborhoods would be a novel move that would almost certainly be challenged by Republicans in court, potentially leading to a Supreme Court showdown where the current makeup, which includes two Trump-appointed justices, might end up ruling against statehood (although Chief Justice John Roberts’ knack for siding with the liberal justices on the most important cases introduces some uncertainty).
In fact, Democrats’ lack of talk about retrocession is a sign of their own partisan agenda. If their only concern were letting D.C. residents have representatives in Congress, they would support retrocession so that D.C. dwellers could belong to states and thus have that representation. But under such an uncontroversial compromise, of course, Democrats would not get the advantage of two more seats in the Senate.
It’s also disingenuous to say D.C. dwellers have no representation. Under the 23rd Amendment, they can vote and are given three electoral votes in presidential elections. They also have a non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives. In fact, it was this delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, who introduced the statehood legislation.
Moreover, those who live in the capital can continue voting as residents of the states they came from, an option many choose.
What Democrats miss in this argument is that the federal government is a creature of the states, not the other way around. The states created Congress, which is supposed to be a delegation of the sovereign states. There shouldn’t be American citizens who are not residents of a state. Such a practice runs contrary to state sovereignty (and is also why giving American citizenship to the people of American territories was a bad idea).
So while retrocession would make sense and actually be in alignment with the Founder’s vision of a limited federal capital, statehood is a clear political ploy, one that would shift the balance of power in Congress and cause irreparable damage to the republic.
Luis Miguel is a marketer and writer whose journalistic endeavors shed light on the Deep State, the immigration crisis, and the enemies of freedom. Follow his exploits on Facebook, Twitter, Bitchute, and at luisantoniomiguel.com.
Courtesy of The New American