No. I’m saying that all the actual functions of a WDC state-level government are already taking place, so there wouldn’t be anything “added,” just restructured. For example the portfolio of the District committees in Congress would belong to the “new” state government. There would probably be more people specifically employed by WDC government, but fewer involved in it. See?
If I asked you why same-sex marriage was wrong ten years ago, would you have responded, “Because the law says so?”
I’ve asked many times for someone to describe the philosophical principle justifying why some Americans ought to have no voice in their government. To your credit, you’re attempting to give a response, but “because the law says so” is not a convincing response.
But it isn’t a million times easier. It’s actually far easier to redraw the boundaries of the Federal district to only include the various Federal buildings, and establish the rest of DC as a state. That solution would have no Article IV implications. So no, that’s not a good argument at all, either, because the proposed solution is definitely on the more complex side of the range of options.
Perhaps you don’t understand the DC government, but for laws that require a state agency official to do something, the DC government generally already has an agency and official who carries out those duties. For example, the main education policy agency in DC is literally called “the Office of the State Superintendent of Education.” The one exception I can think of is that the Adjutant General of the National Guard of the District of Columbia reports to the President, not the mayor. So no, I don’t think that DC needs to establish a massive bureaucracy in order to supervise the DC National Guard. So that argument seems awfully weak, too.
Got anything else? Even one idea that I can begrudgingly admit has some merit?
Of course all the functions are already taking place. But I personally doubt that DC statehood would lead to congressional staff layoffs. Things up top will shuffle around and DC will have to hire a bunch of people. Some things could be just handed over but how cleanly that happens is hard to say.
If people living in DC were actually being stopped from persuing happiness I might think you had a pressing point. And the constitution isn’t just “the law”. It’s the bedrock of the law. Pretending that changing the constitution is the same as changing other more mundane legislation pegs you as unrealistic.
Yeah, that’s what small states always say, amirite, Delaware? 
Since you seem to hand-wave away anything that doesn’t agree with your a priori opinions, it’s a little difficult to come up with anything that would satisfy.
Let’s put paid to the notion that D.C. cannot become a state—of course it can. It is an organized territory, and the steps (following most of the other states’ admissions) are pretty straightforward, and I think the OP’s “cannot” is hyperbole.
The question up for debate is one of “should,” and it’s either:
No, it should not.
or
Yes, it should be a new state.
or
Yes, but it should be incorporated into an existing state.
The arguments for “it should not” seem very silly to me. Two states have smaller populations than D.C., so the size argument becomes one of physical size. Alaska is already more than 500 times the size of Rhode Island, so clearly wildly disparate size isn’t an issue.
Likewise, Wikipedia lists 24 nations with separate capital territories, meaning the majority of countries, including the majority of first-world countries and of representative democracies, do just fine without this special situation.
Elsewhere, a lot of the arguments I’ve seen boil down to the Appeal to Tradition—it’s (more or less) always been that way, so it should continue, which is a fallacious argument.
Can anyone think of a good argument that the status quo should remain, besides inertia?
Otherwise, it’s a question of whether it becomes a new state, part of Maryland, or a silly option (part of Virginia or an exclave of Vermont or something).
If we can reframe the debate in terms of becoming part of Maryland vs. becoming a new state, we might get somewhere. Both would require an act of Congress and administrative reorganization, but new statehood requires a constitutional convention. I think there are more costs in creating a new state than in changing the boundaries and demographics of Maryland. Ravenman, pretty clearly, disagrees, but I can’t quite figure out his argument as to why D.C. statehood is better.
To be clear, Ravenman’s clear moral imperitve could only be met if rump DC was not allowed to have permanent residents. Otherwise an American would be left Senatorless. So all DC employees would be required to live outside of town. Not sure what that does to the Executive residence of the White House. Guess that will mean it’ll have to be turned into a museum and we’ll drive the President to work every morning.
The President’s legal domicile is (for the current officeholder) Chicago, and he votes as such. Similarly for all the members of Congress save Ms Holmes-Norton, and many of the political appointees and military personnel posted within the district. But for hundreds of thousands it IS “home”.
Didn’t know that. So an even simpler solution would be to allow all residents to choose a state to be voters in. Easy peasy.
So basically giving them zero political voice as a community.
…
What, you really thought they all were legally exiled from their home state upon election/appointment?
Doesn’t work the way you theorize, though. Those people I named were already legally domiciled in their home states before being temporarily posted to DC. They are, as was mentioned earlier, “a transient workforce”.
That’s how it works for us ex-pats.
I suppose we could repeal and replace the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
You’re missing the point. If I ask you if something is wrong, saying that it is not allowed isn’t actually a substantive answer. Whether it is pursuit of happiness, right to government representation, any matter of civil rights, or even criminal behavior, repeating what the law says isn’t a substantive answer to the question. I’m asking “why is the law fair,” and responding that the source of the law is the Constitution is, well, saying something that I already know. We agree that the Constitution isn’t infallible, right?
Well, I’m afraid there isn’t much substantive discussion on why the current arrangement is fair. Repeating the law or telling people to move isn’t exactly helping me understand a well-thought out opposing view.
This is exactly what I’ve been trying to ask!
I am not following what costs you think are so high. My comments on statehood are mostly intended as an intellectual exercise: there’s no reason why we can’t have tiny states; there’s no reason to deprive Americans who live in this country and want Federal representation of a pretty basic democratic right; and so on. I don’t think statehood is realistic because there’s an awful lot of Americans who have a strong bias against DC, mostly because a black mayor smoked crack thirty years ago.
I’ve read this ten times and I have no idea what you mean or what you think my position is. If you’re annoyed by this debate, okay, but that doesn’t mean it’s cool to throw out such weird strawman arguments.
I think your position is: if the people of DC want to be a state then it’s completely righteous that they get it. I extrapolate from there that it would be wrong to leave anyone behind. Therefire, only these “transitory workers” could ever claim a residency in a rump DC. Am I way off base? Is that a strawman?
It’s not that I think they’re high: it’s which of the two has higher costs. I accept that D.C. statehood is a reasonable proposal; I just don’t know that it’s better than incorporating D.C. into Maryland. Surely both options should be taken seriously, even if one must ultimately be rejected.
And so what? Perhaps ex-pats should get to vote for representation as a bloc.
Even if not, the situation of the ex-pats is not at all comparable, who actually live together in a geographical community in the United States.
I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. The constitution as originally written was full of fundamental injustices, and we have amended it to change several of them. If you think that this is a fundamental injustice, then if the constitution stands in the way, then it should be changed, like any other “law.” In practical terms, it’s harder to change the constitution than “the law,” but that’s irrelevant to the question of whether it should be changed.
By “rump DC” you mean the government buildings that would remain under solely Federal jurisdiction? Uh, I’m not aware of anyone claiming the Department of the Treasury at 1500 Pennsylvania Ave NW as their residence. I can’t figure out who you think is “left behind.”
So in other words, you aren’t even trying to understand. Ok. Good bye.