Professor Turley Gets the D.C. Statehood Controversy Wrong (a Deep Dive)

[TBoneTX 47,811]

Another lawyer takes issue with Jonathan Turley on this matter.  Comments?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Professor Turley Gets the D.C. Statehood Controversy Wrong (a Deep Dive)

 

Regular readers know that this author likes and admires Professor Jonathan Turley.  The fact we are constantly highlighting his commentaryis proof on that point.  But no person is perfect and we think he is getting it wrong in his latest column for The Hill:  [...]

 

We aren't even saying every point he is making is bad.  Indeed, there is a lot in the column that doesn't have anything directly to do with the question of D.C. statehood that 1) is excellent, and 2) we aren't going to be talking about here.  Still, the core of his column is basically this:  [...]

 

https://twitchy.com/aaronwalker/2025/08/16/professor-turley-gets-the-dc-statehood-controversy-wrong-a-deep-dive-n2417422

[Dashinka 26,077]

Trying to figure out how Turley was wrong?  He is not suggesting creating a new state, but rather allowing most of the area, primarily the residential areas, to go back to Maryland.

[Crazy Cat 45,145]

21 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Trying to figure out how Turley was wrong?  He is not suggesting creating a new state, but rather allowing most of the area, primarily the residential areas, to go back to Maryland.

I think I agree with Professor Turley.  That keeps a small DC under federal control....as it was intended. 

[Crazy Cat 45,145]

and Turley's solution restores representation to most of the DC residents.

[Dashinka 26,077]

1 hour ago, Crazy Cat said:

and Turley's solution restores representation to most of the DC residents.

Except the President and his family I guess.    

[Ban Hammer 14,407]

3 hours ago, Crazy Cat said:

and Turley's solution restores representation to most of the DC residents.

and removes much of the power that the dc elite have over that tiny section of america.

[TBoneTX 47,811]

Interesting reactions.  How about this?

 

Rezone and apply eminent domain (the sole good use for it) so that the only remaining housing is transitory -- temporary residences for active members of Congress, and hotels.  The District would be occupied solely by Federal office buildings and businesses to support the working population (restaurants, gas stations, etc.).  Perhaps also return some land on the Maryland side, and reacquire a small portion on the Virginia side of the Potomac.

 

No residents would then need representation, so problem solved.  Only elected officials would reside in the District because they have, or are supposed to have, their residences in their home state.  Then they would have room to demolish some of our current empty eyesores that we pay billions to maintain.

 

In addition, officials like Brennan AND Obama would lose their residences in DC, and their meddling in government could be minimized.  Only ambassadors and Federal officials should live in DC.

[Fr8dog 457]

Are we just all forgetting about the implications of the 23rd amendment on this "idea" or do we assume we're able to get enough states lined up to repeal it?

[TBoneTX 47,811]

The 23rd Amendment is what it is, and it will NEVER be repealed.

[Dashinka 26,077]

Again, the best case is to let Maryland take back the majority of the land and the residents become Maryland residents with appropriate representation.  This would all but nullify the 23rd amendment without needing to repeal it since DC would no longer have any residents/voters (other than the President and their family who usually vote in their home district).  Let Washington DC be redefined as the WH, the Capitol, and the Supreme Court building, they don't have to even be contiguous to each other, they could just be little island enclaves.

[Ban Hammer 14,407]

50 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Again, the best case is to let Maryland take back the majority of the land and the residents become Maryland residents with appropriate representation.  This would all but nullify the 23rd amendment without needing to repeal it since DC would no longer have any residents/voters (other than the President and their family who usually vote in their home district).  Let Washington DC be redefined as the WH, the Capitol, and the Supreme Court building, they don't have to even be contiguous to each other, they could just be little island enclaves.

texas democrats can be invited to gerrymander the borders if necessary 

[Fr8dog 457]

I'm not a fan of the electoral college to begin with. This would give a handful of residence (potentially 1)  3 electoral votes during elections. Meaning the sitting power (regardless of whom it is) will no longer need a majority for their parties next term but only 49%. And that is not the popular vote. 

[Ban Hammer 14,407]

1 hour ago, Fr8dog said:

I'm not a fan of the electoral college to begin with. This would give a handful of residence (potentially 1)  3 electoral votes during elections. Meaning the sitting power (regardless of whom it is) will no longer need a majority for their parties next term but only 49%. And that is not the popular vote. 

yet the founding father's in their infinite wisdom saw the problem with just a majority vote electing the president - the focus for campaigns would be only in major population centers and the rural parts of america (which comprise the majority of the usa) would be ignored.
i think the electoral college is a great idea myself.

[Crazy Cat 45,145]

4 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

i think the electoral college is a great idea myself.

Agree.  I don't fancy having California, New York, and a few costal states dictating policies for fly-over country.

[Ban Hammer 14,407]

1 hour ago, Crazy Cat said:

Agree.  I don't fancy having California, New York, and a few costal states dictating policies for fly-over country.

and that phrase shows their disdain for the very industry that grows the food for the coasties.