# Statehood for D.C.? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 24, 2020, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442 "2020-09-24T21:15:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2021, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/342 "2021-05-02T16:43:36Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > “In such a manner that the congress directs” Sorry, you are correct, "In such a manner that the congress may direct” That doesn’t change anything, they can still control it. Yes, they don’t have to direct anything, but Manchin says they can’t direct it at all and he’s wrong. It is within the power of congress to make this a non-issue without an amendment. Of course they should repeal the amendment to eliminate the problem if DC achieves statehood and/or pigs fly, but it’s not a requirement. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2021, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/343 "2021-05-02T16:49:27Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Manchin says they can’t direct it at all and he’s wrong. _I_ say Congress can’t direct the district to forego appointing electors when the Constitution explicitly reads, “The District […] _shall_ appoint […]”. The constitution calls for a decennial census in such a manner as Congress shall direct. Surely you agree it would be unconstitutional for Congress to direct the federal government to never take a census, thus never reapportioning the House? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2021, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/344 "2021-05-02T16:57:34Z")
“Shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct.” The details of the census are covered in the Constitution, there was no such escape clause for it. I don’t like this situation, I wouldn’t want that some nonsense to happen in order to make it work, but if for some stupid reason DC is given statehood without disabling the 23rd in some manner then it’s no different than any of the other government stupidity we deal with. The lack of a means to deal with the 23rd may be a considered by some a good reason to deny statehood to DC, but I don’t see an amendment as a requirement. I would certainly like to see an amendment repealing the 23rd to take place in conjunction with statehood rather than some compromise on the matter, but it still does not require an amendment to make DC a state. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2021, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/345 "2021-05-02T17:27:20Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > The lack of a means to deal with the 23rd may be a considered by some a good reason to deny statehood to DC, but I don’t see an amendment as a requirement. Nor do I; if the bill allocated all 3 votes to the most popular candidate nationwide I think that would be constitutional. It is specifically the plan to appoint no electors that I find unconstitutional. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2021, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/346 "2021-05-02T18:13:38Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > “Shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct.” The details of the census are covered in the Constitution, there was no such escape clause for it. If your boss tells you to put together a sales presentation in such manner as you may direct, would you think that one such manner is that you put together no sales presentation at all? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2021, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/347 "2021-05-02T19:51:12Z")
If my boss left it up to me and I found out that corporate had withdrawn that product then I wouldn’t be an idiot and hold the sales presentation anyway. Would you? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2021, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/348 "2021-05-02T20:00:29Z")
If I am following the analogy, yes, if the 23rd Amendment were repealed (the product is discontinued) then Congress wouldn’t have to appoint electors. Yes, it can do so in the manner it directs: hold a popular vote, appoint them directly, etc., but it may not just fail to appoint them. But what do you do when a simple statute makes that an impossibility? I think you have to hold that a simple statute which makes a mandatory constitutional provision impossible is to hold that the statute is unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/349 "2021-05-03T05:41:54Z")
The bill doesn’t actually make it impossible for electors to be chosen. Congress cannot bind itself. Future Congresses, even the very same Congress, would be perfectly entitled to appoint electors by legislation in the same way that some state legislatures did in the 18th and 19th centuries. The 23rd Amendment does not say there must be general standing law on how the electors are to be chosen. It’s likely that there would be political conditions under which Congress would not do that, just as there were political conditions under which Senate seats went empty before the 17th Amendment fixed that problem. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/350 "2021-05-03T10:03:04Z")
But it doesn’t make it an impossibility. Just an absurdity. Congress could, for example, appoint members of the White House permanent staff as electors. That would be dumb and absurd, but not impossible. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/351 "2021-05-03T23:15:54Z")
Didn’t stop Congress from pretending for nearly a decade that the dog ate the 1920 Census. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/352 "2021-05-03T23:40:42Z")
My opinion won’t necessarily stop Congress now, either. Independent of my opinion on constitutional law, I highly doubt the Senate will grant D.C. statehood this session. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2021, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/353 "2021-05-04T00:46:06Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Nor do I; if the bill allocated all 3 votes to the most popular candidate nationwide I think that would be constitutional. It is specifically the plan to appoint no electors that I find unconstitutional. Suppose the bill did just that. It’s a bill and can be changed. In 2132 the A and B parties are in a close competition. A controls both houses and has the Presidency, but things haven’t been going well and that may chance come November. Congress then directs that all three EV be given to party A. It’s also interesting that the Amendment says as Congress may direct. It doesn’t say they pass a law to do this, so Congress may control this without the President. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2021, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/354 "2021-05-04T01:15:26Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > It’s also interesting that the Amendment says as Congress may direct. It doesn’t say they pass a law to do this, so Congress may control this without the President. No, there is a general provision in the original Constitution saying that Congress has to run everything (except adjournments\*) past the President, so it would just be a normal law that the President would have a chance to veto. \*It was eventually decided that there was also an exception for constitutional amendments since that process is written out explicitly, but it wasn’t always clear that that was the case, so some early amendments were signed by the President before being sent to the states. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2021, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/355 "2021-05-04T06:18:24Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > It was eventually decided that there was also an exception for constitutional amendments since that process is written out explicitly, but it wasn’t always clear that that was the case, so some early amendments were signed by the President before being sent to the states. According to the wikipeidia article on the 13th, the 13th is the only ratified amendment that was signed by the President, and Congress promptly passed a resolution saying that presidential approval was not necessary: > [@](#): > > While the Constitution does not provide the President any formal role in the amendment process, the joint resolution was sent to Lincoln for his signature.[[63]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-63) Under the usual signatures of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, President Lincoln wrote the word “Approved” and added his signature to the joint resolution on February 1, 1865.[[64]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-64) On February 7, Congress passed a resolution affirming that the Presidential signature was unnecessary.[[65]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-65) The Thirteenth Amendment is the only ratified amendment signed by a President, although [James Buchanan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan) had signed the [Corwin Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment) that the [36th Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/36th_United_States_Congress) had adopted and sent to the states in March 1861.[[66]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-66)[[67]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-67) ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2021, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/356 "2021-05-05T18:39:34Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I almost completely missed the point of this and had to rethink it. Presidents will change every four or eight years. THE district has been the same since 1837… Nitpick: 1847: [District of Columbia retrocession - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession) ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2021, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/357 "2021-06-22T13:41:58Z")
Some movement in the Senate: > **[GOP senator blasts DC statehood as 'power grab' in clash with Democratic...](https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/22/politics/dc-statehood-bill-senate-committee-hearing/index.html)** > > A Senate committee hearing on a bill to grant statehood to Washington, DC, grew tense for a time on Tuesday when one of the panel's Republican lawmakers clashed with the city's mayor on the key Democratic priority, which has gained momentum in recent... ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2021, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/358 "2021-06-22T15:10:40Z")
That has as much chance of getting 60 votes as I have of Neve Campbell coming to my house, meeting my wife, and having them agree to participate in certain activities with me. ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2021, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/359 "2021-06-22T15:23:13Z")
So you’re telling me there’s a chance. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2021, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/360 "2021-06-22T16:25:30Z")
I like the cut of your jib, **DTS**! ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2021, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442/361 "2021-06-22T19:57:03Z")
Fear not, DC! Former Senator Joe Lieberman will be at the hearing to inject a much-needed shot of Joe-mentum into the push for DC statehood! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statehood-for-d-c/921442.md?page=19)