Clinton: I support D.C. statehood


#1

POLITICO:

Clinton: I support D.C. statehood

The Democratic frontrunner wrote for The Washington Informer that “the District of Columbia is often neglected when it comes to federal appropriations” because it doesn’t have a vote in Congress. She promised to “be a vocal champion for D.C. statehood” if elected president.

“Many of the District’s decisions are also at the mercy of right-wing ideologues in Congress, and as you can imagine, they don’t show very much of it,” Clinton wrote. “Everything from commonsense gun laws to providing women’s health care and efforts to cut down on drug abuse has been halted by Republicans, who claim the District is an exception to their long-held notion that communities ought to be able to govern themselves.”

She went on to attack Donald Trump, saying the presumptive Republican nominee “hasn’t given this issue much thought.”
In a meeting with the Washington Post’s editorial board, Trump said: “I think statehood is a tough thing for D.C. I think it’s a tough thing. I don’t have a position on it yet. I would form a position. But I think statehood is a tough thing for D.C.”

Instead of statehood why not cede most of the District back to Maryland and redraw it to include only the WH, Capitol, Mall and major monuments.


#2

Statehood? Why not make it a separate country and start over for the rest of the country without them?


#3

Now that’s thinking outside the box! :thumbsup:


#4

:smiley:


#5

What about Puerto Rico?


#6

Exactly.


#7

Great, now let Eastern Washington and North California become Lincoln and Jefferson!


#8

Now an extended city gets two senators?!!

Why?


#9

Because DC is heavily Democratic and it would mean two more Democratic Senators. Hillary has demanded that religious beliefs be changed and she is strongly in favor of SS marriage and abortion rights. So with two more Senators, it might be easier for her to achieve her goal of changing religious beliefs.


#10

And one Representative.


#11

I remember reading somewhere (might have just been wikipedia) that the original conception for DC was that the actual settlement was going to be only a small part of the larger area ceded by MD/VA (marked by what today is Florida Avenue but was originally called Boundary Street, and the river on the other side).

So actually as you suggest didymus, reducing DC in size to just the government centre and the monuments etc immediately around it, kind of fits in with the original idea. That also makes sense with the constitutional provision for Congress itself to exercise legislative power over the district (and ok I know there’s a mayor and council with delegated powers today :stuck_out_tongue: ).

I think given the partisan interpretation of a major Democratic figure supporting DC statehood (even if she has no ulterior motive at all - let’s be charitable), I can’t see this adding much to the movement calling for statehood, though…


#12

Totally agree with you there. DC was intentionally not made a state because it would have undue levels of influence. It was only supposed to be a government center, not a population center.

I’d be fine with that, though you might have to turn Austin into it’s own city state to be fair. I’m sure Texas would be happy to sell them power from the Texas grid. :wink:


#13

They already, kinda, have a representative. That rep can’t vote on legislation, but can serve on committees and vote on procedural matters.


#14

That’s about the size of it. Getting full house representation wouldn’t be that big a deal, but it would almost assure another 2 very liberal Democrats in the Senate.

I doubt it is about changing religious beliefs so much as pushing religious ideologies out of the public square. Seems most dems have no problem with private expression of belief, just as long as people don’t act on those beliefs in public.


#15

Goodness. when I saw the thread title, I immediately thought of Bill; not Hillary.


#16

Well, she locked up those three electoral votes.


#17

To be fair, what chance is there that DC would have gone Republican anyway? It’s kinda like saying that a Democrat locked up San Francisco. :wink:

I don’t think its ever voted anything other than dem in the 50 years it’s had electoral college input. I seem to remember that last election there were like 15 or 20 votes for Romney in the whole district. So glad DC is non-partisan. :stuck_out_tongue:


#18

A “state” whose only product is paper and red tape. Hard to imagine. And yes, two guaranteed Democrat senators is what it’s all about.


#19

That is an interesting question.

Whenever the problem of DC non-representation is raised, one proposed solution is to merge DC into the state of Maryland. After all, that is where the land originally came. Unfortunately, the people of Maryland do not want DC. Polls have consistently shown this over the years. And I am not so sure that the people in DC want to be part of Maryland.

But what about Puerto Rico? Would the people there be willing to accept DC? Granted, a problem of geographic separation exists, but Staten Island is part of New York CIty, isn’t it? I suppose San Juan could remain the capital. This would avoid the awkward positioning of a state and federal capital side by side. It would also imitate the Staten Island / New York City situation.


#20

No, MD has enough issues with Prince Georges county as it is. Don’t arbitrarily give us, D.C., aka America’s ugly mole, just because no one else wants it.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.