Off the Publisher’s Desk 6-25-25

More States?

Have you ever though about the number of states in the Union that all have representatives in Congress. That is except for the District of Columbia, or Washington D.C., the Capital of the United States and covers about 63 square miles of land.

But, the Constitution defines it as being outside of any state and does not grant it any voting representation in Congress. The Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia in “all cases whatsoever”.

Over the years there has been a movement to grant statehood to the District, but it has never made any headway. Recently I received an email from Ann Wagner who is a candidate for Congress from Missouri and I don’t know how I got on her mailing list, but the email stated this: “There’s been an update to your status, Carlton. Our most recent records indicate that your status just flipped to D.C. Statehood supporter.

“This has to be a misunderstanding, right? In 2024, you were a top Patriot. We can’t imagine you’d radically change your position that quickly and side with Democrats, socialist scheme. That’s why we wanted to reach out today.”

The great part of this story is that I can’t ever remember voicing my opinion on D.C. statehood, one way or the other. If you live in Washington D.C. you must pay federal taxes and is that not “Taxation without Representation”?

Puerto Rico is a possession of the United States and enjoys the protection of the U.S. but pays no federal income tax. Its residents do pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, so why would they want to become a state?

The Democratic Party is the one that is pushing for D.C. to become a state as they think that Democrats will be elected and that will swing the balance of power in Congress to their party.

Recently President Trump suggested that Canada become a state and what would that make Congress look like?

A number of years ago there was a suggestion that northern Wisconsin, all land north of highway 8, be divided off to form a new state to be called the State of Superior. That went nowhere.

If you look back over the time line when states were created, Wisconsin always got the short end of territory when it came to drawing state lines. The state line between Illinois and Wisconsin, which at one time was from the south end of Lake Michigan westward to the Mississippi River and that, would have put Chicago in Wisconsin. Maybe that was a good thing it got put in Illinois.

How about the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, should that not have been part of Wisconsin?

And, the Mississippi River is the dividing line of every state that it flows through, except when it comes to dividing Wisconsin and Minnesota. Should not all the land east of the Mississippi River be in Wisconsin?

If all that land and people were in Wisconsin, how many Congress representatives would Wisconsin have? It would be a great big state, a funny looking state, but a great big state. I should be talking about what should be instead of what has been, because I can’t change a thing.

Thanks for reading!     ~Carlton