Reply With Quote
There is literally no compelling argument against DC statehood, but it will still fail because politics.
https://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/dc-statehood-gets-march-22-house-oversight-committee-hearing/I4RAYJUS6JF2RNEVJCM2KUBIHA/
There is literally no compelling argument against DC statehood, but it will still fail because politics.
again, a simple majority, both chambers
I bet the Dems don't have 50 pro-DC Senators.
If you're a neckbeard getting a thrill up your leg.
Manchin is having the time of his life right now. I bet he's a hard no on this.
More people live in DC than all of these western counties combined
https://ggwash.org/view/79091/more-p...nties-combined
More people live in DC than all of these western counties combined
https://ggwash.org/view/79091/more-p...nties-combined
Are any of those counties states?
There's certainly a politically compelling argument, tbh.
More people than all of Wyoming.
And they get three electoral votes for it.More people live in DC than all of these western counties combined
https://ggwash.org/view/79091/more-p...nties-combined
Why not give them votes in Congress?
Do you have something in the Cons ution that says they're en led to said votes?
More than Wyoming.
But the latest Census was a mess under Trump so...
I want to think the idea is that these Western counties are the spawning grounds of more Cliven Bundy's.
We dont need more Cliven Bundy's. Or Marion Barry's. Except Cliven the debtor, elected himself...
Lord and Master of federal Bird houses.
Sure, a particular party now in power wants the votes.
You got something wrong with that Trumpster?
You see how this comes around?
I have no respect for the Democrat Party. But that has nothing to do with my question.
Wyoming didn't.
Why should those people get votes in Congress and not the people of DC?
Pretending to not know Cons utional basics.
The people of Wyoming Territory were not en led to votes in Congress, derp.
How do you say they got them?
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…”
— U.S. Cons ution, Article I, section 2, clause 3
“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”
— U.S. Cons ution, Amendment XIV, section 2
Sure it does.
Trump ran roughshod over the cons ution so all is fair via your previous support.
I say give them more blue votes for the House based on the fact Trump tried to wreck the census.
Punitive representation.
More than Vermont and Wyoming, comparable to South Dakota and Alaska.
Daddy issues.
Yeah that certainly follows from my post...
Do you have a torso and head?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
