And those fifty Senators represent far fewer people than the fifty Democratic senators. I'm sure you already knew that though, being that you're in favor of minority rule. Bold of you to admit that democracy is the same thing as villainy in your mind.
We wouldn't even be discussing the Supreme Justices, if Republicans wasn't playing games with court in the first place. Sure, the parties are just going to make states every time they are in power, when we barely can get 2 after years. (Potentially.)
At least admitted you don't care what the people actually want.
Let it be stated for the record, the first proposal to make DC a state was introduced in Congress in 1888, by Sen. Henry W. Blair, a Republican. Hearings began in 1921 when the bill was introduced by Sen. Wesley L. Jones, a Republican. The Democrats weren't interested in any of it until 1993 when Bill Clinton was President, then went hush-hush until 2014 when Obama was in charge. Casual observation, but it would seem that they only want it when it gives them more power, how curious. Thankfully Republicans are not stupid enough to fall for that - they threw the bill out in 93 and they'll throw it out now. If you're going to do something for DC, it should be done for the citizens, not because it's politically expedient.
You mean filling in vacancies. Give people a big, juicy doughnut on a mouse trap and you're sure to find some that will go right for it.
So back before Republicans were Republicans. Got it.
I'm 99% sure there were a least a few statehood bills sitting in McConnell's legislative graveyard during the Trump era. And you seem to be under the false impression that whoever controls the federal government when DC is given statehood would automatically receive those House and Senate seats. That's not the case. There would be elections/special elections to pick their representatives just like any other state. So I'm not sure what you think kicking the can down the road will accomplish here.
Then they would have already gotten statehood under Obama.
The citizens want statehood. In fact, it is politically expedient to not give them statehood. If you actually cared, your "solution" wouldn't be to ignore both what DC and Maryland actually want.
Filling out vacancies is all they did. That's why Obama got all his picks.
So you're not going to answer a simple yes or no question. Alright then. My claim was, I quote:
This statement is 100% correct. BLM Network was started by Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi in 2013 - 8 years ago, not 13. I consider $3+ million in real estate spending in 8 years to be "within the last few years". Since we cannot have an agreement on that, the rest of the conversation is pointless and I'll have no part in it.
The Senate has been pretty tight in terms of power balance for the last couple of years, and that's a good thing. Having it at effectively 50/50 is great. I'm unaware of any bills that have gotten anywhere near Congress besides the 2019 bill which was reintroduced this year, but I may be wrong - non-starters don't get reported on as much. I see it as a cynical power grab, but as I said earlier, it's cool if you think it's not one.
There was no legal obligation to confirm any of Obama's nominees. No laws were broken, historical precedent was followed.
Ultimately I don't care about the motivations in this case as much as I care about the outcome of all Americans (and American territories) receiving their due representation in government. The default Republican position is that these people deserve to go on perpetually unrepresented, and that's simply not acceptable.
True, but I don't think there's strong support for maintaining the status quo either. The people who want to remain in territories probably want taxes to be reduced or eliminated, which is understandable but unlikely to happen.
Foxi pointed out that Maryland doesn't want the land back, so there's nothing preventing the federal government from claiming full ownership over it.
This is the correct solution with historical precedent, regardless of any objections Maryland might have.
In this case yes, DC and territories aren't really receiving anything in return. It's taxation without representation, a concept that all Americans used to vehemently oppose.
Maryland forfeits the title to the land and then it reverts back to Maryland? I doubt that very much.
This will come as a shock, but when you have a tenant and that tenant leaves, you still own the house. You still have to pay for upkeep, you still have to pay property tax, it doesn't really matter if you put it back on the market or not. You can abandon it all you like, it's still yours until you sell it. If Maryland "forfeits" the land, the U.S. Government doesn't magically get to decide that it owns that land now - it would become no man's land, if that's even an option at all. Do you expect it to become a whole new country, then ask the U.S. Government to enter the union and finally become federalised? That would take some time and isn't realistic.
Unless you sign over the deed to the house, yes. Which will have to be done with the land title between Maryland and the federal government, assuming that's not something that's already been done in one form or another. I'd have to double-check on that.
That would just make DC federal land in perpetuity. Pursuant to Article 4, Congress has the right to buy, sell and regulate federal lands, I'm not sure it has the right to abandon them. It would be the first time in history the U.S. Government has generated a new state out of thin air. Pursuant to the same Article, the government has the right to admit new states into the union, but it's unclear whether it can just generate them using the land it owns. If that were the case, the fed owns 640 million acres of land, 28% of the whole country - ripe for new states whenever an administration feels like pulling two new senators out of a hat. If this comes to pass as the new status quo, I am perfectly happy with the Republicans starting a New California Republic or two somewhere in a national park, inhabited solely by bears.
