hey there everybody welcome back to the overlap this is your co-host joshua i am here today
unfortunately without will again but we're looking forward to having him back next week but if you
haven't been here before this is a podcast where we look at the overlaps of society we talk about the
things that we do have in common in order to form a broader coalition to fight injustices and things
that we see happening here in our good old united states of america this is kind of a intersection of
politics and history and law and society and that sort of commentary we're basically the uh the audio
equivalent of eavesdropping on a conversation at a coffee shop where one person has done way too
much reading and the other one's just trying to enjoy their oat milk latte in peace we provide the
well-researched debate you provide the silent judgmental sipping today we are are going to
strap on our our chest waiters and wade directly into i don't know a cesspool a swamp um a septic tank
if you will a topic that no doubt is it's pretty dense there's lots of historical baggage here and
also the the modern day political maneuvering currently that kind of gives you a headache just
thinking about it but we're going to do it anyway because somebody has to i'm talking about the
federalization of washington dc yeah the whole dc kerfluffle i can kind of already hear some of our loyal
listeners who i know personally kind of groaning oh joshua federalization of dc is that really the
most electrifying topic you could come up with i know you might want this to be a history of art or
something to do with art i get it i don't know the term itself actually sounds like something you'd find
on c-span right and like two in the morning dc federalization it sounds technical bureaucratic and
it's about as interesting as reading the t's and c's on your latest iphone update uh don't have an
iphone but you probably do so look stick with me on this the story is very real very current and it's
political drama this isn't some like dusty historical footnote and it's not like an abstract civics lesson
right like this is a live action case study in the expansion of the power of the executive
it's kind of a slow motion demo of uh democratic erosion yay and it's a glaring spotlight on the
absolute weirdness of our american political system now look this isn't isn't just about one city right
like this is this is about the playbook it's about the precedent this is about what a government can get
away with when it thinks no one is paying close enough attention or thinks that their overwhelming
support of the electorate is going to allow them to do this but if you aren't paying attention to this
you're kind of missing the point right you're not missing the forest for the trees you're missing the
trees and the forest and the roots and and the guy with the chainsaw that's literally smiling as he cuts it
all down let's set the stage we're not talking about a hypothetical scenario from a political science
textbook or a screenplay for a movie who's that who's that guy that did all the legal books it's not
clancy clancy does the spy stuff i don't know one of those authors who does way too many uh pelican
briefs and those sorts of things this is more in line with a like a real life power grab and it feels like a very
niche kind of political thriller story but almost seems impossible a few days ago the president of
the united states citing what he and his administration sorry best term i could come up with dubbed a a crime
emergency of catastrophic proportions they invoked a rarely used and almost forgotten in the ways that
1700 year old uh or 1700s and 1800s laws kind of get forgotten it's a provision called the district of
columbia home rule act when he invoked that he took a direct unilateral control of washington dc's
metropolitan police department now they serve about 700 000 people three quarters of a million or so and
they were effectively nationalized overnight for someone who calls everyone left of him a communist
he's doing some weirdly nationalizing things but for anyone who's been casually following the decades-long
dc statehood debate this felt less like a legitimate response to a genuine crisis and more like the
inevitable deeply unsettling climax of a very long-running saga it was the other shoe that everyone
knew eventually was going to drop and it landed with a thud and echoed all the way back to the 18th century
like the laws that donald trump is using to do this so their narrative was pretty simple it was we're taking control of it
the city is a nightmare of murder and crime in a series of press conferences and late night truth social posts
basically painting dc is just uh utter chaos right he called it a tragic symbol of urban decay
and claimed that the local government was not only inept, but helpless and ideologically committed to letting the city burn.
The federal government, he said, had no choice but to step in with a firm and decisive hand to restore order and liberate the residents from the squalor.
It is not a compelling story, basically because it's not supported by facts.
So the local government, who the mayor there is Muriel Bowser, along with, I don't know, a mountain of FBI crime data, verifiable, told a completely different story.
They presented the statistics showing violent crime, while still a serious issue, as it is in any American city,
has actually been on a significant downward trend for the better part of a year, something like 35%.
Homicides are down, carjackings, which, to be fair, was a very major point of public concern, has seen a substantial drop.
Even the president's own appointee for U.S. attorney for D.C. had had a couple of weeks before this, right, praised the city and the Metropolitan Police Department for encouraging a decline in crime rates.
This is the kind of blatant contradiction that just makes my blood pressure hurt.
Is that a thing? Can blood pressure hurt?
It's just like a level of gaslighting that is almost impressive if it wasn't so damn stupid.
So you have a situation where the official justification for a massive federal intervention is directly refuted by the administration's own officials and available public data.
This is not a disagreement over policy details.
This isn't like a matter of one's opinion over another.
It's a disagreement over the, like, objective reality.
And that's what makes this so incredibly alarming.
It's a playbook we've seen before.
And it's depressingly effective.
Step one, declare a crisis.
Step two, use the crisis to grab power.
Step three, make everyone forget the crisis that you're solving was widely exaggerated and mostly invented for the express purpose of grabbing power.
And the fact is that the president of the United States can do just that.
He can federalize a major American cities police force based on a law that most people have never heard of and a crisis that isn't real.
It's a giant blinking alarm for the state of our democracy.
It's a five alarm fire.
In any term of our systems of checks and balances, which I know have been failing left and right.
So how did we get here?
How did we arrive at a place where the capital of the land of the free can be treated like a colonial outpost?
To understand that present, unfortunately, for you people who hate history, we have to dig into the past.
And this particular past goes all the way back to men in powdered wigs and who were very concerned about moving around and not really concerned about long term democratic rights of a people who would eventually live in the nation's capital.
All right, way back.
Dusty document with a specific line in it that essentially created the world's most politically disenfranchised city in a developed nation.
Talking, of course, about the U.S. Constitution.
Yay!
Specifically, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.
It's not one of the famous clauses.
It's not one of the ones that pops up that people memorize like the second or the first.
So it doesn't get a lot of air time, which means you probably won't see it on a T-shirt or a sign.
Maybe you'll see it on a sign now.
Because there is lots of protesting.
But it's one of the most consequential laws for the people of Washington, D.C.
As in the original, like, wait, what?
Clause.
That clause is called the District Clause.
It basically gives Congress the power to, quote, exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district, not exceeding 10 miles square, as may, by cessation, by session of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States.
In plain English.
And sorry, even my old English was bad.
The framers decided that the new national government needed its own piece of land, a federal district that would be separate from the control of any single state.
And the logic kind of displayed by the James Madison type in the Federalist Papers, number 43, was primarily defensive.
Basically, he was worried about the, quote, insulting and menacing possibility of a state government being able to intimidate or hold the federal government hostage.
So if the national capital were located within a state like Texas, right, that state's government could, in theory, interfere with federal operations, cut off supplies, fail to protect the officials during a public disturbance.
So the framers of the Constitution had a real world example in mind.
There was the Pennsylvania mutiny of 1783, where unpaid Revolutionary War soldiers surrounded a building in Philadelphia where the Continental Congress was beating.
Then the Pennsylvania state government was hesitant to do anything about it, and the members of Congress were forced to leave the city.
It was embarrassing.
It was chaotic.
And people like James Madison, George Washington, and Hamilton were determined to make sure that it couldn't happen again.
So the idea of a federally neutral territory under direct congressional control was, in theory, a smart move to make sure that the stability and the independence of this new national government was both stable and independent.
But it came with a really huge, gapingly obvious flaw.
What about the people who would actually live and work in this federal district?
What about their rights, their representation, their ability to govern themselves?
This is where things kind of get a bit, you know, ethereal.
James Madison, in that same Federalist paper, 43, he kind of brushed it aside.
He wrote that the residents of the district will, quote, have their voice, have had their voice in the election of the government, which is to exercise authority over them.
He meant that basically they'd be governed by Congress, that they had helped elect, which sounds great, except for the part where D.C. residents for the most of American history have had no voting representation in Congress.
Yeah.
He also added that a municipal legislature for local purposes derived from their own suffrages will, of course, be allowed to them.
Of course.
He says it like it's like it's a foregone conclusion.
And it's a detail that's pretty obvious.
You almost don't need to mention it.
But that was a promise.
It was a constitutional IOU, right?
It wasn't in the Constitution.
And for a very, very, very long time, it went unfulfilled.
Actually, about 170 years.
So Madison's casual, of course, was a dead letter at this point.
So the history of Washington, D.C.'s governance is kind of a frustrating story of a city that's constantly being put in its place by a distant hostel and frequently in different federal government.
After it was established, Congress did an experiment, I guess you could say, with local government structures.
And there was even a short period of time where there was a locally elected mayor in the early 19th century.
But a lot of times, you know, they fell apart.
They didn't really last very long and were kind of subject to the whims of different politicians in the federal government.
Not until 1874, in the wake of some financial mismanagement by a territorial government, Congress actually stripped Washington, D.C. of all forms of local self-governance.
They actually abolished the elected legislature and replaced it with a three-member board of commissioners appointed directly by the president.
So for the next century, from 1874 to 1974, the residents of Washington, D.C. really had no say in their own governance, like none.
They paid their federal taxes.
They were conscripted and fought and died in American wars.
But they could not elect people who ran their city, paved their streets, or funded their schools.
They lost their voting rights in Congress and in the Electoral College.
It was a situation that if it's not a coincidence, it would be pretty uncanny if it wasn't kind of parallel to the idea of taxation without representation.
So the American colonists were obviously very keen on rebelling against that.
So the whole irony is so thick that you could just probably build a monument out of it.
And in Washington, they did.
It wasn't until the Civil Rights era, after decades, but it's 1974.
Yeah.
A couple decades of activism by D.C. residents that we started to see some movement in that area.
In 1961, not 1861, the 23rd Amendment was ratified, granting D.C. residents the right to vote for president and vice president, a small step.
Meaning before 1961, they literally couldn't even vote for president and vice president.
Then in 1973, Congress passed the D.C. Home Rule Act, which was the big one, right?
Like it was the promise that Madison had originally given to them during the writing of the Constitution and the writing of these Federalist Papers, right?
So for the first time in 100 years, this Home Rule Act allowed Washington, D.C. residents to elect a mayor and an actual city council, 13 people on it.
This was a pretty big victory for the people who were fighting for this and talking about it.
But, and with Washington, D.C., you know there's always a but.
It was a Home Rule with a massive bullet point asterisk at the end of it, right?
It was a footnote in really big neon letters because Congress, in its infinite wisdom, retained the right to review, modify, or overturn any local legislation passed by the D.C. Council.
Any law.
Any subject.
The D.C. budget also has to be approved directly by Congress.
That means that Washington, D.C. can hold hearings, debate an issue, pass a law reflecting the will of its residents, and then a bunch of people from Alabama, Wyoming, California, Oklahoma, Texas, people who don't live there, who don't represent those people, and who are often openly hostile to the city's progressive politics, can literally just throw it in the trash.
File 13.
They thought, right?
So, that's kind of laid the historical groundwork, right?
A city, unique constitutional status, long history of disenfranchisement, and a system of Home Rule that is, at best, conditional.
Right? Conditional seems appropriate.
Let's fast forward to now.
The federal takeover.
President Donald Trump, as we've established, invoked Section 740 of the Home Rule Act.
He stood at a podium, flanked by flags, and declared a crime emergency in D.C.
Federalized the D.C. police.
The justification was repeated ad nauseum.
The city was a nightmare of lawlessness, a carnage, and that local Democratic leadership was either unwilling or unable to stop.
Something he insisted had to be done.
The problem is that the justification doesn't hold up to even the most basic scrutiny.
It's not about the data.
The data actively torpedoed it.
Let's get more specific.
Muriel Bowser, the mayor, said in a conference hours after the president's announcement, where she was visibly furious, with charts and printed graphs and a citywide violent crime data board.
She created a science project, an eighth-grade science project, that showed that violent crime was down 12% year over year.
Homicides, the most inflammatory data point, had decreased by 18% compared to the previous year.
Carjackings, the subject that that's what all of the GOP is currently saying is, yeah, but the carjackings.
They were down 34%.
That was where that 34 number came from earlier.
Now, these weren't cherry-picked numbers.
This is the city's official crime data, and the same data provided to the FBI and other federal agencies.
We already talked about Matt Graves, the U.S. attorney for D.C., who has praised the city's efforts.
And this fictional 2025 scenario just weeks prior gave an interview to the Washington Post, where he said he was seeing encouragement trends across the board, and NPD and our federal workers are working to effectively target violent offenders.
And the result is a safer city.
The quote was on a giant screen behind Mayor Bowser.
During her press conference, the political theater was gross.
It was just gross.
What's really going on?
If the crisis wasn't real, why the extreme action?
It's pretty obvious to anyone who hasn't been living in a sensory deprivation tank for the last decade.
This crime emergency was a political tool.
It was a carefully constructed pretext to achieve a long-held political goal.
And I'm not just talking about Donald Trump.
I'm not talking.
I'm talking about a long Republican political goal about facing and asserting federal dominance over a politically hostile city that is overwhelmingly Democratic.
Washington, D.C. regularly votes for the Democratic presidential candidate by margins exceeding 90%.
It's local government entirely composed of Democrats.
From the perspective of this administration, D.C. is literally enemy territory.
And what better way to neutralize an enemy than to put its entire police force under direct command of a president who, by all name tags, is a Republican.
That's a classic move from the authoritarian playbook.
It's power politics, right?
Dressed up as law enforcement, you find a unique wedge issue.
Crime is a reliable one because nobody wants there to be crime.
Nobody likes crime.
And then you amplify it, right?
You create a sense of panic and fear.
And then you present yourself as the only one strong enough to solve the problem.
The solution?
Always expanding your own power and diminishing the power of your political opponents.
This takeover also relied on some pretty questionable, maybe deliberately, legal interpretations.
The law itself, Section 740 of the Home Rule Act, is worth reading.
I think.
If you're a nerd, I don't know.
It allows the president to assume control of the NPD if he determines that an emergency makes it necessary to use the police of the district for federal purposes.
So there's two key phrases there.
Emergency and federal purposes.
In history, the power was not understood to be for specific, like, immediate events that threatened the functioning of the federal government itself.
Think, like, I don't know, insurrections, riots targeting federal buildings, terrorist attacks January 6th.
You know, like, actual emergencies.
The kind of thing where you need a unified command structure right now to protect federal assets or people.
So applying this clause to a general ongoing issue like crime is brand new in these terms, right?
And it's very legally controversial.
People are gearing up to fight this at a legal perspective.
Because crime, by its nature, is primarily a local issue handled by local police under local governance.
So to say that a city's crime is bad enough that it constitutes a federal emergency that needs federal control is not really in the confines of that statute.
It really stretches the definition of emergency and federal purposes to a breaking point.
Under this logic, the president could declare a homelessness emergency in San Francisco and take over its social services.
He could declare an education emergency in Chicago and take over public schools.
The president is incredibly dangerous because it creates a legal justification for the person in the office of the presidency to intervene in almost any aspect of local governance within the District of Columbia under any pretext.
Now, this has also been combined with the mobilization of the D.C. National Guard.
Now, the president already had sole command over the D.C. Guard, right?
Like, that's another one of the city's constitutional quirks.
Unlike in all of the other states, the governor commands the Guard.
In D.C., the power sits with the president because D.C. doesn't have a governor.
That's kind of why we saw a lot of confusion during the January 6th Capitol attack, right?
Where the deployment of the Guard was delayed.
In this scenario, the president used that existing power and combined it with new control over the municipal police department and created this unified security apparatus in the Capitol under his direct command with no local accountability whatsoever.
For a lot of the left and traditional conservatives who value federalism and limited government felt like this is a dress rehearsal.
It's a test run.
And he's purposefully testing the legal boundaries of institutional resistance and the public's reaction.
How much can I get away with?
How far can we push this?
The target was D.C. because D.C.
It's uniquely vulnerable.
It's a perfect lab for testing the limits of his power because he already has a lot of it naturally.
But if it works here, if the precedent is normalized, he's literally giving us the model for what comes next in other cities and other states.
The D.C. takeover is not just a D.C. problem.
And I cannot stress this enough.
If you live in Ohio or Texas or Oklahoma and you're thinking, oh, well, you know, that's a shame for them, but it doesn't really bother me.
You know, you're wrong.
That's a key piece to the bigger picture.
It's his most brazen move yet.
But you see this broader trend.
I know this entire administration with the Heritage Foundation and with with political elites and with techno elites.
It's part of a broader trend.
So they've been using executive orders.
They've been asking judges to reinterpret statutes.
The power of federal appointments.
All in an effort to consolidate power within the office of Donald Trump and weaken all of the checks and balances that were already to their breaking points being stretched.
We've seen him attempt to bring in completely independent agencies like the Federal Reserve or the FCC under direct control of the president.
Challenging the principle of each of these agencies independence.
And they're supposed to be the Federal Reserve is a whole nother thing.
But we've we've heard a lot of public discussion about dismantling entire departments of the government.
Right.
We've seen firing tens of thousands.
Of career civil servants.
To replace them with people.
Who.
Will support Donald Trump's agenda.
Whatever that might be.
They called it the Schedule F plan.
Not to mention the politicization of all of the federal grant money with Doge and money being steered towards friendly jurisdictions.
And withheld from democratically held cities.
Right.
They all have one thing in common.
They're deliberate.
Attempts to bypass.
Or completely block the authority of other branches of government and independent institutions.
The legislative branch is too slow.
We know that.
So.
He does it by executive order.
If the courts block you.
Well.
Appoint judges who adhere to a legal theory.
That gives Donald Trump the most unlimited power.
Are career bureaucrats resisting?
Fire them.
The DC takeover.
With its reliance on a specific.
Vaguely worded law.
In a manufactured crisis.
Is the perfect storm.
Of this larger strategy.
This isn't just American though.
We've seen this exact playbook.
By autocrats and illiberal leaders around the world.
In Hungary.
Viktor Orban.
He didn't take power in a violent revolution.
He was elected.
And then over the course of 10 years.
He used his party's parliamentary majority.
To rewrite their constitution.
He now controls the judiciary.
He now has weaponized the federal government.
Or their federal government.
Against independent media.
And yes.
Gerrymandering.
To ensure that he.
Will be the president forever.
It was all done through completely legal means.
Orban called it illiberal democracy.
Venezuela under Hugo Chavez.
And then later.
Nicolas Maduro.
They used their support to create new assemblies.
That rewrote the rules.
Of their governments.
They packed the courts.
They nationalized industries.
All while maintaining the outward appearance.
Of a democracy.
They held elections.
But the elections were no longer free or fair.
Look at Turkey.
Under Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
He transformed.
A parliamentary democracy.
Into a.
Centralized presidential system.
He threw journalists in jail.
He purged the civil service.
And he declared emergency.
To take power.
And consolidate his grip.
On Turkey.
The pattern is consistent.
The leaders don't.
Stage a coup.
In the traditional sense.
They slowly.
Methodically.
Legally.
Or semi-legally.
As we're seeing now.
They chip away.
At the foundations of democracy.
Until the whole thing.
Is too.
Weak.
To stand under its own weight.
They use the tools.
Of democracy.
To dismantle democracy.
The DC federalization.
From a global context.
Right.
Is.
It's terrifying.
But it is.
A reminder.
Of how.
Our own democratic institutions.
Can be.
Especially when.
Congress.
And the Senate.
Are willing to.
Exploit.
Every single.
Legal loophole.
Every constitutional.
Anomaly.
Every ounce.
Of public apathy.
At their disposal.
But.
Make.
No.
Qualms.
The power.
Of the executive branch.
Is growing.
And the checks.
On that power.
Are weakening.
This is not conspiracy.
Like.
Someone.
One of my friends.
Said.
I only.
Listen.
To conspiracy theories.
Or.
I listen to the overlap.
When I'm in the mood.
For conspiracy theories.
This is not a conspiracy theory.
These are the facts.
Right.
And.
That we're seeing.
Unfold.
In front of us.
But we can also acknowledge.
That this is a historical pattern.
So this.
The economic and social ramifications.
Of this.
Are huge.
Let's start with.
The rhetoric.
Right.
The.
