The D.C. statehood gambit

Democrats seem intent on using the events of January 6 as a sort of Reichstag fire on which they can predicate a one-party state. They have H.R. 1. to federalize election law and facilitate fraudulent voting. They seek to pack the Supreme Court. And they propose turning the District of Columbia into a state.

The D.C. statehood gambit has been around for a long time, but it answers to the moment. It gives proponents yet another opportunity to impute racism to those who think it’s not a good idea.

Is this really the way to win friends and influence people? Someone might get the idea that these people are not to be trusted with unlimited power.

There is no good argument in favor of D.C. statehood. Not one, unless the accession of two more Democratic Senators to the Senate in perpetuity rings your chimes.

It’s a bad idea all the way around. Like so many items of Democrat orthodoxy, however, effectively exploits the ignorance of its intended audience.

In addition to its other defects, D.C. statehood would be unconstitutional. The Wall Street Journal editorial on the subject discusses its other defects and notes, for example:

[T]he creation of an independent state to supplant the District, as the current House legislation proposes, is certainly unconstitutional. The Founders deliberately created a federal district under the control of Congress because it didn’t want the federal government to be subject to the sway of any one state. Statehood imposed by statute would strip Congress of one of its enumerated powers—effectively amending the Constitution without an amendment process.

Attorney Hewitt Pate thoroughly explored the constitutional issue in “D.C. Statehood: Not Without a Constitutional Amendment” for the Heritage Foundation in 1993. I recommend Pate’s footnoted remarks to anyone interested in the subject.

As I say, the idea has been around for a long time. It had already been around for a long time when Pate wrote his remarks.

The Dems’ court-packing plan may represent the ultimate solution to the constitutional problem. They give no evidence of any awareness of the issue or concern about legality. It’s just the way they roll, as with the imputation of racism to their opponents.

Whatever happened to the cause of statehood for Puerto Rico? I’m sure it will be coming soon. The racial/racism component of the D.C. gambit, however, must have presented an irresistible attraction for the Democrats’ on their current quest for permanent and total power.

Responses