Columns
Premium

Berkeley Prof Robert Reich Knows the REAL Reason We Oppose D.C. Statehood. Can You Guess?

AP Photo/California State University, Fullerton, Kelly Lacefield

Loony Tunes Berkeley professor Robert Reich thinks he knows why there’s opposition to statehood for the District of Columbia. The reason, as I’m certain our astute readers might have guessed, begins with an “R” and ends with a “T.”

PERIOD, you guys. And if you believe the reason Reich and other Democrats are pushing D.C. statehood is that they care about black and brown people, I’ve got a bridge over the Potomac to sell you. The ONLY reason these faux history buffs care about D.C. statehood is because it would give them two more Democrat senators. Period.

Readers educated in history will recall that the purpose of setting aside a plot of land, property ceded to the federal government from Maryland and Virginia, was so that the seat of government would a) not have a disproportionate influence over the political process and b) not be dependent on a particular state for its protection.

The framers laid out the parameters for an independent capital “not exceeding ten Miles square“ in Article I of the Constitution, and James Madison argued in Federalist 43 for “The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government,” so the federal government could avoid “dependence … on the State” and conflicts of interest.

”The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it,” “Jemmy” Madison wrote. “It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.”

Madison declared that “the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single State, and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to abridge its necessary independence.” He went on to explain that the federal district would “of course” have the right to vote for its own municipal government to ensure the “rights and consent of the citizens inhabiting it.”

Somewhere between those lines Berkeley-ite Reich reads RACISM. (It’s like the penumbrae the left keep finding in the Constitution that only they can see.)

Not surprisingly, the Twitterverse was on hand to set Reich straight (HT: Twitchy):

Aldous Huxley’s Ghost didn’t waste any time:

Ya think?????

Indeed he did. Reich worked as the former stainer-in-chief’s secretary of Labor.

And PJM deputy managing editor Bryan Preston pointed out on our Slack channel today (in response to Bill Kristol getting on the D.C. statehood bandwagon): “DC’s population is about 700,000. that’s smaller than Austin (DC is actually ranked about 20th) but we’d make it a whole state Why, when the founders specifically wrote it into the Constitution as not-a-state?”

Here’s the main reason why Kristol and the rest of the swampy left want the District of Columbia to become a state:

 

(District of Columbia Board of Elections)

Not only is D.C. majority Democrat, but it’s also the fourth-richest city in the U.S., thanks in part to the government-job-industrial complex. If the District became a state, it would likely be the wealthiest, most powerful Democrat stronghold in the union—something the founders knew would be disastrous.

One thing we can all agree on, though: