- - Tuesday, March 23, 2021

When Democrats are in power, they use all of the levers at their disposal to stay in power, legal or illegal.

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives debated making Washington, D.C. a state — the city, which votes 90% Democrat in presidential elections, would produce two unwavering Democratic seats in the U.S. Senate.

In today’s split Senate, D.C. statehood would give Democrats a majority in the chamber and help them more easily pass President Biden’s radical agenda — another $3 trillion spending on Green New Deal proposals, free health care and amnesty for illegal aliens, and mandatory gun buybacks.

The problem — like many Democratic power grabs — is it’s simply unconstitutional.

Washington, D.C., is where the federal government operates, and it was specifically created by our nation’s Founders to be a district, not a state.



Why is this? The thought was simple — states, which are constantly fighting the federal government for power and control — would try to usurp the federal government with their own mandates, so D.C. had to be carved out specifically from any state governor’s control.

It happened in Philadelphia, where in 1783, Continental soldiers drove Congress out, and the state of Pennsylvania offered no assistance. Therefore, the framers of the U.S. Constitution wrote a provision giving Congress the power “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States.”

The Constitution specifically dedicates D.C. as the seat of the U.S. government and not a state. That provision alone means a constitutional amendment would be needed to grant D.C. statehood.

Democrats argue, classify the White House and government buildings as the district and grant statehood to the surrounding areas within Washington.

The Founders considered these protests but ruled against them. As The Heritage Foundation points out: James Madison’s view was “that the proximity of the District’s citizens to the nation’s President and Congress was enough in itself to ensure that their views were well represented to the Congress and the President.”

And it still makes sense — most D.C. residents have jobs directly for or related to the federal government — and therefore would favor more federal government control in domestic matters than say, residents of North Dakota or Wyoming. Granting D.C. two Senate seats would dilute the votes of others living outside the D.C. bubble.

Still, there’s always been controversy over having a district without federal representation. In 1961, a constitutional amendment was ratified allowing D.C. three electoral votes for the presidency. The amendment was careful in not calling the district a state, however, and it referred to it as “the district constituting the seat of government of the United States.”

We are living in bitterly partisan times. If Democrats want to make D.C. a state, they need a constitutional amendment — anything less would further erode the legitimacy of our government.

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide