Home Statehood Rep. Peter W. Rodino, Jr. on the Legality of D.C. Statehood
Oct 04
Tuesday
Free DC! - Statehood Now!
Rep. Peter W. Rodino, Jr. on the Legality of D.C. Statehood E-mail

STATEMENT OF PETER W. RODINO, JR.

CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEEON THE JUDICIARY

REGARDING DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATEHOOD

(H.R. 325)

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I enthusiastically accepted your invitation to speak on the subject of admission of the District to the Union as the 51st state, "New Columbia". I wanted to appear because the failure of this Congress to grant full citizenship to the residents of the District is a gross inequity and in conflict with the fundamental precepts of our democracy which are the right to vote and to self-determination.

The Committee has asked me to address several points of law which do not necessarily rise to a constitutional level, but will no doubt be raised as possible impediments to any change in the District's status. My responses to those points are set forth in a supplemental statement which I ask be made a part of the Committee's record. I would like to focus my remarks today on what I believe is the compelling case for District statehood.

This Committee is well aware that the special status of the District has led a number of legal scholars to conclude that there are three ways to grant voting representation to District residents: retrocession, constitutional amendment, or statehood.

You will recall, the Committee on the Judiciary succeeded in bringing H.J. Res. 554 to the states for ratification in 1978. It is with great pride that I note that the state legislature of New Jersey was the first to ratify this amendment (September 11, 1978). Unfortunately, only 15 other states had demonstrated the same wisdom by the end of the seven-year ratification period demanded by the amendment.

The proposed amendment was, nonetheless, a modest measure in that it would not have resulted in full self-determination for District residents. Under the proposal, the District would at last, have had its full complement of voting representation in both Houses, although Congress would have continued exclusive control over the city, subject to the limited "Home Rule" it currently enjoys.

The irony confronting our great democracy is that its foundation predicate - the electoral participation of its citizenry - was jealously withheld from the overwhelming majority of its citizens until the 20th century.  For example, until relatively recently, the fundamental right to vote was denied on the basis of race and sex; furthermore, various procedural devices, such as the poll tax and age have been used to deny the franchise as well.

Though various constitutional and statutory provisions, Congress has removed these arbitrary barriers to the franchise for all citizens.  Yet, those residing in the nation's capital face a unique impediment; their residency here means they are denied the self-determination enjoyed by all other Americans.

During Congressional debate on H.J. Res. 554 in 1978, we learned that the United States and Brazil were the only nations in the world, with popularly elected national legislatures, to deny full voting representation in its legislature to the citizens of its capital city. Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out during this subcommittee's 1985 hearings on statehood for the District, the United States now has the dubious distinction as the only nation denying such representation. On May 8, 1985, the Congress of Brazil unanimously adopted a constitutional amendment which, among other things, included a provision of representation for citizens of the capital city in their national congress.

Mr. Chairman, you and I have dedicated our public and private lives to assuring that the guarantees of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are enjoyed by all citizens of these United States. I am confident the Constitution does not prohibit these guarantees to citizens residing in the District of Columbia. Nor does it require that the District follow anything other than the ordinary procedures for effectuating statehood. I believe the Constitution demands that full self-determination be extended to these citizens now.

This nation will commemorate the bicentennial of the Constitution in 1987. I join with you, Mr. Chairman, in the reaffirmation of that great document. What better celebration than the commitment of this Congress to extend self-determination to all of its citizens at last.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF PETER W. RODINO, JR.

CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEEON THE JUDICIARY

 

REGARDING DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATEHOOD

(H.R. 325)

 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I enthusiastically accepted your invitation to speak on the subject of admission of the District to the Union as the 51st state, "New Columbia". I wanted to appear because the failure of this Congress to grant full citizenship to the residents of the District is a gross inequity and in conflict with the fundamental precepts of our democracy which are the right to vote and to self-determination.

The Committee has asked me to address several points of law which do not necessarily rise to a constitutional level, but will no doubt be raised as possible impediments to any change in the District's status. My responses to those points are set forth in a supplemental statement which I ask be made a part of the Committee's record. I would like to focus my remarks today on what I believe is the compelling case for District statehood.

