Houses Passes Bill for DC Statehood.

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,071
461
136
It in no way nullifies that part of the Constitution as it is Congress itself making those determinations.
The operative word is effectively. The constitution clearly cares deeply about the separation of power between the federal government and neighbouring states. This move takes that care, and not only disregards it, but creates a situation where the federal government is far more entangled with the new state than it would have been had this section of the constitution never been included and D.C. never created. In that sense, nullify is actually the wrong word. It's taking a situation that the constitution guards against and instantiating one of the worst possible versions of it, far more extreme than anything the drafters would have imagined.

Well you seemed to think the 'sheer naked opportunism' of the move potentially justified such an extreme intervention against enumerated Congressional power by SCOTUS.
Not justify, but explain. It's also worth noting that the court, especially the liberal wing, has been moving in the direction of "You have the right to do this thing, but not for this reason" for awhile now. It's an extreme intervention, but upending the spirit of Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution in a way that not only says "this isn't an important concern" but "actually, we're going that concern and instantiate a most extreme version of it" is an extreme action. Not to mention that D.C. statehood makes that part of the constitution, as well as the 23rd amendment, rather incongruous. (Note: I don't actually think that being incongruous is a great argument, but I can see it as being one "reason towards conclusions" justification)

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.
I didn't say it was merited then, that's another straw man. But aside from those earlier examples existing in a more dynamic, wild-west-type of context, there are significant differences. Granting statehood to a 10 square mile patch of land (minus a small cutout in in the middle) is different than granting the same to an area that is orders of magnitude larger. That same patch of land totally encircling the federal government is another obvious difference. It's easy to argue that the creation of many states were political moves and opportunistic, and a lot of these arguments are probably correct. Whether that past opportunistic behaviour was "naked" is arguable, but certainly pales in comparison to bareness of this. No one succeeded in turning a city that leaned a particular direction into a full blown state. There was at least the understanding that to be a duck, it must walk like a duck and swim like a duck.

But all that aside, two wrongs don't make a right.

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.
That legislature would only need to identify more strongly as Republicans than as members of their own state. Surely your opinion of Republicans is low enough to see that this is entirely possible.

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.
I didn't say that either. I didn't make the claim either way. You're presenting a false dichotomy. Republicans are capable of doing evil, and capable of withholding from doing evil. The side that performs the preemptive strike is the one that is most at fault.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,071
461
136
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.
You'll be waiting a long time then, because there's a word for that and it's called electoral fraud.

Someone could try and do it in a more soft way, like opening warehouses in red states and offering incentives for employees to move there, but you can't be so naked about it. Of course, the more subtle the approach the less effective it's likely to be.

I really hope this is just something you're thinking out loud about, and not something you're advocating for. One would need to be very morally bankrupt for the later.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,120
15,718
136
The operative word is effectively. The constitution clearly cares deeply about the separation of power between the federal government and neighbouring states. This move takes that care, and not only disregards it, but creates a situation where the federal government is far more entangled with the new state than it would have been had this section of the constitution never been included and D.C. never created. In that sense, nullify is actually the wrong word. It's taking a situation that the constitution guards against and instantiating one of the worst possible versions of it, far more extreme than anything the drafters would have imagined.



Not justify, but explain. It's also worth noting that the court, especially the liberal wing, has been moving in the direction of "You have the right to do this thing, but not for this reason" for awhile now. It's an extreme intervention, but upending the spirit of Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution in a way that not only says "this isn't an important concern" but "actually, we're going that concern and instantiate a most extreme version of it" is an extreme action. Not to mention that D.C. statehood makes that part of the constitution, as well as the 23rd amendment, rather incongruous. (Note: I don't actually think that being incongruous is a great argument, but I can see it as being one "reason towards conclusions" justification)



I didn't say it was merited then, that's another straw man. But aside from those earlier examples existing in a more dynamic, wild-west-type of context, there are significant differences. Granting statehood to a 10 square mile patch of land (minus a small cutout in in the middle) is different than granting the same to an area that is orders of magnitude larger. That same patch of land totally encircling the federal government is another obvious difference. It's easy to argue that the creation of many states were political moves and opportunistic, and a lot of these arguments are probably correct. Whether that past opportunistic behaviour was "naked" is arguable, but certainly pales in comparison to bareness of this. No one succeeded in turning a city that leaned a particular direction into a full blown state. There was at least the understanding that to be a duck, it must walk like a duck and swim like a duck.

But all that aside, two wrongs don't make a right.



That legislature would only need to identify more strongly as Republicans than as members of their own state. Surely your opinion of Republicans is low enough to see that this is entirely possible.



I didn't say that either. I didn't make the claim either way. You're presenting a false dichotomy. Republicans are capable of doing evil, and capable of withholding from doing evil. The side that performs the preemptive strike is the one that is most at fault.
So basically you’re inventing a lot of reasons why people might not like Democrats doing this but providing zero legal reasons why they can’t.

As for the idea that creating states for the purposes of political power being wrong that’s once again absurd and doesn’t understand the constitution. The process was created with the knowledge it was political. This is common sense.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,071
461
136
So basically you’re inventing a lot of reasons why people might not like Democrats doing this but providing zero legal reasons why they can’t.

As for the idea that creating states for the purposes of political power being wrong that’s once again absurd and doesn’t understand the constitution. The process was created with the knowledge it was political. This is common sense.
I get it. You think the ends justify the means.

It's not just an immoral argument though. It's self detonating. Completely self detonating, because there's no way that you can consistently apply it. Replace Democrats with Trump, and substitute D.C. statehood with creating more supreme court seats and packing them full of cronies. There's no legal reason why Trump can't, despite violating the very spirit of the constitution and the Republican form of government. And if he does that, he can theoretically leverage it into absolute power. Your argument applies verbatim to this scenario. All that you're advocating for is a lesser version of the same for your tribe.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
7,396
3,135
146
As for the idea that creating states for the purposes of political power being wrong that’s once again absurd and doesn’t understand the constitution.
Remember, the greater the will of the people is represented, the more the US leans Democrat. That answers a lot of questions you may have regarding anyone that would argue against greater representation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,071
461
136
Remember, the greater the will of the people is represented, the more the US leans Democrat. That answers a lot of questions you may have regarding anyone that would argue against greater representation.
It doesn't. More democratic does not always equal more good. No one should be in favour of absolute democracy. No one on this forum would say that, if the majority opposes same sex marriage that it should be illegal, or that if the majority supports slavery that it should be legal. Anyone who has thought about this honestly for more than a few minutes realises some checks are needed on the, sometimes fleeting and mercurial, sometimes self serving, sometimes capricious will of the people.

How much of a check is up for debate, obviously, and there's an acceptable range. What actually says a lot about a person is whether they place their pin on this continuum consistently, or equivocate on circumstance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodisanAtheist

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,120
15,718
136
I get it. You think the ends justify the means.

It's not just an immoral argument though. It's self detonating. Completely self detonating, because there's no way that you can consistently apply it. Replace Democrats with Trump, and substitute D.C. statehood with creating more supreme court seats and packing them full of cronies. There's no legal reason why Trump can't, despite violating the very spirit of the constitution and the Republican form of government. And if he does that, he can theoretically leverage it into absolute power. Your argument applies verbatim to this scenario. All that you're advocating for is a lesser version of the same for your tribe.
Nice straw man, I don’t think the ends justify the means. I’m saying DC statehood fits entirely within the constitutional and historical aspects of the United States.

You didn’t grow up here so you’re ignorant of our country. Stop trying to tell us what it really is.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,071
461
136
Nice straw man, I don’t think the ends justify the means.
You don't know what a straw man is. Incidentally, what you're quoting is not a straw man. I'm not changing your argument or inserting one and then defeating that instead. I'm saying that you have authoritarian tendencies, and that your argument self destructs because the moment it benefits the opposite tribe you'll abandon it as untenable. If you're curious, you can find several examples of straw men in your initial response to me.

I’m saying DC statehood fits entirely within the constitutional and historical aspects of the United States.
Court packing fits within a strict textual reading of the constitution also.

As for history, that fails on three grounds:

First, it's an invoking a two-wrongs fallacy (which, by the way, is classic authoritarianism).

Second, there are novel differences between those situations and this one that I've enumerated and you haven't yet responded to.

Lastly, court packing to affect political ends also has historical precedence. FDR came within inches of packing the court to pass the New Deal before it ultimately acquiesced under that pressure.

You didn’t grow up here so you’re ignorant of our country. Stop trying to tell us what it really is.
Genetic fallacy.
 
Last edited:

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
7,396
3,135
146
It doesn't. More democratic does not always equal more good. No one should be in favour of absolute democracy. No one on this forum would say that, if the majority opposes same sex marriage that it should be illegal, or that if the majority supports slavery that it should be legal. Anyone who has thought about this honestly for more than a few minutes realises some checks are needed on the, sometimes fleeting and mercurial, sometimes self serving, sometimes capricious will of the people.

How much of a check is up for debate, obviously, and there's an acceptable range. What actually says a lot about a person is whether they place their pin on this continuum consistently, or equivocate on circumstance.
I didn't say 'more democratic'. I said 'leans Democrat'. Capital D.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
26,452
1,072
126
Court packing fits within a strict textual reading of the constitution also.

As for history, that fails on three grounds:

First, it's an invoking a two-wrongs fallacy.
actually, it's not so much a fallacy as a game theory mechanism.
when one player fails to play in good faith - and has no intention of doing so - the response that is most likely to bring them back to play is actually to abuse the game even moreso than they did in the first place.

the best i can find in a quick google is
CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICS, COURT PACKING, AND JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS REFORM
by Seligman

specifically, the Hawking-Dove game theory model which starts on page 14, and goes on to discuss a binding cooperative solution.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,071
461
136
I didn't say 'more democratic'. I said 'leans Democrat'. Capital D.
I could have been more clear. "It doesn't" was in response to your second sentence. However, If you didn't mean to imply that more democratic (eg. more directly correlated with the will or the people) equals more good, equals more capital D Democrat, then you have my apology.
 
Last edited:
Feb 4, 2009
25,404
6,100
136
actually, it's not so much a fallacy as a game theory mechanism.
when one player fails to play in good faith - and has no intention of doing so - the response that is most likely to bring them back to play is actually to abuse the game even moreso than they did in the first place.

the best i can find in a quick google is
CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICS, COURT PACKING, AND JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS REFORM
by Seligman

specifically, the Hawking-Dove game theory model which starts on page 14, and goes on to discuss a binding cooperative solution.
Yes this is exactly what I was looking for.
I 100% agree.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,120
15,718
136
You don't know what a straw man is. Incidentally, what you're quoting is not a straw man. I'm not changing your argument or inserting one and then defeating that instead. I'm saying that you have authoritarian tendencies, and that your argument self destructs because the moment it benefits the opposite tribe you'll abandon it as untenable. If you're curious, you can find several examples of straw men in your initial response to me.
Of course it’s a straw man, dummy. You said I think the ends justify the means when I don’t think so.

You misrepresented my argument so it’s a straw man. How hard is this to understand?


Court packing fits within a strict textual reading of the constitution also.

As for history, that fails on three grounds:

First, it's an invoking a two-wrongs fallacy.

Second, there are novel differences between those situations and this one that I've enumerated and you haven't yet responded to.

Lastly, court packing to affect political ends also has historical precedence. FDR came within inches of packing the court to pass the New Deal before it ultimately acquiesced under that pressure.
Genetic fallacy.
Yes of course the factors that enabled every other state magically don’t count now because reasons. You aren’t an American. You’re ignorant of our history. You’re a poseur.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,071
461
136
actually, it's not so much a fallacy as a game theory mechanism.
Hypothetically you can see it either way, depending on what you're arguing, to the extent you're arguing for pure results or if morality applies.

When one player fails to play in good faith - and has no intention of doing so - the response that is most likely to bring them back to play is actually to abuse the game even moreso than they did in the first place.
When was the last time Republicans created a new state to pack the senate? Over a hundred years ago when the parties were totally different? The last state that was added to the union, Hawaii, has ever had only one Republican senator.

What exactly is this bad faith act that Democrats are responding to? If it's something not directly related to creating new states, then you aren't liable to bring them in line so much as to spark an escalation.

