IL-06/IL-14: D.C. Statehood Vote to Show Underwood and Casten Far Left Politics

Speaker Pelosi tearing up State of the Union 2/4/20

Leftists’ blatant unconstitutional power grab and their enablers should be remembered in November

During a time when mainstream Americans are aghast at seeing statues, including Presidents Lincoln, Grant and Teddy Roosevelt, being pulled down by mobs, fires burn on American streets set by agitators and a six square-block section of Seattle is known as “CHOP” has been taken over by the lunatic fringe, leave it to the Democratic leadership in the House to try to score more political points.

As Rahm Emanuel said, “never let a crisis go to waste”

This Friday, there will be a vote on D.C. Statehood which is titled under the symbolic bill number of H.R. 51 (get it? 51st state?).

Lauren Underwood

Nearly every Democrat, including Congresswoman Lauren Underwood and Congressman Sean Casten, have cosponsored this legislation, which was introduced in the first week of the 116th Congress last year, and cleared committee in late December.

Sean Casten

If Casten and Underwood vote the way their cosponsorships indicate, then they’ll expose themselves to the well deserved concerns they are too far Left for the districts they represent.

The D.C. Statehood has nothing to do with “Taxation without Representation” proponents argue in favor of the legislation. It’s about power, and the power to elect two additional U.S. Senators and one House member from the new state and for apportionment of 4 new House seats across the country.

Apart from the naked Leftist power grab the D.C. Statehood is about, here are reasons why it will not go through, EVEN IF THE SENATE were to vote for it and President Trump signs it — it’s unconstitutional.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution clearly states the national capital will not be a part of a state or treated as a state. The 23rd Amendment, ratified in 1961, granted residents of D.C. three electoral votes to participate in presidential elections.

A proposed amendment from the 1970s granting D.C. residents representation in Congress failed to gain ratification by the states, with only 16 states ratifying the proposed amendment.

To get around the Constitution concerning the national capital being outside of the state, the House Democrats will attempt to separate the federal portion D.C. from the vast majority of residents in D.C. Then the Democrats believe they can achieve D.C. statehood and create the “state of Washingon, Douglass Commonwealth” with legislation without having to amend the Constitution.

Wrong again, Democrats.

Even if this hare-brained scheme were to pass and by some miracle become law, the 23rd amendment is still the Law of the Land, and would need an amendment to repeal it.

But what would ultimately stop this lunacy in the Courts is the legal precedence set under the Retrocession Act of 1846, when the Virginia portion of the original District of Columbia south and west of the Potomac River was returned to the state of Virginia.

The Residence Act of 1790 created the original boundaries of D.C. with land ceded by the states of Virginia (31 square miles) and Maryland (69 square miles) and for 56 years, D.C. maintained its original boundaries.

Map of D.C. circa 1835
Source: Library of Congress

A year after the Residence Act was passed, it was amended to prohibit any public buildings on the Virginia cession to D.C. and over the next half-century, rising tensions caused the Commonwealth of Virginia to have 2nd thoughts over ceding land for the national capital. Attempts to return the ceded Virginia land began in 1804.

The final retrocession bill was passed in February of 1846 by the Virginia General Assembly, and the U.S. House approved the retrocession later that year, and the Senate concurred and President James K. Polk signed the Retrocession Act into law on July 9, 1846.

There is the precedence for dealing with the residents concerns and desire for statehood within most of the 69 square miles of the current D.C. — Retrocession back to the state of Maryland. Since the land covered by H.R. 51 was originally land within the boundaries of the state of Maryland, carving out land nearly 60 square miles to make a new state will not stand up in the Courts, or the court of public opinion.

And may any member of Congress who votes for H.R. 51 be remembered as forsaking the Constitution and the original intent of the Founding Fathers and treated as such in the General Election later this year.

External references:


IL-06/IL-14: D.C. Statehood Vote to Show Underwood and Casten Far Left Politics — 28 Comments

  1. It is “Taxation without Representation.”

    In this lengthy post, you don’t explain anywhere about how the citizens are not taxed without representation.

    The power grab is really a power hold. Republicans don’t want to give up power.

    This is taxation without representation.

    Two states have fewer residents than DC.

    We all know that Mitch McConnell would have made DC a state if he thought it would have given him the 2 senate votes to kill Obamacare.

    The residents of DC should be represented in the House and the Senate and should have a say in who gets elected as their President.

    It’s insane they have no voice.

    The power “grab” is more like one side trying to hold onto power.

    It is cute that you are pretending that this is about some Constitutional interpretation.

    You’re a fraud and phony by arguing so strongly against the residents of DC to be represented.

  2. You missed the point, Oh.

    The legal remedy for perceived taxation without representation is retrocession.

    The legal process to address this is to use the Virginia example, have Maryland legislators pass retrocession, and Congress can in honorable and genuine bipartisanship return land and the people living on the land, to Maryland.

    This has nothing to do with Mitch McConnell and I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt DC residents have a path for full representation if they chose to take it.

    For 230 years, they’ve chosen not to take it.

  3. The DC residents have to get the Maryland legislators to allow DC to become part of Maryland?

    What happens if the citizens/legislators in Maryland don’t want DC to be “retrosessioned”?

  4. Admittedly, I’ve never heard of DC getting “retrosessioned” into Maryland so I read up on it.

    This seems like a non-starter because people in Maryland are opposed to the idea.

    Not surprisingly, so are the DC residents.

    DC residents don’t identify with Maryland.

    Maryland doesn’t want to add DC to their state.

    DC residents have never identified as being a part of Maryland.

    People of Maryland AND DC are in favor of DC statehood, which makes sense.

    Seems like we should listen to the people who live there and will be affected by this instead of some guy (John Lopez, not Some Guy) who lives in far off land like McHenry County.

  5. The absurdity of this solution – DC residents have to get the Maryland legislator to get this done is crazy.

    DC residents don’t get to put in the Maryland legislators because they aren’t in Maryland.

    Also, this would need the approval of a Republican governor.

    I can’t see a Republican governor being cool with allowing an additional 700,000 voters to the voting roles who will be voting for Democrats in the state of Maryland.

    DC shouldn’t and won’t be a part “retroed” into Maryland.

    They should get to be their own state.

    More people live in DC than 2 other states.

  6. Wait, Democrats support this stupid idea???

    Oh, I guess that makes sense since it would be politically beneficial to them, but it is still wrong.

    It intuitively makes sense that the capitol of the UNITED STATES shouldn’t have preference to any one STATE, and that by being in any one state that’s what would happen…

    Thank God John Lopez is back to call these dangerous fools out!

    Issues like this also show a clear demarcation between Underwood and Oberweis.

  7. Ah I missed a key part of this.

    Still gonna be a nope from me!

  8. If DC gets to be apart of their own state then why shouldn’t the citizens of each state be able to secede from all the crappy large cities?

    Let them continue to run themselves into the ground even farther!

    But agree with JL on this one.

    The land was part of Maryland and if Maryland a Democratic state does not want DC don’t you think there is a problem.

    No benefits to Maryland only drag them down even worse.

    Comical Oh is throwing a fit and stomping his feet about this.

  9. I fully support statehood for Chicago.

    Obviously the people in these cities have very different values as they support riots and stealing and defunding the police.

    If that’s the way they want it at least keep it separated from normal sane people.

  10. Some anonymous nut at Harvard Law Review wants to shrink Washington, DC into an area encompassing only a couple of goobermint buildings, and then make the rest of the District’s 127 recognized neighborhoods into individual states.

    If these new states were added, only six existing states would have to play along to gain a 3/4 majority to amend the Constitution at will.

    I guess political skulduggery is far more attractive to a liberal than the existing process of calling a Constitutional Convention.

  11. I could support DC statehood as is described here, or something similar, if you were willing to make New Illinois, Eastern Colorado, or some new red state in addition to DC, but we know your motivation is entirely partisan.

    It’s the legislative equivalent of court packing.

    If you’re just going to create one new state, then no.

    Democrats balk at the idea of splitting up Illinois, California, Oregon or any red place inside a blue state that wants their own state, so why should any person who is not a Democrat support DC statehood?

    This is just about getting Dems more seats in congress, so that’s gonna be a nope!

    And why should I care about democracy when you want to take our rights away?

    If we brought 100 million Muslim fundamentalists here and they voted to put women in cages and to stone gays to death, would you be cool with that because someone took a vote?

    I would hope not.

    Try again when you have Joe “I don’t want my children to grow up in a racial jungle” Biden in office!

