It’s happening: Democrat bill to make D.C. a state is on its way to the House floor for a vote


WASHINGTON, D.C.- According to reports, the bill to make Washington, D.C. a state is on its way to the House floor for a vote, after the House Committee on Oversight and Reform passed the measure on party lines during a “markup” a Wednesday, April 14th. 

Markups offer legislations the chance to propose amendments to legislation and during the more than four hours of the committee’s meeting, only Republicans offered amendments to H.R. 51, the bill in question.

All offered amendments were ultimately rejected by the Democrat-led committee.

Reportedly, the House Oversight and Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), voted the bill, out of committee by a vote of 25-19 to create D.C. statehood.

Despite committee clearance after many counter amendments, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) said that the ultimate argument seems to hinge on the 23rd Amendment. This Amendment reportedly “guarantees the federal Capitol at least three electors in presidential elections.”

Biggs’ view is supported by many legal scholars who have denied D.C. statehood’s feasibility without a Constitutional amendment to the 23rd Amendment.

In 2007, the Office of Legal Counsel stated it was unconstitutional when Democrats attempted to give D.C. voting power in Congress without making it a full state.

The Justice Department under former President Reagan and former President Carter also deemed the transformation of Washington, D.C. into a state unconstitutional. In 1963, Democrat Attorney General Robert E. Kennedy said a similar proposal was unconstitutional. 

When the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, he also opposed such legislation, writing:

“It is fanciful to consider as ‘politically powerless’ a city whose residents include a high proportion of officers of all three branches of the federal government and their staffs.”

Opposition to D.C. statehood is anchored in three traditional arguments, which are:

Then nation’s capital was always meant to be unique. The founders wanted it to be a federal district, existing beyond the confines or influence of any one state;

H.R. 51 would require Congress to ignore the plain command of the 23rd Amendment; and

Even those who support D.C. statehood admit district residents enjoy special benefits due to where they live and would enjoy an outsize influence in Congress.

On Tuesday, April 13th, 22 state Attorney Generals sent a letter to the Biden administration and Congress arguing that Washington, D.C. cannot become a state through legislation, but only through the process of a Constitutional amendment. They wrote:

“If this Congress passes and President Biden signs this Act into law, we will use every legal tool at our disposal to defend the United States Constitution and the rights of our states from this unlawful effort to provide statehood to the District of Columbia.”

The letter added:

“Accordingly, not only does Congress lack the authority to create an entirely new state out of the District, but it also does not have the authority to reduce the size of the District to the equivalent of a few federal buildings and surrounding parks.”

H.R. 51 would turn D.C.’s eight wards into a state, with one representative in the House and two senators. There would still be a federal district, which would only include the National Mall, the White House, and the U.S. Capitol; all three would remain under congressional control.

The letter also argued that besides the bill being unconstitutional, it is also “bad policy.” The attorney generals claimed:

“It would create an elite ruling class with unparalleled power and federal access compared to the existing fifty states in the Union and a super state that would have primacy over all others.”

The letter was signed by the attorney generals of South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Texas, Utah, Florida, Alabama, Missouri, Indiana, Arkansas, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Kentucky, Mississippi, West Virginia, Idaho, Kansas, Arizona, and Oklahoma.

South Carolina Attorney General Wilson said in a statement:

“There’s a clear reason we’re against granting statehood to D.C. We’re sworn to uphold the Constitution and it would be unconstitutional to make Washington, D.C. at state. The Founding Fathers opposed statehood for the nation’s seat of government.”

The bill has 215 co-sponsors and all of them are Democrats. 

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Progressive Democrats challenge Biden by introducing plan to ‘pack’ Supreme Court: ‘Drunk with power’

April 15th, 2021

WASHINGTON, DC – The Democrats are engaged in an internal battle over legislation introduced by Progressive members Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices.

The move has created a direct challenge to the Democratic President.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have signaled opposition to the Progressives’ move, and sided with the President’s recently established study commission.

Although the idea of expanding of the Supreme Court had been dismissed previously by President Joe Biden, he surprised Republicans last week by issuing an executive order establishing a study to do just that.

On Friday, the President ignored sharp criticism from Republicans and signed the order. A white House statement said:

“The Commission’s purpose is to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals.”

Unwilling to wait for the study, Progressive Democrats are pushing the new legislation as a way to limit the impact of former President Donald Trump’s three appointments during his term. The appointments gave the court a 6-3 tilt to the right.

Even before the bill was introduced, House Speaker Pelosi said she had no intention of bringing the bill to the floor for consideration. As Speaker of the House, Pelosi controls what legislation can be forwarded to the body for consideration and vote.

The bill is sponsored by Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee. It is co-sponsored by Democratic Reps. Hank Johnson of Georgia and Mondaire Jones of New York.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) commented on the expansion plan outside of the Supreme Court on Thursday:

“(The court) is out of balance, and it needs to be fixed. Too many Americans have lost faith in the court as a neutral arbiter of the most important constitutional and legal questions that arise in our judicial system.”

Speaker Pelosi said that she agreed the issue should be studied, but did not support the legislation forwarded:

“I don’t know that that’s a good idea or bad idea. I think it’s an idea that should be considered and I think the president’s taking the right approach to have a commission to study such a thing. I have no plans to bring it to the floor.”

During the election, President Biden refused to say whether he agreed with the idea of court-packing, stating he would only announce his position after the votes were cast:

“You’ll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over. It’s a great question, and I don’t blame you for asking. But you know, the moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be on the answer to that question.”

However, in October 2020, he said he would put together a “bipartisan commission” to address the Supreme Court “because it’s getting out of whack.”

The commission established last week did not meet the “bipartisan” promise, as Biden’s appointees included leftist Democrats and legal scholars, and a few Republicans who were anti-Trump.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity The Supreme Court has been made up of 9 justices for more than 150 years. Although no number is set by the United States Constitution, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to pack the court in the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, frequently called the “court-packing plan.” The failed attempt was designed to help him push through his New Deal legislation.

In 1983, as a U.S. Senator, Biden was in a disagreement with Republican President Ronald Reagan during debate over whether to allow the President to replace members of the Commission on Civil Rights. Biden opposed the nominated commissioners not because he viewed them as unqualified, but because he thought Reagan’s takeover of the commission would damage its legitimacy.

Biden compared Reagan’s actions to Roosevelts attempt to pack the court, which he called a “terrible, terrible mistake”:

“President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the Court,” Biden said during the hearing. “It was totally within his right to do that—he violated no law, he was legalistically absolutely correct.

“But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make, and it put in question, for an entire decade, the independence of the most significant body—including the Congress in my view—the most significant body in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.”

The move by the Progressives of introducing the legislation on Thursday was a slight to President Biden by by-passing his commission.

Sen. Markey said that the Progressive Democrats were operating separate from the President:

“(President Biden) is operating on a separate track, and we await his commission, but we don’t wait for the introduction of the solution.”

Rep. Jones said the commission was flawed because it had no instruction to make a recommendation on its findings:

“The damage has already been done, we don’t need a commission to tell us that we need to restore balance to the court.”

Several prominent Democrats opposed the move, siding with the President. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said he wanted to follow President Biden’s plan:

 “I’m not ready to sign on (the new legislation) yet. I think this commission of Biden is the right move. Let’s think this through carefully. This is historic.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has warned Democrats not to pack the court:

“There is nothing about the structure or operation of the judicial branch that requires ‘study.’

“President Biden campaigned on a promise of lowering the temperature and uniting a divided nation. If he really meant it, he would stop giving oxygen to a dangerous, antiquated idea and stand up to the partisans hawking it.”

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First


Related Posts