Heck no! That’s all that should be said, but I need to chew on this a while to see if I am advocating the right thing.
The crux of the argument for D.C. statehood is that the citizens living there are not represented fully in the nation’s Congressional assemblies. That is true. They have a place-holder kind of Congressman, but that Representative does not have voting privileges. At first look, these people are being deprived of their some of their rights.
However, the real politics of the situation is that the fifty states will not allow another state to be added to the Union. Those same people who are being deprived of their rights, now, would be over-represented, diluting the rights of others.
Making Washington D.C. a state sounds like the fair thing to do. I don’t agree that making things fair is the goal of the Constitution. Being fair is always a subjective thing. The word, fair, is not even used in the entire Constitution. The job of the Constitution is to accord the same rights to everybody, but this sometimes cannot happen in the real world. That is why the Constitution allows the Congress power in these issues. The solution would be political, and the Congress is all about politics.
Plus, there is just something wrong with the idea that Washington, D.C. is a very large city whose primary sustenance comes from the taxpayers of the nation, and the recipients of that tax money might have a say in who and how the taxing is done. It is a fact that Washington, DC is the richest city in the nation. Most people there are tax-takers, not tax-payers.
The current situation is not going to change. You can talk all you want about those tiny New England states, and sparsely populated western states wielding the same power as much larger states in the US Senate. It is what it is, and it is not about to change given the current arrangement.
The impasse is a political reality, and will stay that way unless we decide to reconfigure all of the states.
To achieve this, we would have to have people decide how many states there would be. For example, Texas could easily divide into at least five separate states. California could be a half-dozen or more. Georgia, Tennessee, and other states have natural constituencies in their geographical confines. Many other states have similar population and cultural divides.
The US Congress would be a lot larger than now, but there is no reason why we could not achieve a relatively even distribution of rights across the country. All we have to do is change the current Constitution.
My plan is just a quirky, back of the envelope look at something. But, unless we change the current system, those folks in Washington, D.C. will never have their rights due under our Constitution. On the other hand, maybe we should permanently enjoin those people from voting if they make their living as a government employee.
Could you go for that?