Quote (ofthevoid @ Oct 29 2020 11:49am)

I don't need autism level analysis to come to the conclusion that DC, our capital which has the largest concentration of federal workers as well various auxiliary entities both from private business, foreign entities, etc. has comparable speaking an extreme concentration of power.

Like I said, no real excuse for many of these people to not* be under the Maryland umbrella when it comes to senators. Democratic leaders of both DC and Maryland deciding it's not advantageous politically for either side is not a good enough reason.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 29 2020 12:05pm)

A general idea of how many people fall into the category you are creating is not "autism level analysis". It's literally the first question you should be asking when creating a category.

If Maryland doesn't want them isn't that enough in our system? What good are states rights if the federal government can force you to modify your borders?

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 29 2020 01:05pm)

A general idea of how many people fall into the category you are creating is not "autism level analysis". It's literally the first question you should be asking when creating a category.

If Maryland doesn't want them isn't that enough in our system? What good are states rights if the federal government can force you to modify your borders?

Quote (thesnipa @ Oct 29 2020 12:18pm)

why wouldnt Maryland want a boost to their population?

Quote (ofthevoid @ Oct 29 2020 12:23pm)

It's a retarded question because 1. I don't have a list of what everyone does in DC 2. Occupation isn't synonymous with political influence. You think there's some database available to me that says this specific google employee in the greater DC area is a political consultant or has political influence?

Who exactly in Maryland doesn't want them, that's the question. It's not even an established truth honestly. Like has there been some Maryland wide poll that says no we don't want DC residents or what are you basing that assumption on?

Quote (ofthevoid @ Oct 29 2020 05:24am)

I still haven't seen a compelling reason why people in DC can't attach their votes to Maryland. Saying 'neither side wants it' is weak. Like why don't they want it? Who exactly is giving these 'reasons'. For all you know it's basically Democratic leadership that sees there's zero to gain from it so instead they're pushing for an option that has max benefit. Maryland is a perpetually blue state, so adding an additional 400-500k of more blue votes is meaningless, obviously blue run Maryland & DC are not going to want it.

Choosing the option that has most political impact and saying it's the only way is also just as political as republicans not wanting to confirm it as it's own entity.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 29 2020 12:33pm)

Does it matter? States rights and all that. I'm generally not a fan of "states rights" arguments in general, but if the federal government can force a state to accept changes to its border then states rights have truly become non-existent.

Quote (thesnipa @ Oct 29 2020 12:47pm)

i'd argue it does matter, there's a difference between taking land vs receiving land, losing population vs gaining population.

and in any case the federal govt can make changes to border, they just generally dont. and no its not all precedent of 1800s due to surveys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._New_York

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 29 2020 01:04pm)

New Jersey vs New York wasn't really the federal government taking or giving land though, it was settling a dispute between states who both wanted the land and had been fighting over it since they were colonies. So... not really the same thing as what we're talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgZ1f4ACZBQ

and besides, couldn't it also be part of Virginia?



When I say "force states to change their borders" I'm not saying if two states have a claim to land the federal government can't settle it using courts. That's the whole point of the federal courts after all, to settle interstate disputes. But the federal government can't pass a law requiring states to amend their borders as far as I know, barring things that are specifically outlined in the constitution like if it's between them and another country.

Quote

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress

Quote (thesnipa @ Oct 29 2020 01:12pm)

i dont think there is any precedent or any constitutional reference to this situation:

DC is not a state, so does not apply. you dont need the consent of Maryland unless you're giving them part of another state.

and in reality i see zero reasons they'd not consent if asked, which i dont think they need to be.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 29 2020 01:18pm)

Wouldn't the right to their established borders be part of the "rights reserved to the states" in the 9th amendment? Since there isn't anything about changing states borders in the constitution then the states have their own say in how they negotiate their borders?

Like, suppose a state wanted to give up part of its land to another state, they could do that, but the federal government couldn't pass a law saying one state has to give up half its land to another state.

Quote

but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress