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.It in no way nullifies that part of the Constitution as it is Congress itself making those determinations.
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)Well you seemed to think the 'sheer naked opportunism' of the move potentially justified such an extreme intervention against enumerated Congressional power by SCOTUS.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.