Now that Democrats control the Senate, will DC statehood be back on the table?

[Greenman]

As far as I can see that claim is contested. But it may be a valid one, I admit.

The Constitution says no to DC statehood

Really seems that the US constitution is designed to make changing anything nearly impossible. I really don't get why its so venerated, it seems like a bad design, to me. Indeed, I don't get the preoccupation (as seen in this article) with the idea that it was all carefully 'designed' at all. Surely the reality is it came out of a lot of horse-trading and botched compromises between rival centres-of-power? Some of it, I've heard, just because everyone involved in drawing it up was knackered and wanted to go home.

I tend to think formal written constitutions are over-rated in general. They never work as planned, because nobody can foresee all future social and technological developments. The main thing is they should be easy to change. Any constitution that isn't, is a bad design. A rigid constitution suggests a deep distrust of 'the people'. If you distrust your populace so much, why not just stick with a monarchy?

Being very difficult to change is a feature, not a bug. The entire point is that the constitution shouldn't be a fashion accessory that's changed on a popular whim. I agree with this because I firmly believe that a million stupid people won't make better decisions than one stupid person.
We have people that set off fireworks in their ass, eat laundry detergent, believe the earth is flat, think rocks have magical powers, the list is near endless. I don't want those folks changing the constitution because they're incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions.

 

[fskimospy]

Being very difficult to change is a feature, not a bug. The entire point is that the constitution shouldn't be a fashion accessory that's changed on a popular whim. I agree with this because I firmly believe that a million stupid people won't make better decisions than one stupid person.
We have people that set off fireworks in their ass, eat laundry detergent, believe the earth is flat, think rocks have magical powers, the list is near endless. I don't want those folks changing the constitution because they're incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions.

As it stands now as find it hard to imagine a situation where another amendment will ever be successfully adopted so he’s right it’s too rigid.

Regardless, that one extreme outlier position aside there’s little argument that you would need to amend the constitution to make DC a state. The Constitition is straightforward - there is to be a district and congress decides what that is.

 

[pmv]

Being very difficult to change is a feature, not a bug. The entire point is that the constitution shouldn't be a fashion accessory that's changed on a popular whim. I agree with this because I firmly believe that a million stupid people won't make better decisions than one stupid person.
We have people that set off fireworks in their ass, eat laundry detergent, believe the earth is flat, think rocks have magical powers, the list is near endless. I don't want those folks changing the constitution because they're incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions.

I disagree entirely - a Constitution shouldn't be a prison, confining people with the bad ideas of long-dead generations, even after conditions have radically changed. Constitutions should be easy to change, or just don't have them. If you think your fellow citizens are too dim to be trusted to determine the nature of the state, why, exactly, did you object to having an absolute monarch?

 

[Sunburn74]

As it stands now as find it hard to imagine a situation where another amendment will ever be successfully adopted so he’s right it’s too rigid.

Regardless, that one extreme outlier position aside there’s little argument that you would need to amend the constitution to make DC a state. The Constitition is straightforward - there is to be a district and congress decides what that is.

I think this is basically semantics about what official names are. A state, a city, and a district can all have the same name even if it's a bit confusing. Or you could just change the name of the future state that is to be added for clarity.

 

[hal2kilo]

I finally decided that the only reason I think the filibuster should still be around is because of inertia. I'm listening to former Sen. Harry Reid on MSNBC give great reasons for not why the filibuster should go away but when it will because it's just a matter of time. The truth really is that this was a relic of the Jim Crowe era to keep black people from getting their rights. Just get rid of it, so this country can move on, especially when President Biden is emphasizing doing something about systemic racism. This would be a good start. We will also find out which party Manchin and the woman from AZ show their allegiance to.

 

[Ajay]

I disagree entirely - a Constitution shouldn't be a prison, confining people with the bad ideas of long-dead generations, even after conditions have radically changed. Constitutions should be easy to change, or just don't have them. If you think your fellow citizens are too dim to be trusted to determine the nature of the state, why, exactly, did you object to having an absolute monarch?

?? Stupid people and evil people are the exact reasons we must have a constitution.

 

[Greenman]

I disagree entirely - a Constitution shouldn't be a prison, confining people with the bad ideas of long-dead generations, even after conditions have radically changed. Constitutions should be easy to change, or just don't have them. If you think your fellow citizens are too dim to be trusted to determine the nature of the state, why, exactly, did you object to having an absolute monarch?

What happens when the people decide that racism is not only acceptable, but mandatory? What happens when the people decide that you have to much money or property and take it from you? What happens when the people decide you have to be told where to live or what you'll do?
You're only looking at the positive side of a pure democracy, but there is a negative side as well. Weren't you recently complaining about Brexit and the fallout from it? That was a popular vote, that was democratic, the people made a decision that you have to live with.

I go back to my basic theses, you can't increase a sum by adding zeros.

 

[pauldun170]

What happens when the people decide that racism is not only acceptable, but mandatory?

We know what happens. We did it to Blacks. It's taught in school.
It led to the Civil Rights act and a bunch of other laws and things to prevent it.

What happens when the people decide that you have to much money or property and take it from you?

We know what happens. We did it to Asians and Blacks up until the mid 20th century. It's also taught in school. Everything from burning down black owned towns to Alien land laws
There are now laws and things to prevent it.

What happens when the people decide you have to be told where to live or what you'll do?

We know what happens. It occurred at all levels un until the late 20th century.
There are all sorts of laws around that too.

 

[alien42]

?? Stupid people and evil people are the exact reasons we must have a constitution.

that poster didn't say we shouldn't have a Constitution, so why are you highlighting must have?

also, are you suggesting that you don't believe in amendments?

 

[Muse]

DC shouldn't be a state. No state should be the center of government...which is why the District of Columbia was founded to begin with. I've always thought no one who isn't a federal employee working in DC should be allowed to live there. (kind of like military housing on/around military bases)

That couldn't work. Support people have to be federal employees? The teens working at McDonalds? They people ironing their shirts? The people working movie theaters? Hotel personnel?

 

[pmv]

What happens when the people decide that racism is not only acceptable, but mandatory? What happens when the people decide that you have to much money or property and take it from you? What happens when the people decide you have to be told where to live or what you'll do?
You're only looking at the positive side of a pure democracy, but there is a negative side as well. Weren't you recently complaining about Brexit and the fallout from it? That was a popular vote, that was democratic, the people made a decision that you have to live with.

I go back to my basic theses, you can't increase a sum by adding zeros.

Show me where a written Constitution has made any difference in such a situation. Not 1930s Germany, that's for sure. Nor the USSR.

I mean you are trying to solve Hobbes vs Locke, to find a third way between a monarch and the mob, but it seems to me that making the words of the long-dead into the absolute arbiter of everything doesn't get round the problem. Even worse, really, because the long-dead can't be reasoned with and are likely to be even more out-of-touch with current reality than the most insulated monarch or overexcited mob. Especially when a Consitution wasn't really the carefully considered work of far-seeing prophets that the US Constitution seems to get painted as. In reality it was cobbled together to solve their contemporary political disputes.

Edit - I mean, I'm sure I'm biased, being a product of a country that famously doesn't really have a written Constitution. I'm sure that's moulded my attitude and perhaps means I'm overlooking the drawbcks of _not_ having one. Also is probably why I find it particularly baffling that the flaws in the US system are so hard to change.

 

[Muse]

They should chance the senate rules so that a filibuster requires actually standing and filibustering for hours like it was in the old days.

They don't? What do they do now? Take naps during filibusters? Go out to eat? Adjourn???

 

[pmv]

We know what happens. We did it to Blacks. It's taught in school.
It led to the Civil Rights act and a bunch of other laws and things to prevent it.


We know what happens. We did it to Asians and Blacks up until the mid 20th century. It's also taught in school. Everything from burning down black owned towns to Alien land laws
There are now laws and things to prevent it.


We know what happens. It occurred at all levels un until the late 20th century.
There are all sorts of laws around that too.

Exactly - having a written constitution didn't prevent the US from doing that for most of its history. Indeed, changing that constitution to prevent it required a horrifyingly-bloody civil war.

 

[Muse]

Filibuster on the way out?

Say Goodbye to the Senate Filibuster

Traditions and incentives that once allowed most legislation to pass by majority vote have collapsed. Without them, the rules have to change.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[JD50]

What happens when the people decide that racism is not only acceptable, but mandatory? What happens when the people decide that you have to much money or property and take it from you? What happens when the people decide you have to be told where to live or what you'll do?

All of those things literally happened in this country with a constitution.

You're only looking at the positive side of a pure democracy, but there is a negative side as well. Weren't you recently complaining about Brexit and the fallout from it? That was a popular vote, that was democratic, the people made a decision that you have to live with.

No one is talking about going to a pure Democracy and getting rid of Representatives.

I go back to my basic theses, you can't increase a sum by adding zeros.

This is a deepity that means nothing.

 

[fskimospy]

Anybody who thinks a written constitution means anything should go read the North Korean constitution. On paper it sounds like a great place to live!

 

[JD50]

Anybody who thinks a written constitution means anything should go read the North Korean constitution. On paper it sounds like a great place to live!

Yea but if they got rid of it then the North Korean government could start telling people where to live and take property from them.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Remember this story four years ago:

EU Greets Vice President Pence With 51-Star American Flag - Washingtonian

Vice President Mike Pence walked on stage to a European Union summit in Brussels to a backdrop featuring a version of the US flag with 51 stars, instead of the traditional 50. The flag featured three rows of nine stars and three rows of eight stars, instead of the usual layout of nine rows that...

www.washingtonian.com

It might get the bare 50 needed, or maybe even 51 since Lisa Murkowski has repeatedly expressed lukewarm openness toward the idea, but the filibuster is the gigantic elephant in the room.

