By Andrew Kruszka, staff writer
On Monday, a United States House of Representative committee tried and proposed a bill to make Washington D.C. the 51st state in the union.
This seems a bit outrageous since the last state to enter the union would be Hawaii in 1959. Earlier that year, Alaska was the 49th state. So why suddenly is the topic of discussion making our nation’s capital a state?
Well, coming from an article on msn.com, 86% of the 700,000 people in D.C. want it to become a state. That is an appalling percentage. However, if it’s that high, why has the United States failed to approve of the 51st state?
The main argument made for D.C. to stay out of statehood is coming straight from the United States Constitution. Yes, it would be unconstitutional to make D.C. a state.
Article one, section eight states that our nation’s capital should stay neutral. That said, if a case were to make its way to the Supreme Court or SCOTUS, the clear stance on it that justices should make would be that it should not be a state.
The Supreme Court’s job is to interpret the Constitution, and if they’re going by that, the argument that it shouldn’t be a state is obvious.
That said, didn’t our founding fathers shout at the red coats before and during the Revolutionary War, “No Taxation without Representation?” If you’re unfamiliar with that famous quote of the time, then realize that the colonists were extremely uneasy about being taxed without being represented.
I mentioned earlier that Washington D.C. has a population of about 700,000. Although they have three electors, they have no representatives or senators that the other 50 states coin.
My question to people who oppose D.C. becoming a state would be, isn’t this a course of no taxation without representation? We know that up until the 23rd amendment in the 1960s, people who lived in the nation’s capital couldn’t even vote for the president during elections.
Other territories can’t vote for the president either, so this topic seems to be a real question mark.
Since I’ve given both sides of the argument, I figure that my loyal readers are really wondering where I stand on the topic because I usually don’t focus my opinion articles on politics.
Although D.C. is not represented in the House of Representatives or the Senate, my take on it is that they are represented by the president. Therefore, right now, President Biden represents the District of Columbia. Since the Constitution states that the district is supposed to stay neutral, it should not be allowed in the union.
This may shock some of my readers, but I see every day that both sides of the political spectrum interpret the Constitution strictly or loosely. It all depends on what benefits their opinion. In mine, this document has ruled the land and lasted this long for a reason.
Because of that, we should continue to follow it. If D.C. does enter the union, I would not be up in arms about it. I think this could be a positive for the direction of the nation, but because of what the Constitution states, it should not be allowed in the union.
