D.C.'s bid to become the 51st state gets a hearing, but not a lot of truth out of Democrats
Republicans rightly call the effort to make Washington, D.C. a state a 'blatant and unconstitutional power grab'
Washington, D.C.’s bid for statehood finally got a congressional hearing Monday, but Mayor Muriel Bowser’s clashes with Republicans on the panel made clear that the issue is far from settled.
Republicans accused Democrats of a cynical power play, rightly stating that statehood was never the intention of the country’s Founding Fathers, and pointing out that Congress does not even have the right to grant statehood to D.C.
Bowser argued that Washingtonians’ lack of representation in Congress was “one of the remaining glaring civil rights issues of our time.”
Supporters of D.C.’s quest for statehood believe the time is right to bring the long-simmering and racially charged idea to fruition. It would give D.C. two senators and a fully voting member of the House. The District historically votes Democratic.
“We dare to believe that D.C. statehood is on the horizon,” said the District’s long-serving, nonvoting delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton. The fact Norton wrote the bill gives lie to Bowser’s claim that the District has no representation in Congress.
All proponents of the measure say it has overwhelming support in the House, and some Democrats would like the publicbelieve that the case for D.C. Statehood is akin to Puerto Rican statehood. It is not. When it comes to D.C. statehood, it’s clear that this nothing more than an attempt to pack the Senate and House with an army of far-left-wing Democrats that will keep the Fascist party in power for the next 100 years.
The case against D.C. statehood on constitutional merits is open-and-shut. It can’t be done. It may be possible to annex parts of D.C. to Virginia and Maryland, but granting statehood to the city of D.C. would not pass constitutional muster.
Quite simply, in Article I, Section 8, the “enumerated powers” of the federal government make D.C. the seat of the federal government. On the list is the power to “exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)” and designate it to “become the Seat of the Government of the United States.” This is called the “Enclave Clause,” because it is the provision that sets down D.C. as the enclave, or home, for the federal government.
Our Founding Founders saw the District as one being run by the federal government and independent of any state’s authority. As quoted in The Heritage Foundation Guide to the Constitution, James Madison in Federalist 43, explained that “the indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government carries its own evidence with it.”
In other words, if the federal government became dependent on a state, that could lead to “proceedings interrupted with impunity.” He also worried that a state housing the federal government would have more influence than other states creating an imbalance of power. It would be virtually impossible to carve out parts of the city of D.C. and leave a small portion to the federal government in a way that would pass constitutional scrutiny.
This is not the first time efforts have been made, in some form or fashion, to give voting-rights representation to the District. Lee Casey wrote for The Heritage Foundation that “There have been a number of efforts to change this original design, including a proposed constitutional amendment (passed by Congress in 1977) that would have granted the District of Columbia congressional voting representation ‘as if it were a state.’” The amendment never made it into the Constitution. Back in 1964, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy pushed back on a plan that would have given much of D.C. to Maryland. Again, the opposition was rooted in the Constitution and for good reason.
Of course, it’s clear that Democrats don’t care that the plan they are pushing has some serious constitutional problems. On the policy side, it seems like this is a power grab to load up the House and Senate with Democrats — and not merely middle-of-the-road Democrats, but progressives who make AOC’s Squad look squishy. The District’s voting patterns have resembled an authoritarian communist nation over the last 40 years.
A look at that history makes it easy to see why Democrats salivate at the idea of making the District a state. In 2016, when Donald J. Trump was elected president, Washington, D.C. voters went 90.9% for Hillary Clinton and followed that up with 93% for Joe Biden in 2020. No matter how you feel about former President Trump and the Republican Party in general, it is crazy that an incumbent president only pulled 5.4% of the vote in D.C.
That shows you why Democrats talk incessantly about D.C. statehood but give little mention to statehood for Puerto Rico — a U.S. territory that, though touted by some Democrats for statehood, could backfire on them.
There is a lot to be critical of for Puerto Rican statehood, but the territory has a far stronger case than Washington, D.C. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has elected a number of Republicans to office and currently has Republican Jenniffer Gonzalez as Resident Commissioner with limited rights to participate in the legislative process. The Republican Party has repeatedly put statehood for Puerto Rico in the platform of the party. Also, Puerto Rican voters are perceived to be socially conservative and far more likely to pull the lever for a Republican than your average lefty D.C. voter.
The Democrats are engaging in a lot of empty talk of “enfranchising new voters” and adding to the list of states. Their reality is they want power for power’s sake. That is why they have no intention of scheduling a vote on statehood for Puerto Rico are now prioritizing an unconstitutional effort to grant statehood to D.C.
Nothing the Fascist Democrats do is for the good of the people. It is all about power, privilege and prestige — theirs, with a stranglehold on government and one-party rule for the rest of their miserable criminal lives.