New design USA flag coming?

[jakeroot]

DC cannot be "granted statehood"  (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17th clause), nor be granted votes in the House (US Constitution, Article I, Section 2),  nor the Senate (US Constitution, Article I, Section 1)

But you can change the constitution, no?

Yes, via the Amendment process; which is not done quickly.  A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of the US Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states

Okay. But DC "can" become a state if the constitution is modified to be clearer on the matter (assuming the aforementioned clause does actually prevent statehood). SP Cook is 100% incorrect stating that DC cannot be granted statehood, when a constitutional amendment could easily grand DC that power.

Yes, via the Amendment process; which is not done quickly.  A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of the US Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states

Which seems unlikely to happen at any point in the near future ever given today's political climate.

FTFY

That thing that's unlikely to happen ever has happened 27 times already.

Thank you. People forget this all the time. It's called an "amendment" for a reason.

[SP Cook]

Okay. But DC "can" become a state if the constitution is modified to be clearer on the matter (assuming the aforementioned clause does actually prevent statehood). SP Cook is 100% incorrect stating that DC cannot be granted statehood, when a constitutional amendment could easily grand DC that power.

As others have pointed out, nothing about amending the Constitution can be described as "easily" .  Yes, as a matter of theoretical political science, DC could be made a state IF 2/3rds of both houses and 3/4ths of the states approve, something that would require cross party, cross ideology, and cross regional support, which is, of course, a wise thing, which has led to It only being amending, really 17 times; the Bill of Rights as a more or less package; two quick amendments to fix mistakes; the three post Civil War amendments (done under questionable circumstances); four from the progressive era; two under the "new deal" ; one to fix the new deal's excesses; four arising out of the civil rights movement and Vietnam; and one to fix the excesses and greed of Congress re its own pay, from the Newt Gingrich era.  That is not a lot in over 230 years.  Nor should it be any easier.

On the same token, the Constitution COULD be amended to admit Israel, New York City, Greenland, or the moon as states; declare three-toed sloths to be citizens;  make banana peels legal tender; or make abortion mandatory.  None of things is going to happen either.

However, we were discussing a simple bill, not a Constitutional amendment, and said bill, leaving out the fact that is will not pass the Senate nor be singed by the President, would be declared void by the courts as a matter of simple textual reading.

[PHLBOS]

Yes, via the Amendment process; which is not done quickly.  A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of the US Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states

Which seems unlikely to happen at any point in the near future ever given today's political climate.

FTFY

That thing that's unlikely to happen ever has happened 27 times already.

The first 10 Amendments (aka The Bill of Rights) were all ratified Dec. 15, 1791.  Amendments 11 through 27 were ratified over a much longer time period; from Feb. 7, 1795 through May 7, 1992.

[1995hoo]

The 27th Amendment was also proposed along with the original Bill of Rights. Congress didn't put a time limit on ratification and it eventually got enough states in 1992. The other remaining unratified amendment proposed as part of the Bill of Rights related to apportionment of representatives.

[Henry]

Don't bet on that!

[PHLBOS]

The 27th Amendment was also proposed along with the original Bill of Rights. Congress didn't put a time limit on ratification and it eventually got enough states in 1992. The other remaining unratified amendment proposed as part of the Bill of Rights related to apportionment of representatives.

The above further proves the earlier point regarding Constitutional Amendments not being added too quickly nor at will.

[oscar]

The 27th Amendment was also proposed along with the original Bill of Rights. Congress didn't put a time limit on ratification and it eventually got enough states in 1992. The other remaining unratified amendment proposed as part of the Bill of Rights related to apportionment of representatives.

The above further proves the earlier point regarding Constitutional Amendments not being added too quickly nor at will.

For a counter-example, the 26th Amendment (extending voting rights to 18-year-olds) not only was ratified easily but set a speed record (only 100 days between when it was sent to the states and when enough states ratified it).

D.C.'s record on amendments is a mixed bag. It took less than a year for ratification of the 23rd Amendment (giving D.C. three electoral votes in Presidential elections). But a later proposed amendment, which would have among other things given D.C. two Senators and one voting member of the House of Representatives, was not ratified by the time limit specified by Congress, so it failed.