    Until then Uncle Mitch is going to slap you down, and slap you down, and keep slapping you down, as he should.

  12. More negro senators, yippee!

    I say go with it!

    But it’s conditional on Alabama and Wyoming being cut into 4 and 5 separate states respectively!

  13. When I see Oh on’s severed head lying in Calhoun St., WDSTK on May 5, 2024, I’ll snap a picture and write the following caption: “Demise of Aaron Glickstein a/k/a “Oh on” a/k/a “Alabama Shake” in aftermath of Clean Up ops to clean out Antifa.”

  14. Is Underwood a lesbian, yes or no?

    Is Casten a pervert, yes or no?

    About BLM:

    They smoke a bowl of rock while their baby starves to death in the crib but it’s whiteys fault!

  15. Bubba got burned, just like Smollet.

    Thought he’d cash in on white guilt.

    Now looks like a black liar.

  16. While Oswald was serving in the Marine Corps, he became fluent in the Russian language.

    How is that possible?

    How many people have you known who have become fluent in a foreign langue all on their own, especially when they have a full-time job?

    Even if they are able to study a foreign language from books, they have to practice conversing with people in that language to become proficient in speaking it.

    How did Oswald do that?

    There is but one reasonable possibility: Language lessons provided by U.S. military-suppled tutors.

    After leaving the Marine Corps, Oswald traveled to the Soviet Union, walked into the U.S. embassy, renounced his citizenship, and stated that he intended to give any secrets he learned while serving in the military to the Soviet Union.

    Later, when he stated his desire to return to the United States, with a wife with family connections to Soviet intelligence, Oswald was given the red-carpet treatment on his return.

    No grand jury summons.

    No grand-jury indictment.

    No FBI interrogation.

    No congressional summons to testify.

  17. Remember: This was at the height of the Cold War, when the U.S. national-security establishment was telling Americans that there was a worldwide communist conspiracy based in Moscow that was hell-bent on taking over the United States and the rest of the world.

    The U.S. had gone to war in Korea because of the supposed communist threat.

    They would do the same in Vietnam.

    They would target Cuba and Fidel Castro with invasion and assassination.

    They would pull off regime-change operations on both sides of the Kennedy assassination: Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1960s), Congo (1963), and Chile (1973).

    During the 1950s, they were targeting any American who had had any connections to communism.

    They were subpoenaing people to testify before Congress as to whether they had ever been members of the Communist Party.

    They were destroying people’s reputations and costing them their jobs.

    Remember the case of Dalton Trumbo and other Hollywood writers who were criminally prosecuted and incarcerated.

  18. Recall the Hollywood blacklist.

    Recall the Rosenbergs, who they executed for giving national-security state secrets to the Soviets.

    Think about Jane Fonda.

    Indeed, if you want a modern-day version of how the U.S. national-security state treats suspected traitors and betrayers of its secrets, reflect on Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning.

    That’s how we expect national-security state officials to behave toward those they consider traitors and betrayers of U.S. secrets.

    Not so with Oswald.

    With him, we have what amounts to two separate parallel universes.

    One universe involves all the Cold War hoopla against communists.

    Another one is the one in which Oswald is sauntering across the world stage as one of America’s biggest self-proclaimed communists — a U.S. Marine communist — who isn’t touched by some congressional investigative committee, some federal grand jury, or some FBI agent. How is that possible?

    Later, when Oswald ended up in Dallas, his friends were right-wingers, not left-wingers.

    He even got job at a photographic facility that developed top-secret photographs for the U.S. government.

    How is that possible?

    Later, when he ended up in New Orleans, he got hired by a private company that was owned by a fierce anti-communist right-winger.

    Why would he hire a supposed communist who supposedly had betrayed America by supposedly joining up with America’s avowed communist enemy, the Soviet Union, and to whom he had supposedly given U.S. national-security state secrets, just like Julian and Ethel Rosenberg had?


  19. Oh: “Republicans hate democracy.”

    Do you mean that they hate the idea of representative democracy, or that they don’t like the idea of a degenerate loser zombie mob running the nation into the ground by trying to force equality of outcome by popular vote?

    The USA is not a true Democracy and never has been, so your statement is rather vague.

    Are you still hurt that Kilary lost the election in spite of claims of getting the popular vote?


  21. Again, I urge people to use upper and lower case type, so people can read what they say.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *