DC Statehood/Secession

The House of Representatives passed a bill that they knew stood no chance in the Senate to make DC the 51st state. Actually, that's not quite true. I will explain why it's not, but let's hold off on that for now. In many ways, I get their arguments. DC was originally set aside for the federal government, but the district has expanded well beyond the expectations of the founding fathers. As a result, we have over 700,000 Americans without representation in the federal government.

There are legitimate constitutional concerns, but the bill that passed tried to address these. This would still be open to constitutional challenges, but the frequently cited Article I, Section 8 might not be as strong as Republicans have been claiming. For those who don't know, this is the part of the Constitution that sets aside the District of Columbia. The federal government can't be housed within a state.

This bill has been misrepresented. In short, this would not grant statehood to the District of Columbia. Instead, it would effectively cerate a new state out of a portion of the district that would effectively be seceding from the district. The District of Columbia housing core federal functions outside of the new state would still exist. 

The 23rd Amendment is a bigger issue. The 23rd Amendment gives DC electors in presidential elections. It seems obvious that this was to ensure that DC residents had a voice in the presidential election process. While the current attempts for statehood don't explicitly violate the Amendment, they do seem to attack the very purpose. If the population becomes a separate state, three electoral votes no longer makes sense for the remaining district. Again, the bill tries to address this, but it would be after the fact and uncertain.

The District of Columbia was originally taken from Maryland and Virginia. The Virginia segment retroceded back into Virginia. Statehood takes a very different approach. This would effectively make Washington, DC the first city in the country to be its own state. Why is this? I don't think there's any question that it's political. Retroceding to Maryland is far more logical than statehood, but the Democrats want extra representation in the Senate. In other words, their approach is an attempt to manipulate the system.

The part that people are overwhelmingly overlooking is the name, Washington, Douglass Commonwealth (to keep the name as Washington, DC). I'm a Washingtonian (as in the state). I have read about the history of our name. The original proposal (back when it was just a territory) for the name was Columbia. Concerns were raised about confusion between a state of Columbia and a District of Columbia. A congressman from Kentucky pitched the idea of Washington instead, which stuck. In other words, our name was pushed on us from the US congress to avoid confusion with the nation's capital. For that reason, I have absolutely no desire for them to take our name yet again. Additionally, couldn't it be confusing to have two different DC's in the country?

There's one thing that I want to make clear. I'm not a partisan loyalist. I believe in what's right more than what's politically convenient. Quite frankly, there's a much bigger issue regarding statehood, and that's Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is larger than DC, and there are no constitutional issues with their statehood. They deserve representation at the federal level, and I fully support statehood. In fact, I find it absurd to think of prioritizing DC statehood over Puerto Rico.

Finally, let me put out one last thing. I haven't exactly hidden my frustration with the American media. I'm going to do something that the media should do but never does. I will link to an official source for those who want more information that hasn't been filtered through biased media sources. H.R.51 - Washington, D.C. Admission Act can be found at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/51