Joe Manchin Has Read The Constitution

[Billy_Kinetta]

So much for DC statehood.

WASHINGTON – Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., told a West Virginia radio station Friday he opposes a just-passed House bill to grant the District of Columbia statehood, dealing a blow against Democratic efforts to make the nation's capital the 51st state.

Citing conclusions reached by past administrations, Manchin said the proper way to decide D.C's future is through an amendment to the Constitution and not simply by passing a law that would be challenged in the Supreme Court.

Joe Manchin says he opposes DC statehood bill, dealing blow to efforts to make nation's capital the 51st state

 

[playtime]

^^^ seems unconstitutional to me.

 

[pknopp]

McConnell's only concern is how it affects his party, not how it affects the people of D.C. At least Joe makes an argument that avoids that incredibly selfish, self serving argument.

 

[Polishprince]

McConnell's only concern is how it affects his party, not how it affects the people of D.C. At least Joe makes an argument that avoids that incredibly selfish, self serving argument.

It would affect most of the people in Washington negatively.

Washington DC gets most of its jobs and most of its income from being the nation's capital, and the Constitution is designed to keep the region non-partisan.

Moving the capital elsewhere would really damage the area.

 

[pknopp]

McConnell's only concern is how it affects his party, not how it affects the people of D.C. At least Joe makes an argument that avoids that incredibly selfish, self serving argument.

It would affect most of the people in Washington negatively.

They seem to disagree with you so.........................

Washington DC gets most of its jobs and most of its income from being the nation's capital, and the Constitution is designed to keep the region non-partisan.

Moving the capital elsewhere would really damage the area.

Which does not have to happen.

 

[ColonelAngus]

He must be racist.

 

[norwegen]

The Constitution provides for a federal district, anyway. If not in its present location, then states will just have to cede real estate elsewhere.

 

[Polishprince]

McConnell's only concern is how it affects his party, not how it affects the people of D.C. At least Joe makes an argument that avoids that incredibly selfish, self serving argument.

It would affect most of the people in Washington negatively.

They seem to disagree with you so.........................

Washington DC gets most of its jobs and most of its income from being the nation's capital, and the Constitution is designed to keep the region non-partisan.

Moving the capital elsewhere would really damage the area.

Which does not have to happen.

They aren't thinking it through, because they see the tremendous political gain of getting 2 more leftists in the senate and 3 more electoral votes.

 

[pknopp]

The Constitution provides for a federal district, anyway. If not in its present location, then states will just have to cede real estate elsewhere.

The bill that passed the House still leaves D.C. as the Capitol.

 

[Polishprince]

The Constitution provides for a federal district, anyway. If not in its present location, then states will just have to cede real estate elsewhere.

The bill that passed the House still leaves D.C. as the Capitol.

And that's what makes it unconstitutional.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Its amazing that DC has been the Capitol for 250 years or whatever...and it took Nancy Pelosi to realize everyone has been wrong for that time.

If DC was Red, would Dem be pushing this?

 

[pknopp]

The Constitution provides for a federal district, anyway. If not in its present location, then states will just have to cede real estate elsewhere.

The bill that passed the House still leaves D.C. as the Capitol.

And that's what makes it unconstitutional.

I don't have time to teach the Constitution to you but you need to read and understand the bill and the Constitution before commenting.

 

[norwegen]

The Constitution provides for a federal district, anyway. If not in its present location, then states will just have to cede real estate elsewhere.

The bill that passed the House still leaves D.C. as the Capitol.

And that's what makes it unconstitutional.

Yep. The Constitution sets geographical limits on the district. If anyone wants to live within those limits, well that's their choice.

 

[pknopp]

The Constitution provides for a federal district, anyway. If not in its present location, then states will just have to cede real estate elsewhere.

The bill that passed the House still leaves D.C. as the Capitol.

And that's what makes it unconstitutional.

Yep. The Constitution sets geographical limits on the district. If anyone wants to live within those limits, well that's their choice.

It says "up to" it does not state it must be what it currently is.

 

[norwegen]

The Constitution provides for a federal district, anyway. If not in its present location, then states will just have to cede real estate elsewhere.

The bill that passed the House still leaves D.C. as the Capitol.

And that's what makes it unconstitutional.

Yep. The Constitution sets geographical limits on the district. If anyone wants to live within those limits, well that's their choice.

It says "up to" it does not state it must be what it currently is.

Yea, so?

The Constitution sets geographical limits on the district. If anyone wants to live within those limits, well that's their choice.

 

[Moonglow]

So much for DC statehood.

WASHINGTON – Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., told a West Virginia radio station Friday he opposes a just-passed House bill to grant the District of Columbia statehood, dealing a blow against Democratic efforts to make the nation's capital the 51st state.

Citing conclusions reached by past administrations, Manchin said the proper way to decide D.C's future is through an amendment to the Constitution and not simply by passing a law that would be challenged in the Supreme Court.

Joe Manchin says he opposes DC statehood bill, dealing blow to efforts to make nation's capital the 51st state

The Constitution doesn't say that the area of DC now has to be the size it is forever, the fed's area of the fed can be reduced and the areas around the federal area can become a state according to the laws of statehood all a territory must do is petition congress to become a state and have over 60k people living there.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

^^^ seems unconstitutional to me.

only because you need to have a grown up read it to you

 

[pknopp]

The Constitution provides for a federal district, anyway. If not in its present location, then states will just have to cede real estate elsewhere.

The bill that passed the House still leaves D.C. as the Capitol.

And that's what makes it unconstitutional.

Yep. The Constitution sets geographical limits on the district. If anyone wants to live within those limits, well that's their choice.

It says "up to" it does not state it must be what it currently is.

Yea, so?

The Constitution sets geographical limits on the district. If anyone wants to live within those limits, well that's their choice.

The bill would lower that area, It would also be their choice to accept those lower limits and become a state if they wish.

 

[Moonglow]

The only limitation on the size of the federal territory for the feds in it can not be more than ten square miles it doesn't say how small it can't be.

 

[norwegen]

Anyone outside a ten-mile squared boundary (or smaller) should be living in a state already. If anyone wants to live within those limits, however, well that's their choice.