As could be expected, the Biden administration announced on Tuesday that it “strongly supports” making Washington, D.C. the 51st state, and is calling on Congress to “provide for a swift and orderly transition to statehood.”
“Establishing the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth as the 51st state will make our Union stronger and more just,” the administration claimed in a statement. “Washington, D.C. has a robust economy, a rich culture, and a diverse population of Americans from all walks of life who are entitled to full and equal participation in our democracy. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress as H.R. 51 proceeds through the legislative process to ensure that it comports with Congress’ constitutional responsibilities and its constitutional authority to admit new states to the Union by legislation. The Administration calls for the Congress to provide for a swift and orderly transition to statehood for the people of Washington, D.C.”
H.R. 51 will be voted on by the House this week, and will likely pass, but will likely die in the Senate, as it would need 10 Republican senators to join the Democrats to break the 60-vote threshold.
As former staffer to Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Heritage Foundation veteran Brian Darling noted last month at PJMedia, D.C. statehood is unconstitutional, and a blatant Democrat power grab. “The case against D.C. statehood on the constitutional merits is an open-and-shut case: You can’t do it. It may be possible to annex parts of D.C. to Virginia and Maryland, but granting statehood to the city of D.C. would not pass constitutional muster. In Article I, Section 8 powers, the ‘enumerated powers’ of the federal government, make D.C. the seat of the federal government.”
Darling continued, “On the list is the power to ‘exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)’ and ‘become the Seat of the Government of the United States.’ This is called the ‘Enclave Clause,’ because it is the provision that sets down D.C. as the enclave, or home, for the federal government.”
Constitutionality aside, the real reason for Democrats’ support of this move is to add solid Democrat seats to the House and Senate to insulate their majority.
While D.C. statehood is likely not going happen, the bigger issue here is that Joe Biden, who campaigned as a uniter, has supported every Democrat power grab attempt proposed since he’s taken office.
A former advocate of the filibuster, Joe Biden suddenly supports getting rid of it. Federalizing elections? Oh yeah, he definitely supports that too. Packing the Supreme Court? He’s refused to take a position during the campaign but has since created a commission to “study” it.
Most of us weren’t fooled by Joe Biden’s “uniter” rhetoric, but how many “Republicans” for Biden supported him because they thought he wasn’t a partisan?
For example, the Bush 43 Alumni for Biden PAC claimed that they still considered themselves Republicans, but that they endorsed Biden “not necessarily in opposition to any political affiliations, but rather in service to our country which requires a greater obligation than partisan politics or party.”
“We recognize that there may be policy differences among us, but we look forward to a time when civil, honest and robust policy discussions are the order of the day,” the group claimed.
Okay, where is that honest and robust policy discussion? Where does eliminating the filibuster to destroy the Republican Party’s ability to have any say in legislation fit into that? Where does D.C. statehood, an obvious attempt to pad the Democrats’ majority fit into that?
When George W. Bush was president, he actually made an effort to include Democrats in the crafting of legislation on his agenda. President Bush got the No Child Left Behind Act, his tax cuts, even the authority to use force against Iraq with bipartisan support. Joe Biden isn’t even hiding his goal of making Republican support irrelevant to the passage of legislation.
In July, I wrote that if Biden won the election, he’d “see his election the same way every other Democrat has: as a mandate for an aggressive far-left agenda.”
I really wish I was wrong, but I’ve been proven right repeatedly. When will those “Republicans” who supported him concede this?