[vdeane]

However, we were discussing a simple bill, not a Constitutional amendment, and said bill, leaving out the fact that is will not pass the Senate nor be singed by the President, would be declared void by the courts as a matter of simple textual reading.

As I mentioned, such bill does not grant statehood to all of DC; it truncates the federal district to the area around the current federal buildings/monuments and makes the rest of it a new state.  As such, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be constitutional, though I do wonder if it would need the permission of Maryland, as it's on land ceded from that state.

[jp the roadgeek]

DC cannot be "granted statehood"  (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17th clause)

That clause reads:

{The Congress shall have Power} To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings

I don't see how this precludes DC from being made a state. Sure, this clause gives congress legislative power over DC, but it's already been established by precedent that congress can delegate that power to a city government. Logically congress would also be able to delegate that power to a state government.

The way this clause makes things interesting is that in a scenario where DC is a state, congress would retain the power to override any laws the state passes in ways they cannot for other states, and potentially even to revoke DC's statehood.

Yes, via the Amendment process; which is not done quickly.  A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of the US Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states

Which seems unlikely to happen at any point in the near future ever given today's political climate.

FTFY

That thing that's unlikely to happen ever has happened 27 times already.

But 10 of them happened at the same time only 4 years after the document was created.  And of the remaining 17, 1 actually repealed another.  And only 12 have been ratified since 1900 (including the 1 cancelling the other).   I can certainly think of 13 states that would oppose any amendment. 

[LM117]

the three post Civil War amendments (done under questionable circumstances)

Hell, SCOTUS damn near ripped the 14th Amendment apart in United States v. Cruikshank (1876). It took over a century to overturn that dumpster fire.

[kevinb1994]

the three post Civil War amendments (done under questionable circumstances)

Hell, SCOTUS damn near ripped the 14th Amendment apart in United States v. Cruikshank (1876). It took over a century to overturn that dumpster fire.

I can see where JK Rowling got that character name from!

[mgk920]

Heck, I would not oppose returning the non-Federal parts of DC to Maryland.

Mike

[Mr_Northside]

Heck, I would not oppose returning the non-Federal parts of DC to Maryland.

Mike

Not that my "vote" on a roads forum matters, but this is my opinion as well.  Either leave it as-is, or have MD re-absorb it.  It doesn't need to be it's own state.

[michravera]

The 27th Amendment was also proposed along with the original Bill of Rights. Congress didn't put a time limit on ratification and it eventually got enough states in 1992. The other remaining unratified amendment proposed as part of the Bill of Rights related to apportionment of representatives.

Yeah. The other of the original 12 amendments submitted to the states (which was never ratified) would require about 6000 representatives in the House. Now, the 435 number isn't a Constitutional requirement (it could be changed by Congress whenever it likes), but 6000 doesn't impress me as the way to run an effective representative government. It took 203 years to get around to ratifying the 27 amendment. The founders knew that people who could set their own salaries would eventually cause trouble. It just took us a while for the rest of us to catch up.

[michravera]

What's wrong with giving Puerto Rico 5 representatives immediately?

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State..."

I think it would have to be that way, with whatever the appropriate number is.  The Constitution doesn't seem to allow non-proportional representation.

Puerto Rico would be breaking new ground because, it would, under current rules, deserve more than one Representative.

If we reapportioned to 435 to include Puerto Rico, California, Texas, Florida, and New York (and probably one other) would all need to lose a representative. California and Texas would probably get it back from one of the 14-19 Representative states, so we would actually be taking representatives from Ohio or Pennsylvania or the like. Adding Democrats to the population would undoubtedly add Democrats to the House, but it is far from clear how many as a net.