This Committee is well aware that the special status of the District has led a number of legal scholars to conclude that there are three ways to grant voting representation to District residents: retrocession, constitutional amendment, or statehood.

You will recall, the Committee on the Judiciary succeeded in bringing H.J. Res. 554 to the states for ratification in 1978. It is with great pride that I note that the state legislature of New Jersey was the first to ratify this amendment (September 11, 1978). Unfortunately, only 15 other states had demonstrated the same wisdom by the end of the seven-year ratification period demanded by the amendment.

The proposed amendment was, nonetheless, a modest measure in that it would not have resulted in full self-determination for District residents. Under the proposal, the District would at last, have had its full complement of voting representation in both Houses, although Congress would have continued exclusive control over the city, subject to the limited "Home Rule" it currently enjoys.

The irony confronting our great democracy is that its foundation predicate - the electoral participation of its citizenry - was jealously withheld from the overwhelming majority of its citizens until the 20th century.  For example, until relatively recently, the fundamental right to vote was denied on the basis of race and sex; furthermore, various procedural devices, such as the poll tax and age have been used to deny the franchise as well.

Though various constitutional and statutory provisions, Congress has removed these arbitrary barriers to the franchise for all citizens.  Yet, those residing in the nation's capital face a unique impediment; their residency here means they are denied the self-determination enjoyed by all other Americans.

During Congressional debate on H.J. Res. 554 in 1978, we learned that the United States and Brazil were the only nations in the world, with popularly elected national legislatures, to deny full voting representation in its legislature to the citizens of its capital city. Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out during this subcommittee's 1985 hearings on statehood for the District, the United States now has the dubious distinction as the only nation denying such representation. On May 8, 1985, the Congress of Brazil unanimously adopted a constitutional amendment which, among other things, included a provision of representation for citizens of the capital city in their national congress.

Mr. Chairman, you and I have dedicated our public and private lives to assuring that the guarantees of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are enjoyed by all citizens of these United States. I am confident the Constitution does not prohibit these guarantees to citizens residing in the District of Columbia. Nor does it require that the District follow anything other than the ordinary procedures for effectuating statehood. I believe the Constitution demands that full self-determination be extended to these citizens now.

This nation will commemorate the bicentennial of the Constitution in 1987. I join with you, Mr. Chairman, in the reaffirmation of that great document. What better celebration than the commitment of this Congress to extend self-determination to all of its citizens at last.

______________________________________________________________________________________

(Bolding added)

Peter W. Rodino, Jr.

Supplemental Statement

(H.R. 325)

Mr. Chairman, You have asked me to address a number of legal issues which may be raised during debate on proposed legislation making the District of Columbia the 51st state. As I have noted earlier, the proposal embodied in H.R. 325 - to create a state out of the nonfederal land in the District of Columbia - is the preferred approach to guarantee full self-determination for the citizens of Washington, D.C.

A narrow reading of the various constitutional provisions which address voting representation in the House and Senate seem to limit such representation to the several states of the United States. Article I, Section 2, Clause 1, states, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." Amendment 17 states in pertinent part, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote." Similar provisions are found at Article I, Section 2, Clauses 2 through 4; Article I, Section 3, Clauses 1 through 3; Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: and Article V. Granting statehood to the District represents the legislative vehicle most consistent with these provisions of the Constitution.

There seems to be no relevant constitutional provision which expressly prohibits the Congress from creating a state out of parts of the District. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, which establishes the seat of government of the United States, requires that the seat of government shall not exceed ten miles square. Indeed, the District of Columbia was reduced from a perfect ten miles square in 1846 to its current size of 67 square miles when Virginia petitioned Congress to have its land retroceded. Thus, there is a ceiling but no floor on the size of the seat of government.

Moreover, according to the terms of cession, the District was "to be forever ceded and relinquished to the Congress and government of the United States, in full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction. Taken together with the plenary power of Congress to dispose of Federal property pursuant to Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, and to admit new sates under Clause 1 of Article IV, Section 3, it seems clear that Congress possesses the requisite authority to establish statehood for the District by statute.

Mr. Chairman, I now turn to the several issues you invited me to address:

The first issue is whether the question of Statehood for the District of Columbia requires ratification by the States?

The authority for admitting new states into the union is vested solely in the Congress of the United States by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution which states:

"New States maybe admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

No limitations are placed upon the powers of Congress to admit new States except as provided in this clause. There is no clause in the Constitution which expressly prohibits the Congress from creating a State out of parts of the District of Columbia.

The Article does not set forth any specific procedures for admission, and over the years, new states have been admitted through a variety of means. Each admission has been accomplished by a simple majority vote in each House.

There has indeed been a great deal of flexibility in the admission of the states. Most have petitioned Congress as territories. In response to those petitions, Congress has passed "enabling acts" allowing the territory to draft a constitution and, upon submission of the constitution to Congress, an act of admission was passed. Seventeen states have gained admission without enabling acts, and four states (Kentucky, Maine, Vermont [and West Virginia] the District of Columbia had been parts of other states prior to admission.

It may be argued that the exclusive congressional power over the District, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, is so absolute and unconditional as to empower Congress to create out of the District any form of government it chooses, even a State government. Over the years, Congress has organized a variety of governments for the District of Columbia, including the current "Home Rule" government. In fact, in 1871, Congress established a "Territorial Government" in the District, with a Governor and bicameral legislature. That government, like many before and after it, was subsequently abolished by Congress.

That Congress can affect the status of the District of Columbia by statute, notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution, is further supported by a series of Supreme Court decisions. In Loughborough vs. Blake, a case decided in 1820, the Court rules that Congress could directly tax D.C. residents in spite of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution which provides that direct taxes are to be apportioned "among the several states which may be included in this union." In 1889, the Court upheld the authority of the Congress to exercise commerce power to regulate business across District borders, despite Constitutional language found at Article I, Section 8, which empowers Congress to regulate commerce "among the several states." Similarly, in [1940 in National Mut. Ins. Co. vs. Tidewater Transfer Co., Inc., the Court upheld a law granting access in] the District under diversity jurisdiction in federal courts along with the states. And in a 1953 case, Columbia vs. John R. Thompson Co., the Court held that Congress, by statute, could delegate to the District of Columbia the power to enact local legislation without violating the Constitution.

A second issue you asked me to address is closely related to the first. Does the federal government or will the State of New Columbia owe any obligation to Maryland - the state from which these lands were ceded? More specifically, is Maryland's consent required before statehood can be effected?

The plain language of all of the instruments of conveyance from Maryland to the federal government were not conditional' the land was transferred in free simple absolute. Thus, Congress is free to dispose of the land as it sees fit. A Massachusetts case provides some guidance on this matter. In Selectmen of the Town of Nahant vs. United States, decided by a federal court in 1968, the town sought retrocession of land transferred to the United States because the federal government discontinued using the land as originally intended. The Court rules that the town's claim was baseless absent reversionary language in the instrument of conveyance.

It follows that if Maryland has no claim to the land, its consent is not required for District statehood and the Article IV, Section 3 requirements are not triggered.

In the Act of the State of Maryland of December 19, 1791, the General Assembly ratified the cession and fixed the boundaries of the area to be ceded by providing in Clause 2 of that act:

"That all that part of the said territory called Columbia which lies within the limits of this State shall be, and the same is hereby, acknowledged to be forever ceded and relinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States, and full and absolute right, and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil as of persons residing or to reside thereon, pursuant to the tenor and effect of the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution of Government of the United States." (Emphasis supplied)

Maryland yielded all the political jurisdiction over the ceded lands to the United States, and the federal government accepted this unconditional grant of sovereignty, without qualification.

The third issue related to the 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. What will become of it if the District achieves statehood? The question is whether repeal of the 23rd Amendment is required prior to admission of the District as a State. I believe a repeal is not required.

The 23rd Amendment extended the franchise to the people of the District for purposes of voting for the President and Vice-President. The Amendment states in relevant part:

"The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice-President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State; ...."

In the first instance, the State of New Columbia would no longer be the "seat of Government." and the amendment would have no application to it. Furthermore, the number of residents remaining in the seat of Government would likely be so insubstantial that the Amendment could not be read to give them electoral votes for the President and Vice-President. In short, the Amendment would be considered moot.

The remaining issues which you asked me to address can be combined. To wit, can the Congress impose limitations on the District as a condition for admission as a state, and can Congress rewrite the proposed Constitution submitted by the District? In the past, Congress has imposed conditions prior to the admission of certain states. For example, Congress prohibited recall elections for judges as a condition precedent to statehood for Arizona. Oklahoma was admitted to the Union by Congress on the condition that the location of the state capital be fixed at a place certain for a specified period of time. And Congress admitted Louisiana as a state on the condition that religious liberties be guaranteed. But while conditions may be imposed as a prerequisite to statehood, the lasting effect of such conditions really depends on whether they violate the "equal footing" doctrine.

This doctrine was first articulated in the Northwest Ordinance of 1887. Although the Framers elected not to incorporate the doctrine into the U.S. Constitution, the principal has for many years been a part of American Constitutional law. In Permoli vs. Municipality No. 1, an 1845 Supreme Court decision, the Court stated,

"All Congress intended was to declare in advance, to the people of the territory, the fundamental principles their constitution should contain; this was every way proper under the circumstances: .... Having accepted the constitution and admitted the state "on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever," in express terms, by the Act of 1812, Congress was concluded from assuming that the ... (conditions) had not been complied with ...."

In 1911, the Supreme Court, in Coyle vs. Oklahoma, struck down the condition which had been imposed by Congress on the location of Oklahoma's capital. In Reynolds vs. Sims, a 1964 Supreme Court case, the Court ruled that determining the size of its legislative body is a matter within the discretion of a state.

The Court has however upheld a limit on the right of a state to tax federal land, Stearns vs. Minnesota, a case decided in 1900. In matters clearly within the domain of the United States, e.g., Indians as wards of the United States, the Court has said congressionally imposed conditions are not violative of this doctrine. Thus, so long as the Congress does not impose conditions that are unique to a particular state and that are not continuing in nature, the requirement that each state be admitted on an equal status should be satisfied.

Imposing conditions prior to admission of a state is tantamount to writing, at least in part, that state's constitution. In Coyle and Permoli, the Court reasoned that Congress could inject itself into the content of a state's constitution. Whether a state is forever bound by Congress' rewrite depends first upon acceptance by the people of that state and ultimately upon an interpretation of the "equal footing" doctrine.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, there is no clause in the Constitution which expressly prohibits Congress from erecting a state out of the nonfederal part of the District of Columbia. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, Congress exercises "exclusive" authority over the District. If the authority is exclusive, Congress can do with the District what it wishes, including creating a state out of it. If it cannot create a state out of the District, the authority must be less than exclusive, an interpretation which runs against the plain meaning of the "exclusive" power clause.

 
Home Statehood Rep. Peter W. Rodino, Jr. on the Legality of D.C. Statehood

Profile Information

Application afterLoad: 0.000 seconds, 0.29 MB
Application afterInitialise: 0.070 seconds, 1.36 MB
Application afterRoute: 0.077 seconds, 2.04 MB
Application afterDispatch: 0.092 seconds, 2.54 MB
Application afterRender: 0.157 seconds, 2.96 MB

