Vice president Joe Biden opened his ignorant pie-hole again.
According to The Weekly Standard:
“By the way, there should be two senators from the state of D.C.,” he said to hoots and hollers.
Two new U.S. senators from Washington, D.C. would almost surely be Democrats. In the last presidential election, President Obama picked up 91.4 percent of the vote in Washington, D.C.; Mitt Romney picked up only 7.1 percent.
Aside from the obvious problems with superceding the 23rd Amendment of The Constitution which would have to be done with another Amendment, there is this:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes,
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;
One would think those states that ceded land to the federal government would have a claim to it in the event a new state was envisioned. Which would create conflict with Article IV:
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states 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.
But be that as it may, there is a more prescient problem for Uncle Joe. Which parts of the Code of Federal Regulations and the U.S. Code would have to be repealed or superceded so that the new state could promulgate its new laws? You see, the District of Columbia city council can’t pass anything without specific authorization of Congress, who hold the purses strings. Generally, Congress let’s the city pass ordinances. But Congress holds ultimate authority. For centuries, Congress has been publishing D.C. municipal law in the Federal Register as Acts of Congress. So, specifically, which laws are “Municipal” in scope, and which are Federal?
For instance, Title 26 of the United States Code has never been enacted into positive law. Is that because it is “Municipal” in scope, similar to a city ordinance? Can you imagine that title being repealed so the new state could promulgate law? That would mean it was municipal all along.
You’ll have to repeal all the municipal laws to create the new state law. All of them. Like Obama, I’m all ears, Uncle Joe.