Administration's.
Constant drumbeat.
Of propaganda.
Painting the city.
As a slum.
A hellscape.
Of crime.
And despair.
It's not just words.
This kind of language.
Has a real world.
Destabilization effect.
Right.
It hurts.
Tourism.
We've already seen that happening.
Around the country.
With them saying.
That they're going to require.
Fifteen thousand dollars.
Of.
Insurance.
Of some sort.
To visit the United States.
But people are already.
Avoiding.
Coming here.
To begin with.
It's going to lower.
Property values.
And it's already.
Discouraging businesses.
From investing.
In Washington.
D.C.
But it.
Most importantly.
It's undermining.
The community based.
Reform.
That the city.
Has been trying.
To pull off.
If you're trying.
To build trust.
Between the police.
And the community.
It's not very helpful.
When there's a higher.
Power that comes in.
And says.
That it's all.
Failure.
And creates.
A top-down.
System.
Without any.
Accountability.
Whatsoever.
And look.
There is a reality.
A very.
Very.
Real.
Financial.
Situation.
In Washington.
D.C.
It's.
For all intents and purposes.
It's a donor state.
It is a net contributor.
To the federal treasury.
D.C.
Residents pay more.
In total federal taxes.
Than residents.
Of 23 other states.
They pay more.
Per capita.
In federal taxes.
Than any state.
In the union.
But they don't have.
Any voting representation.
In the very body.
That decides.
How those tax dollars.
Are spent.
And they have.
A non-voting.
Delegate.
In the house.
And no senators.
This lack of control.
Has concrete.
Financial consequences.
The federal government's.
Control over the city budget.
Has in the past.
Led to D.C.
Being denied.
Emergency funds.
And during.
The.
The shutdowns.
The federal government shutdowns.
City services.
Have been threatened.
Because.
Basically.
Their locally raised budget.
Was held hostage.
By a federal.
Political dispute.
That has nothing to do with them.
And also.
We can't.
We can't talk about.
Washington D.C.
And not talk about race.
It's impossible.
To separate.
The issue.
Of D.C.
Disenfranchisement.
From the history.
Of racial.
Issues.
In America.
The city.
Is a.
A.
Plurality.
Black city.
40% of its population.
Is black.
That makes.
The lack.
Of voting.
Representation.
And local.
Autonomy.
Kind of a civil rights issue.
History here is growth.
And I'm sorry to be so direct about it.
But for much of the 20th century.
The congressional committee.
That effectively ruled.
Washington D.C.
Was chaired by.
Southern.
Segregationist.
Politician.
At the time.
Senator.
Theodore Bilbo.
Of Mississippi.
Bilbo.
What does that rhyme with?
And representative.
John McMillan.
Of South Carolina.
Used their authority.
Over Washington D.C.
As a laboratory.
To enforce racist policies.
They resisted.
The desegregation.
Of schools.
And public facilities.
In D.C.
They viewed the city's.
Growing black population.
With contempt.
And tried to control it.
The fight.
For the D.C.
Home rule.
Was inextricably linked.
To the broader.
Civil rights movement.
It was a fight.
For black political power.
And self-determination.
The modern takeover.
With its loaded vocabulary.
Of liberating the capital.
From bedlam and squalor.
And slums.
And it really does echo.
These uncomfortable.
Historical.
Precedents.
The language used.
By this administration.
To talk about.
Washington D.C.
A city with a significant.
Black middle class.
And a long history.
Of black culture.
And political leadership.
Is absolutely.
A dog whistle.
It plays on the old.
Racist tropes.
Of black run cities.
Being inherently chaotic.
Corrupt.
And violent.
So when the president.
Says he needs to impose.
Law and order.
There's a whole lot of concern.
About potential.
Civil rights violations.
Think about it.
If you federalize.
A police force.
With no accountability.
It's a terrifying prospect.
For any community.
But especially.
For a community of color.
That has historically.
Been the target.
Of over policing.
Police brutality.
And systemic injustice.
Who do you complain to.
If a federally controlled.
Police officer harasses you.
The mayor.
She doesn't have any authority.
The city council.
They have no oversight power.
You have to appeal.
To the executive.
