July 3, 2022

No to DC Statehood

There are numerous principled reasons to oppose D.C. statehood. But, really, no arguments are more applicable than the ones offered by the founders, who created a federal district for the distinct purpose of denying it statehood.

First, because they were concerned about the seat of federal power being controlled by a hostile or intrusive state government. Second, because they knew that if the capital were in a state — much less its own state — the people would vote to grow and accumulate federal power. Both situations were incompatible with the proper separation of powers and state rights.

Today, though, Democrats want to localize one of the only things in the Constitution that is actually federalized — while federalizing everything else.

People like to argue that the founders never anticipated that millions of Americans would be living and working in the District. Indeed, the more powerful the permanent political class in D.C. becomes, the more reason we have to deny it statehood. Washington would likely be nothing but a swampy backwater village if it hadn’t been created for, again, the purpose of not being a state.

And it doesn’t matter if there are 20 or 20 million people residing in its 10-square-mile boundary. We already have Maryland and, increasingly, Virginia doing D.C.’s bidding. Washingtonians already have far too much power over ordinary Americans. And the town’s great wealth is produced by taxing citizens and creating federal laws that centralize power. Why would we want to give the federal government more power?

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake says we’ve been dumbing down the D.C. statehood debate — and I agree, but for very different reasons. He argues that “emerging arguments against D.C. statehood” are no longer principled but partisan. “The idea isn’t so much that D.C. doesn’t necessarily deserve voting rights in the House and Senate, as much as that it would be a boon to Democrats,” he writes.

Normally, I would be quite sympathetic to this type of grievance. The problem is that the argument over D.C. is, both in the abstract and practical, a partisan one. After all, the only reason Democrats want to turn D.C. into a city-state is because it guarantees them two seats in the Senate, a fact that is completely reasonable to point out. If Democrats were genuinely concerned about the imaginary voting rights of D.C. citizens, then they would talk about redrawing the borders of Washington as a one- or two-square-mile district and giving the rest of the people to Maryland and Virginia (this idea also has complications, but at least it would show that advocates for D.C. voting rights would be arguing from a “principled” position).

Yet, even setting contemporary debates aside, one of James Madison’s arguments for creating a federal district was his fear of the partisan nature of states. In Federalist No. 43, he warned that without federal control of the capital, “the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity …” by some opposing party. That is an argument about partisanship as well.

The debate, as I see it, is being dumbed down by the usual destructive majoritarian arguments, which are either propelled by a lack of civic education or an antagonism toward the Constitution. When, for instance, South Dakota Senator Mike Rounds correctly noted on Twitter that the “Founding Fathers never intended for Washington D.C. to be a state,” he was dunked on a number of media believing that the founders had ever envisioned South Dakota becoming a state.

Indeed, the Founding Fathers absolutely foresaw, places such as South Dakota becoming states. That’s why they laid out a clear path for statehood. This wasn’t some theoretical proposition, either. Vermont was added to the Union only three years after the ratification of the Constitution. There were 17 states by the time Madison was elected president.

It is true, of course, that Madison was unaware that more than a century after the ratification of a new constitution, there would be a state christened, “South Dakota,” but surely — surely – no thinking person actually believes this is a clever point to make. On the other hand, the founders also unambiguously intended — evident in both their writing and in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution — to create a special federal district for the purpose of not being a state.

And if D.C. residents don’t like it, they can always move to the other side of the border.

David Harsanyi is a senior writer at National Review and the author of the book “First Freedom: A Ride Through America’s Enduring History With the Gun.” To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
0 0 votes
Article Rating

This is a demo advert, you can use simple text, HTML image or any Ad Service JavaScript code. If you're inserting HTML or JS code make sure editor is switched to 'Text' mode.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Lena Paul (@guest_1185617)
1 year ago

Google pay 390$ reliably my last paycheck was $55000 working 10 hours out of consistently on the web. My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 20k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably. I can’t trust how direct it was once I attempted it out. This is my essential concern…:) For more info visit any tab on this site Thanks a lot GOOD LUCK………._ http://www.works91.com

Stan Richmond (@guest_1185728)
1 year ago

dems are just power hungry

Rose Clark (@guest_1185872)
Reply to  Stan Richmond
1 year ago

It’s all about POWER not constituents nor AMERICA

Samuel Meachem (@guest_1185750)
1 year ago

What happened to their vows to follow and defend our constitution. This is why our founding father’s put that in the constitution. Any Democrat that votes for state hood of Washington, D.C. should be charged with not following their vow and tried for treason and all be put out of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The U.S. has no room for people who can’t even follow their vow that they take when taking office.

Yvonne Shelton (@guest_1185779)
1 year ago

Samuel Meachem is 100% correct in his statement regarding the U.S. Constitution. The District of Columbia (Washington, DC) was never intended to be a state. Read your history people. How can anyone claim that a city is a state? Ignorance is rampant. God save our great country.

alicia cervera (@guest_1185832)
Reply to  Yvonne Shelton
1 year ago

Exactly! Its UNCONSTITUTIONAL to make our capital a state!

Karole Conaway (@guest_1186045)
Reply to  alicia cervera
1 year ago

The demonrats want to end the Constitution and they need to be taken out PERMANENTLY!

Billy Childers (@guest_1186132)
Reply to  Karole Conaway
1 year ago

There are more black democrats living in Washington D C. Notice I said living, not working. Probably only 50 percent or less that actually work.

Jesse (@guest_1185784)
1 year ago

The DemonRats are out of control. God help us all!!!

Stephen Russell (@guest_1185814)
1 year ago

OK DC as Territory

Terry Bell (@guest_1185902)
Reply to  Stephen Russell
1 year ago

Use D.C. for a nuclear test site when the Republicans are out of town !

Fed up 2 (@guest_1185920)
Reply to  Terry Bell
1 year ago

Use it for Arial target practice for our bombers. Lol

Fred Parsons (@guest_1186252)
1 year ago

Simple solution

If the citizens of Washington want to live in a state MOVE

Billy (@guest_1187680)
1 year ago

The Nation is real close to loosing the Constitution to the left. Do not let this happen. We are in a dictatorship with the National Guard being used to control DC elite. I say enough send them home no more military in the Capitol.

Santospal (@guest_1189346)
1 year ago

http://zithromaxproff.com/# how to buy zithromax online

Billyamopy (@guest_1193256)
1 year ago

generic myambutol: floxin online
order keflex

zortilo nrel (@guest_1194619)
1 year ago

I’m impressed, I have to say. Really hardly ever do I encounter a blog that’s each educative and entertaining, and let me inform you, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Your idea is excellent; the issue is one thing that not sufficient individuals are speaking intelligently about. I am very glad that I stumbled throughout this in my seek for one thing referring to this.

froleprotrem (@guest_1204722)
1 year ago

This internet site is my aspiration, very superb design and perfect subject matter.

ClaudFag (@guest_1211135)
1 year ago

amoxicillin 250 mg: cheap amoxicillin – amoxicillin 500 mg online

froleprotrem (@guest_1224761)
1 year ago

You made some good points there. I did a search on the matter and found the majority of people will agree with your blog.

Javiernop (@guest_1234578)
1 year ago

how to use tinder , browse tinder for free
browse tinder for free

Javiernop (@guest_1252866)
1 year ago

tinder sign up , tinder online



Sign Up For The Daily Newsletter


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x