 

[Ajay]

that poster didn't say we shouldn't have a Constitution, so why are you highlighting must have?

"Constitutions should be easy to change, or just don't have them."
I thought that was a bit obtuse, hence my emphasis. Maybe it's just me.

also, are you suggesting that you don't believe in amendments?

Of course I believe in amendments (it's in the constitution!). They are, for all intents and purposes, impossible today. I don't think that is an intrinsically a constitutional problem, but a political one - that is, the divergence of the governing philosophy** of the two dominate political parties.

** Well, the sham philosophy of the GOP.

 

[Greenman]

All of those things literally happened in this country with a constitution.



No one is talking about going to a pure Democracy and getting rid of Representatives.



This is a deepity that means nothing.

It means that a million stupid people won't make better decisions than one stupid person.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I am NOT in favor of this at all. I see no advantages to it that wouldn't be outweighed by problems.

I'm in favor of abolishing residency in 'the district'. People that live there should be residents of either state, based on which side of the river they live on. There could still be a city and a mayor, but it would be part of either or both states. Think Kansas City.

The federal district would be more of a virtual footprint, with only Government buildings and property being under Federal authority.

 

[fskimospy]

I am NOT in favor of this at all. I see no advantages to it that wouldn't be outweighed by problems.

I'm in favor of abolishing residency in 'the district'. People that live there should be residents of either state, based on which side of the river they live on. There could still be a city and a mayor, but it would be part of either or both states. Think Kansas City.

The federal district would be more of a virtual footprint, with only Government buildings and property being under Federal authority.

What problems would it create?

 

[woolfe9998]

Anybody who thinks a written constitution means anything should go read the North Korean constitution. On paper it sounds like a great place to live!

So was the Weimar Constitution. Hitler never even got rid of it, he just "suspended it." In other words, it was only worth the paper it was written on and no more.

 

[1prophet]

What happens when the people decide that racism is not only acceptable, but mandatory? What happens when the people decide that you have to much money or property and take it from you? What happens when the people decide you have to be told where to live or what you'll do?
You're only looking at the positive side of a pure democracy, but there is a negative side as well. Weren't you recently complaining about Brexit and the fallout from it? That was a popular vote, that was democratic, the people made a decision that you have to live with.

I go back to my basic theses, you can't increase a sum by adding zeros.

We know what happens. We did it to Blacks. It's taught in school.
It led to the Civil Rights act and a bunch of other laws and things to prevent it.


We know what happens. We did it to Asians and Blacks up until the mid 20th century. It's also taught in school. Everything from burning down black owned towns to Alien land laws
There are now laws and things to prevent it.


We know what happens. It occurred at all levels un until the late 20th century.
There are all sorts of laws around that too.

All those laws were ensured by the constitution which was changed due to the civil war not created by a bunch of people protesting or marching, just like with women being allowed to vote by having the constitution changed is what allowed them to later challenge and change laws such as not being allowed to get credit cards without their husbands permission.

Teach Democracy

The civil rights movement deeply affected American society. Among its most important achievements were two major civil rights laws passed by Congress. These laws ensured constitutional rights for African Americans and other minorities. Although these righ, The civil rights movement deeply...

www.crf-usa.org

The civil rights movement deeply affected American society. Among its most important achievements were two major civil rights laws passed by Congress. These laws ensured constitutional rights for African Americans and other minorities. Although these rights were first guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution immediately after the Civil War, they had never been fully enforced. It was only after years of highly publicized civil rights demonstrations, marches, and violence that American political leaders acted to enforce these rights.

All the civil rights type of laws that you have today are because of the constitution which is why jim crow and segregation laws were deemed unconstitutional.

Board of Education. On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court announced its dramatic unanimous decision: Segregation of children in America's public schools, when authorized or required by state law, violated the U.S. Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the law.

The foundation of America is the Constitution and the reason you have your civil rights laws and their legitimacy not in spite of it.

Maybe George Bush thought the constitution was just a piece of paper, now it looks like our so-called liberals agree.

 

[Sunburn74]

They don't? What do they do now? Take naps during filibusters? Go out to eat? Adjourn???

They don't have to actually take up time. The modern filibuster is mostly, a formality or a threat, meaning if you don't have 2/3 votes to pass the bill don't bother bringing it up because it will be filibustered (with few exceptions. Budget reconciliation for example). You basically just have to say you filibuster and it's done. No talking. No standing for hours. That's the modern senate

Senate filibuster no longer requires long floor speech

The filibuster is more popular than ever, but the current version is a far cry from what it was.

www.post-gazette.com

At the very least, if you filibuster you should have to physically get up there and block time and hold your pee in.