116th United States Congress: The Shutdown is Pelosi's Fault

[zoobernut]

Any other US territories that could be turned into states that would benefit the Dems? Guam? The split of California in a very specific way would be a good idea but considering such a massive portion of the state is red and the blue is concentrated along the coast that would have to be done carefully to actually be a net benefit for the Dems. I would love to see some counter measures to fight the ridiculous situation GOP gerrymandering has created in this country.

[Buffy]

If Cali splits, Texas probably does too to counter balance it.

[zoobernut]

If Cali splits, Texas probably does too to counter balance it.

Texas would have just as much of a difficult time splitting in a particular way as California. They have some major population dense areas that are very liberal. Texas could end up being one blue state and one red if they split.

[Salodin]

Fuck it, change the laws during the lame duck session so red states will have a harder time to imitate the tactic. If you're already making new states to add votes for yourself, you might as well go full fuck you and try to make it harder for others to do the same. Dont be cowards about it if that's what you want to do.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Andalusian girls]

no state has split since The Civil War and there is little political or popular support in California itself to do so yall living in fantasy land.

[arus2001]

If we're going to start splitting states I'd rather the country just break up into the tribes it's devolved into.

[Byrthnoth]

I think we should split Alaska and give bears the right to vote, because our politics aren't random enough and bears are awesome.

[archibaldcrane]

no state has split since The Civil War and there is little political or popular support in California itself to do so yall living in fantasy land.

Don't need to split California, just need to make DC into 50 new states.

[Andalusian girls]

DC's statehood is explicitly prohibited in the Constitution it would require a constitutional amendment damn yall some ignant ass motherfuckers

[Andalusian girls]

stick with Puerto Rico fam that will actually probably happen someday

[Andalusian girls]

then again Puerto Ricans ain't all that liberal may not work out as intended

[archibaldcrane]

DC's statehood is explicitly prohibited in the Constitution it would require a constitutional amendment god damn yall some ignant motherfuckers

You just shrink the "federal district" to a tiny size that encompasses just the federal governmental buildings basically and make a state out of the rest of the district. Doesn't require a constitutional amendment.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lets-...-and_b_5155625

First, the legislation shrinks the size of the federal district to include a small portion of D.C. where representatives from other states conduct federal business. The Constitution doesn’t say you can’t shrink the federal district; it only says it can’t be larger than “ten miles square” (100 square miles, in modern English). The District has been shrunk before without any changes to the U.S. Constitution, notably when the District ceded much of its southwestern portion to Virginia in the 1840s.

Secondly, the legislation would introduce the residential land currently in the District of Columbia into the United States as the 51st state. Again, states have joined the union without constitutional amendments as recently as 1959 (see: Alaska, Hawaii).

Spoiler: show

you ignant motherfucker

[Andalusian girls]

unsurprising given the source but the constitutionality of the Virginian retrocession was never actually ruled on, SCOTUS didn't approach it for decades and when it finally did simply said Virginia now had de facto control of the territory and any ruling against it would be disruptive and untenable. given the litigatory nature of the modern era and the makeup of SCOTUS i find it exceedingly unlikely that A) a fight in the Courts would not ensue and B) they would rule in favor of statehood.

and they may not even be in the wrong in the event of such a ruling, Madison's writings in the Federalist Papers clearly show he intended for the city around the federal government (which after all only exists because of the federal government as there was no extant city when they chose the site for the capital) to be controlled by the federal government and one Robert F Kennedy in his capacity as Attorney General found Congress did not possess the constitutional authority to alter D.C.'s status.

but, in the event Madison and Bobby are wrong, in the event Roberts's Court arrogates the right many consider to not be theirs for sake of the Democratic Party's legislative prospects, at least one amendment would in fact by necessary in repealing the 23rd amendment lest the tiny number of federal workers in the remaining enclave be entitled to rather too many Electoral College votes.

[archibaldcrane]

unsurprising given the source but the constitutionality of the Virginian retrocession was never actually ruled on, SCOTUS didn't approach it for decades and when it finally did simply said Virginia now had de facto control of the territory and any ruling against it would be disruptive and untenable. given the litigatory nature of the modern era and the makeup of SCOTUS i find it exceedingly unlikely that A) a fight in the Courts would not ensue and B) they would rule in favor of statehood.

and they may not even be in the wrong, Madison's work in the Federalist Papers clearly show he intended for the city around the federal government (which after all only exists because of the federal government as there was no extant city when they chose the site for the capital) to be controlled by the federal government and one Robert F Kennedy in his capacity as Attorney General found Congress did not possess the constitutional authority to alter D.C.'s status.

but, in the event Madison and Bobby are wrong, in the event Roberts's Court arrogates the right many consider to not be theirs for sake of the Democratic Party's legislative prospects, at least one amendment would in fact by necessary in repealing the 23rd amendment lest the tiny number of federal workers in the remaining enclave be entitled to rather too many Electoral College votes.

23rd amendment just declares the district can't have more EVs than the smallest state. It would have 3 like always, same as Wyoming.

[Andalusian girls]

do the math silly old bear

[archibaldcrane]

it's not that "the people in the district can't have more EVs per person than the smallest state" it's just "the district can't have more EVs than the smallest state"

[Andalusian girls]

bruh

[Andalusian girls]

my dude talking about equality of representation and wanna give three security guards a pair of dog walkers and a lost Swedish attaché the EC votes of 2.1 million Californians smdh

[archibaldcrane]

tattmy dude talking about equality of representation and wanna give three security guards a pair of dog walkers and a lost Swedish attaché the EC votes of 2.1 million Californians smdh

I'm not saying it's a great outcome, I'm saying it's not unconstitutional.

and also those dog walkers are going to vote for my preferred candidate so

[BerenTebogo]

WOOPS wrong thread