That is directing the police.
In the first place.
It removes every single.
Layer of accountability.
Instances of abuse.
It's a powder keg.
Of civil rights.
Violations.
Just waiting to happen.
So what now?
Where do we go from here?
This is a wake-up call.
It's not a drill.
It's a neon sign.
Pointing directly to.
Our nation's capital.
And as long as.
They remain.
In the state.
Of political limbo.
As long as.
It's a federal enclave.
Subject to.
Executive legislation.
Of congress.
And emergency powers.
Of the president.
It'll be.
Vulnerable.
To this kind of.
Political maneuvering.
And it's currently.
Being used as a pawn.
In a larger.
National.
Political game.
The only way.
Really to do this.
Is to.
To grant the.
Three quarters of a million.
American citizens.
Who live in D.C.
Full.
Democratic rights.
Enjoyed by.
Every other citizen.
Of every other state.
And that's statehood.
That's simple.
Let the.
The residential.
And commercial parts of D.C.
Become the 51st state.
The state of Washington.
Douglas.
Commonwealth.
Whatever.
The few federal buildings.
The capital.
The White House.
The Supreme Court.
Should be a tiny.
Separate.
Federal district.
Just like the Constitution.
Requires.
That solved the problem.
Entirely.
It's a path that have.
Has.
37 other states.
Have taken to join.
This.
This union.
In the short term.
There are other things.
That need to happen.
The.
Existence.
Of a specific.
Rarely used law.
Like section 740.
That allows the executive.
To take control.
Of the police force.
On subjective.
Declarations of emergency.
There's a huge vulnerability.
It's a loaded gun.
And the trigger.
Is being held.
In the hands of a madman.
This federalization crisis.
Is a microcosm.
Of a much bigger struggle.
Between the concentration.
Of power.
In the executive branch.
And the principles.
Of federalism.
Local autonomy.
And democratic accountability.
It forces us.
To confront.
An uncomfortable.
And deeply.
Undemocratic fact.
In the United States.
Of America.
In the 21st century.
There is a population.
Larger.
Than Vermont.
Or Wyoming.
Whose citizens.
Are subject to laws.
And policies.
Over which they have.
No meaningful say.
It's an anomaly.
It's a historical.
Accident.
And as this shows.
It's a dangerous vulnerability.
That we can't afford to ignore.
What happened in DC.
Is a test.
And if we.
Fail to recognize it.
As the test that it is.
You want to just shrug your shoulders.
And say.
Oh that's just DC.
Or whatever.
We're going to.
See the same tactics.
Being used.
In other places.
In other ways.
Until we're all.
Under.
Federal control.
There's a term for that.
So what do you think.
Am I.
Making sense.
Or.
You think I'm being a hysterical.
Conspiracy theorist.
Is DC statehood.
The only way forward.
Or is there another path.
That I'm.
I'm missing.
For the residents.
Of our nation's capital.
I genuinely want to know.
You can reach out to us.
On.
Blue sky.
On.
Mastodon.
You can check out our website.
You can leave a comment.
On Spotify.
Or Apple podcast.
Wherever you're listening to this.
Happy to know.
If you have a topic.
That you'd like to hear.
We'd be happy to.
To give it a shot.
But.
That's.
Unfortunately.
All the time we have today.
On the overlap.
Thank you for lending me your ears.
And your brain power.
For just a little bit.
I know it was a heavy one.
But.
It's an important one too.
You can find all the sources.
For today's episodes.
And.
You can google the.
Home rule act.
Data.
On DC.
And the demographics.
And crime rates.
On our website.
Like I said.
FOF.
Foundation.
Or.
You can message us.
For those.
Pieces of information.
Through.
Blue sky.
Or Mastodon.
If you found this episode valuable.
If it made you think.
Or at least made you.
Productively angry.
Maybe consider.
Doing all the podcast things.
Like it.
Subscribe it.
Share it. Five-star review.
Help us cut through the noise and continue having these conversations.
Pretty please.
Until next time, I'm Joshua.
Stay informed. Stay engaged.
Try not to let the existential dread of democratic decay ruin your week entirely.
Talk to you soon. Bye.
Bye.
you