Now, I'm not Republican or even American. In general, I think Canada is a better place to live despite the fact that your constitution is much more robust than ours is. We're a better instantiation of a worse foundation. That said, I'm not opposed to balancing the senate by, say, splitting California in half. I'm not opposed to ceding parts of D.C. back to the states they were derived from so that citizens have proper enfranchisement. I'm opposed to violating the spirit of the constitution in a naked power grab that will almost certainly trigger escalation.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,071
461
136
Of course it’s a straw man, dummy. You said I think the ends justify the means when I don’t think so.

You misrepresented my argument so it’s a straw man. How hard is this to understand?
Alleging you think in a certain fashion isn't the same as saying you're invoking a certain argument.

Here's an analogy: If someone makes an OK hand signal and you call them a racist, regardless of the merit or lack-thereof of that assertion, it's not valid if they then claim "Straw man! I think all races are equal, but you're saying I don't!" Straw men are corrupted arguments, nothing more or less.

Yes of course the factors that enabled every other state magically don’t count now because reasons. You aren’t an American. You’re ignorant of our history. You’re a poseur.
You were actually putting up a half-decent attempt for awhile, but now this is getting embarrassing.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,120
15,718
136
Alleging you think in a certain fashion isn't the same as saying you're invoking a certain argument.

Here's an analogy: If someone makes an OK hand signal and you call them a racist, regardless of the merit or lack-thereof of that assertion, it's not valid if they then claim "Straw man! I think all races are equal, but you're saying I don't!" Straw men are corrupted arguments, nothing more or less.



You were actually putting up a half-decent attempt for awhile, but now this is getting embarrassing.
It’s so dumb when a Canadian who doesn’t understand the US constitution tries to lecture us about how it works.

Seriously, what vanity told you that you understood it better than we do?
 
Feb 4, 2009
25,404
6,100
136
They could very well get the trifecta, and will undoubtedly squander the opportunity with overreach that sends the pendulum right back in the other direction.
Oh Noes we could play by the old rules and continue to not only get fucked, get laughed at while getting fucked.
No thanks I'll take small progress over no progress.
 
Last edited:

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
13,373
1,493
126
Oh Noes we could play by the old rules and continue to not only get fucked, get laughed at while getting fucked.
No thanks I'll take small progress over no progress.
A more accurate description is that Democrats changed the old rules because they arrogantly didn’t consider a scenario where the GOP would regain power, and have been whining incessantly that the GOP took those changes and beat them over the head with it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pcgeek11

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,120
15,718
136
A more accurate description is that Democrats changed the old rules because they arrogantly didn’t consider a scenario where the GOP would regain power, and have been whining incessantly that the GOP took those changes and beat them over the head with it.
An even more accurate description is that the Republicans ceased to abide by the old rules and so the Democrats acted accordingly.

Remember, the Republicans broke the deal not to eliminate the filibuster so they reaped the consequences. No honest person can deny this.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,120
15,718
136
The operative word is effectively. The constitution clearly cares deeply about the separation of power between the federal government and neighbouring states. This move takes that care, and not only disregards it, but creates a situation where the federal government is far more entangled with the new state than it would have been had this section of the constitution never been included and D.C. never created. In that sense, nullify is actually the wrong word. It's taking a situation that the constitution guards against and instantiating one of the worst possible versions of it, far more extreme than anything the drafters would have imagined.
To rebut this ignorant nonsense more thoroughly:

It doesn’t effectively nullify it at all, you’re making things up to justify your preferred outcome.

The provision of the Constitution exists to vest Congress with the power to make the capital where and to what extent it thinks is best. That’s what they are doing. Taking that power away is nullifying that part of the Constitution, not the reverse. Your authoritarian bent is making you want to throw out the Constitution because it says things you don’t like.

Not justify, but explain. It's also worth noting that the court, especially the liberal wing, has been moving in the direction of "You have the right to do this thing, but not for this reason" for awhile now. It's an extreme intervention, but upending the spirit of Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution in a way that not only says "this isn't an important concern" but "actually, we're going that concern and instantiate a most extreme version of it" is an extreme action. Not to mention that D.C. statehood makes that part of the constitution, as well as the 23rd amendment, rather incongruous. (Note: I don't actually think that being incongruous is a great argument, but I can see it as being one "reason towards conclusions" justification)
It is in no way incongruous with the 23rd amendment. How important a concern it is is up to Congress, that’s why the Constitution vested the power in them and not the Supreme Court.

You may not like that the Constitution says this as it can lead to an outcome that you don’t like, but it doesn’t change the explicit, unambiguous words of the text. What you’re arguing for is a judicial overthrow of government over a couple of senators.

I didn't say it was merited then, that's another straw man. But aside from those earlier examples existing in a more dynamic, wild-west-type of context, there are significant differences. Granting statehood to a 10 square mile patch of land (minus a small cutout in in the middle) is different than granting the same to an area that is orders of magnitude larger. That same patch of land totally encircling the federal government is another obvious difference. It's easy to argue that the creation of many states were political moves and opportunistic, and a lot of these arguments are probably correct. Whether that past opportunistic behaviour was "naked" is arguable, but certainly pales in comparison to bareness of this. No one succeeded in turning a city that leaned a particular direction into a full blown state. There was at least the understanding that to be a duck, it must walk like a duck and swim like a duck.

But all that aside, two wrongs don't make a right.
This is hand waving. Previous states were made due to senatorial concerns, later states will be made due to senatorial concerns. States can be as large or as small as we want and the fact that you think land area matters more than people is ridiculous. Government exists to represent people, not grass.

That legislature would only need to identify more strongly as Republicans than as members of their own state. Surely your opinion of Republicans is low enough to see that this is entirely possible.
It’s possible, but not very likely. Regardless, if that is the case then they would do so anyway so it’s not relevant as they do not care about governing norms.

I didn't say that either. I didn't make the claim either way. You're presenting a false dichotomy. Republicans are capable of doing evil, and capable of withholding from doing evil. The side that performs the preemptive strike is the one that is most at fault.
They either care about norms or they do not, and it is abundantly clear they do not. As for who is at ‘fault’, I don’t care. We are where we are, and the Senate is broken. This helps to fix it.

People are so blinded by partisan bias and politics that they think the right situation is that the Senate can’t even pass legislation that has enormous popular support because it’s totally out of balance with society. It’s not right, it’s really bad for our country.
 
Feb 4, 2009
25,404
6,100
136
A more accurate description is that Democrats changed the old rules because they arrogantly didn’t consider a scenario where the GOP would regain power, and have been whining incessantly that the GOP took those changes and beat them over the head with it.
Haha you are fighting with the wrong guy on this.
Irrelevant who “started” it & when. I’m a goal focused guy, the Politicians and goals I support are failing and they are failing because my guys aren’t playing big shenanigans. Time to change that.

Breaking point for me was Mitch giggle about would he seat a RBG replacement in the Presidents last year.
Fuck that guy, fuck him laughing about it
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
13,373
1,493
126
An even more accurate description is that the Republicans ceased to abide by the old rules and so the Democrats acted accordingly.

Remember, the Republicans broke the deal not to eliminate the filibuster so they reaped the consequences. No honest person can deny this.
The US Senate under Harry Reid short sightedly changed the filibuster rules. No honest person can deny this.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pcgeek11

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,120
15,718
136
Haha you are fighting with the wrong guy on this.
Irrelevant who “started” it & when. I’m a goal focused guy, the Politicians and goals I support are failing and they are failing because my guys aren’t playing big shenanigans. Time to change that.

Breaking point for me was Mitch giggle about would he seat a RBG replacement in the Presidents last year.
Fuck that guy, fuck him laughing about it
It’s also a total lie, as Republicans are the ones entirely to blame for the elimination of the judicial filibuster. (They finally did something I agree with!

The actual timeline:
1) under Bush Democrats filibuster some of his judicial nominees.

2) Republicans threaten to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees in response.

3) Democrats concede and stop filibustering the nominees. Republicans agree not to eliminate the filibuster so long as it is only used in ‘extraordinary circumstances’

4) under Obama, Republicans state they will filibuster any and all nominees to the DC Circuit, regardless of qualifications, thereby violating the agreement that it would only be used in extraordinary circumstances.

5) Democrats uphold the terms of the deal, and eliminate the filibuster.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY