TOPIC: What did you watch?

Um, no. Not even close. You cannot have a state whose legislative branch is controlled by the federal government. The federal zone is also enshrined in the constitution as being _federal_. It cannot also be a state by definition because to grant the state legislative powers abrogates the constitution. Frankly, I'm sort of shocked that you're even making this argument. You're a teacher, right? So you already know about the failed voting rights amendment for DC. It passed congress, but failed to be ratified by the requisite number of states. If, as you claim, it simply required an act of congress to make a state, why isn't DC already a state? Surely these people wanted to grant DC the voting rights associated with statehood (as well as revising the 23rd amendment in dc's favor). You also have to believe that these people were not stupid. So why would they go through the entire rigmarole of going for a constitutional amendment when they already had the votes necessary to just make it a state? (hint: because they knew it would be challenged and likely fail in court)<br />

Yes, I am a teacher - a history teacher, and a poli sci major.  You are flat-out wrong on this, henwy.<br /><br />You are making a specious argument - If Congress made it a state, DC's legislative branch would no longer be controlled by Congress, it would have its own legislature, since it would no longer be a "district."  DC isn't a state because there are not the required number of votes in Congress for it for political reasons.  As long as Republicans can block legislation, DC will not become a state, b/c it would add two practically guaranteed Democratic scenators to the Senate and a Dem to the House (considering the district voted about 90% for Obama).<br />

And this is history, albeit recent. I think a refresher course might be in order. <br /><br />Here, I found this for you. It's formated a bit oddly due to the plethora of footnotes, but it's got the basic idea. It lists a couple of additional legal arguments beyond what I've thought of. You seem to believe that the constitution can be ignored as long as another law is passed or action taken by congress. That is erroneous. Congress can no more cede their legislative control of the federal district than they could pass a law to rule it as Gods. What the constitution grants, it grants. It's not an option.<br /><br />You want a simple point that guarantees the necessity of a constitutional amendment to make DC a state? Look at the 23rd amendment to the constitution. <br /><br />A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State,<br /><br />Black letter law. 'if it were a state' which means that it is not. If congress were struck by insanity and did just try to pass an act of congress to allow DC as a state, the 23rd amendment would prevent it by its text since it states that DC is not a state. <br /><br />Hell, take a look at the maryland argument too. Again, it's black letter law. Would you like more links?  Even most of the pro-DC states groups acknowledge this crap. They've tried to get around it by suggesting the federal government recede the land to make a new smaller federal zone and/or to get maryland to grand approval for statehood, or for virgina/maryland to reabsorb the large part of DC, but no reputable person thinks that a single act of congress could just make the whole of DC a state. It's ridiculous.<br /><br />As for your point of, oh, it's the republicans blocking it, read about the darn voting rights amendment. It _PASSED_ congress. If all it took was an act of congress to give DC those electoral votes, it would have already happened back in 1978.

Hey...what do you think about this guys?<br /><br />Does Texas have the right to end its treaty with the US and revert back to its own country?<br /><br />

The supreme court ruled that statehood was irrevocable. Of course, it's not exactly an unbiased opinion really. It pretty much means that once you're in, you're in. They can't kick you out and you can't take your ball and go home.

Unless you passed a constitutional amendment giving states the right to leave.<br /><br />Anyway, considering that neither henwy nor I are constitutional law scholars and that we are getting to the point of arguing semantics and neither of us is backing down, I'm out.  I'm sure both of us have more productive things to do than arguing with a brick wall. :BangHead:

I've got notta more productive to do at the moment. I'm just sitting around waiting for Santa to bring me my death beams.

:laughing4:

<br />Hey...what do you think about this guys?<br /><br />Does Texas have the right to end its treaty with the US and revert back to its own country?<br /><br /><br />

<br /><br /><br /> texas is the only state to join the U.S. as a recognized independent nation. several things were "special" in the agreement to become a state. these are some....i think...if my memory isn't off.<br /><br />1. retain the right to leave the U.S.<br />2. be split into as many as five different states.<br />3. citizens may be exempt from draft.<br />4. federal troops must get permission before entering...cannot be quartered in state lines.<br /><br />learned this stuff tooooo many years ago. i can't vouch for the accuracy.

Hawaii was also an independent nation before it was taken over by Dole and the Marines (but it was a territory before it was a state).<br />

I'm not sure about this, but I believe Montana has a clause in their constitution that allows for withdrawal from the union, as a condition of becoming a state.  But that is what the Civil War was about.  Don't think a state can leave with a mess at this point in history.<br /><br />As to DC.  I attended to HS in Maryland, and I spent a lot of time in DC.  That gives me no special qualifications other than I spent several years in the environs and some of these arguments go back to that dim age of history.  Historically DC was a part of Virginia or Maryland.  If they want statehood--they should be ceded back to those two states.  Historically it was seperated so no one state would have any undue unfluence over the federal seat of power, and it was situated centrally in the country at that time because of the power struggle between the northern and the southern states.  So now we should set aside a 10x10 mile square Federal capital in the center of Kansas and give the land back to Maryland and Virginia.  Basically DC is just a city.  What would qualify it as a state?  It would make far more sense to make New York City, or LA or Chicago, or Phoenix states.  Cripes, everyone in Oregon (outside of Portland) would love to have Portland be its own state, just so the rest of the state could do something productive without all the restrictions imposed on the rest of the state by idiots who have never been outside of the city limits.  That would be a great precident--maybe we could just write a new constitution since ours is so worthless now--any city over a certain size could become their own state.<br /><br />Taxation without representation??  Last I was there, they didn't pay any taxes other than their regular old federal income tax--just like the rest of us, and all of their services are paid for out of the federal budget.  Wow--they have no state taxes or city taxes or county taxes.  Last I knew, their Mayor and city council are not appointed positions.  All of their police and fire protections and other services including schools are provided by the Feds unless they are a private school.<br /><br />I think we should just start over--Give DC back to Maryland and Virginia (they would love the problems that are there--I've seen them first hand).  Tell Kansas they have to cede to the federal govenrnment a 10 mile by 10 mile square.  Build all new federal office buildings, parks, monuments, Capitol, White House, Supreme Court building, etc.--updating them all to new green standards, with all the new earthquake natural disaster requirements.  Think of how many people that would put to work, and the CHANGE--that would really be new change in New Washington--it would need a new name.  But here is the real trick--nobody could live in that square.  They would all have to live outside in Kansas so we wouldn't repeat the mistakes we currently have.  No permanent residences, except the White House and I guess embassies for other countries--period--only office space, parks, monuments, cafeterias, museums.  I guess you could have hotels for visitors, but that is as close as it gets, and nobody can visit for more than 2 weeks.  Come to think of it--who would want to be in a nut house like that for more than two weeks?--seriously disturbed people--I mean that is who runs the joint now--why should it be different in my Brave New Washington?<br /><br />Gotta go--my tongue is getting outside my cheek.

Back to the thread.  Last night I watched my daughter and her husband in the hospital with their new little baby son (who, I'm sure, will be token addicted once I get my hands on him).