That said, if the Democrat party schisms, into say the "Socialist" party and the "Liberal" party as a result of the 2020 elections (which is a real possibility), the Republicans may not see any harm in adding a mostly Liberal state to the Union, since the Republican majority would doubtless persist for the "foreseeable" future. If the Democrats take a good drubbing but nonetheless reunite after the election, we could well be in a situation where statehood for Puerto Rico may never really be considered. Of course, the Democrats had full control back in 2010 and didn't push through ANY statehood proposals. No reason to think that, if they gain full control again in 2020 (or 2024) that anything different would happen.

In the past, states have been either admitted in loose "groups" to keep political balance or in groups that tended to follow the political agenda of the party in power. At the moment, there is no "balancing" state to Puerto Rico. Guam, the Marianas, and the Virgin Islands are all to small to balance (and besides are rather Democrat-leaning, if I am properly informed).

[mgk920]

Isn't the current non-voting USHouse delegate ('Resident Commissioner') from Puerto Rico (Jenniffer Gonzalez) a Republican?

That said, yes, should they be granted full statehood, Puerto Rico would likely require the reapportionment of six USHouse seats.

Mike

[CtrlAltDel]

If we reapportioned to 435 to include Puerto Rico, California, Texas, Florida, and New York (and probably one other) would all need to lose a representative.

Just for the record, if Puerto Rico had been a state at the time of the 2010 reapportionment, then the states that would have lost a representative with respect to what they actually had are: FL, WA, TX, CA, and MN.

[kkt]

the three post Civil War amendments (done under questionable circumstances)

Hell, SCOTUS damn near ripped the 14th Amendment apart in United States v. Cruikshank (1876). It took over a century to overturn that dumpster fire.

I can see where JK Rowling got that character name from!

Probably George Cruikshank, the famous British illustrator and cartoonist from the 1800s.

The amendments to the constitution have passed because they did not greatly upset the balance of power between political viewpoints - except for the reconstruction amendments that passed before the states that seceded were readmitted.  Attempting to grant DC voting representation in the House or Senate would go nowhere.

[hbelkins]

Heck, I would not oppose returning the non-Federal parts of DC to Maryland.

Mike

Not that my "vote" on a roads forum matters, but this is my opinion as well.  Either leave it as-is, or have MD re-absorb it.  It doesn't need to be it's own state.

Agreed. Apparently there was a reason the District of Columbia was separated from being part of a state. I'm presuming it was intended to be the seat of government, not just another city. Either keep it as a non-state, or give it back to Maryland. Those who choose to live there do so willingly knowing it's not a state.

[LM117]

A non-binding statehood referendum will be held in Puerto Rico in November.

https://time.com/5837906/puerto-rico-referendum-us-statehood/

And on a somewhat related note, SCOTUS has unanimously upheld the oversight board that Congress created.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/01/supreme-court-rules-puerto-rico-financial-oversight-board-is-legal.html

[texaskdog]

with the whole red/blue divide it would only ever happen with another red state being added

[Roadgeekteen]

with the whole red/blue divide it would only ever happen with another red state being added

Couldn't it happen if the Democrats take back the senate?

[webny99]

with the whole red/blue divide it would only ever happen with another red state being added

Couldn't it happen if the Democrats take back the senate?

A simple majority is not enough. You'd have to have a 2/3 majority, which is not happening in the House or the Senate anytime soon, for either party.

[mgk920]

with the whole red/blue divide it would only ever happen with another red state being added

Couldn't it happen if the Democrats take back the senate?

A simple majority is not enough. You'd have to have a 2/3 majority, which is not happening in the House or the Senate anytime soon, for either party.

It doesn't need that, just a 'gentlemans agreement', like with the Missouri Compromise of the mid 19th century - we'll just agree to admit one new 'free' state for every new 'slave' state in order to maintain that balance.
Yep, that only held of a decade or so.

Admitting a new state only requires the assent of a majority of each house of congress, no presidential signature needed (see: Article. IV., Section. 3., Constitution of the United States of America).

Mike

[LM117]

Several Republicans have supported statehood for PR in the past (even co-sponsored previous statehood bills). The biggest obstacle in Congress is McConnell as usual, who flat out said that statehood will never happen as long as he controls the Senate.