Memory Usage

3140432

16 queries logged

  1. SELECT *
      FROM jos_session
      WHERE session_id = '2oit3fcasgj5dn02rvl7opick7'
  2. DELETE
      FROM jos_session
      WHERE ( TIME < '1664914184' )
  3. SELECT *
      FROM jos_session
      WHERE session_id = '2oit3fcasgj5dn02rvl7opick7'
  4. INSERT INTO `jos_session` ( `session_id`,`time`,`username`,`gid`,`guest`,`client_id` )
      VALUES ( '2oit3fcasgj5dn02rvl7opick7','1664916584','','0','1','0' )
  5. SELECT *
      FROM jos_components
      WHERE parent = 0
  6. SELECT folder AS TYPE, element AS name, params
      FROM jos_plugins
      WHERE published >= 1
      AND access <= 0
      ORDER BY ordering
  7. SELECT *
      FROM jos_migration_backlinks
      WHERE url LIKE 'option=com\_content&view=article&id=348:statement-of-peter-w-rodino-jr-regarding-dc-statehood&catid=54:statehood&Itemid=113%' OR sefurl LIKE 'option=com\_content&view=article&id=348:statement-of-peter-w-rodino-jr-regarding-dc-statehood&catid=54:statehood&Itemid=113%'
  8. SELECT *
      FROM jos_migration_backlinks
      WHERE url LIKE 'index.php?option=com\_content&view=article&id=348:statement-of-peter-w-rodino-jr-regarding-dc-statehood&catid=54:statehood&Itemid=113%' OR sefurl LIKE 'index.php?option=com\_content&view=article&id=348:statement-of-peter-w-rodino-jr-regarding-dc-statehood&catid=54:statehood&Itemid=113%'
  9. SELECT m.*, c.`option` AS component
      FROM jos_menu AS m
      LEFT JOIN jos_components AS c
      ON m.componentid = c.id
      WHERE m.published = 1
      ORDER BY m.sublevel, m.parent, m.ordering
  10. SELECT template
      FROM jos_templates_menu
      WHERE client_id = 0
      AND (menuid = 0 OR menuid = 113)
      ORDER BY menuid DESC
      LIMIT 0, 1
  11. SELECT a.*, u.name AS author, u.usertype, cc.title AS category, s.title AS SECTION, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(a.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", a.id, a.alias) ELSE a.id END AS slug, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(cc.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", cc.id, cc.alias) ELSE cc.id END AS catslug, g.name AS groups, s.published AS sec_pub, cc.published AS cat_pub, s.access AS sec_access, cc.access AS cat_access  
      FROM jos_content AS a
      LEFT JOIN jos_categories AS cc
      ON cc.id = a.catid
      LEFT JOIN jos_sections AS s
      ON s.id = cc.SECTION
      AND s.scope = "content"
      LEFT JOIN jos_users AS u
      ON u.id = a.created_by
      LEFT JOIN jos_groups AS g
      ON a.access = g.id
      WHERE a.id = 348
      AND (  ( a.created_by = 0 )    OR  ( a.state = 1
      AND ( a.publish_up = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_up <= '2022-10-04 20:49:44' )
      AND ( a.publish_down = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_down >= '2022-10-04 20:49:44' )   )    OR  ( a.state = -1 )  )
  12. UPDATE jos_content
      SET hits = ( hits + 1 )
      WHERE id='348'
  13. SELECT a.id, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(a.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", a.id, a.alias) ELSE a.id END AS slug, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(cc.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", cc.id, cc.alias) ELSE cc.id END AS catslug
      FROM jos_content AS a
      LEFT JOIN jos_categories AS cc
      ON cc.id = a.catid
      WHERE a.catid = 54
      AND a.state = 1
      AND a.access <= 0
      AND ( a.state = 1 OR a.state = -1 )
      AND ( publish_up = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR publish_up <= '2022-10-04 20:49:44' )
      AND ( publish_down = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR publish_down >= '2022-10-04 20:49:44' )
      ORDER BY a.ordering
  14. SELECT id, title, module, POSITION, content, showtitle, control, params
      FROM jos_modules AS m
      LEFT JOIN jos_modules_menu AS mm
      ON mm.moduleid = m.id
      WHERE m.published = 1
      AND m.access <= 0
      AND m.client_id = 0
      AND ( mm.menuid = 113 OR mm.menuid = 0 )
      ORDER BY POSITION, ordering
  15. SELECT a.*, cc.title AS ctitle, s.title AS stitle,  CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(a.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", a.id, a.alias) ELSE a.id END AS slug, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(cc.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", cc.id, cc.alias) ELSE cc.id END AS catslug
     
      FROM jos_content AS a
     
      INNER JOIN jos_categories AS cc
      ON cc.id = a.catid
     
      INNER JOIN jos_sections AS s
      ON s.id = a.sectionid
     
      WHERE ( a.state = '1'
      AND a.checked_out = '0' )
     
      AND ( a.publish_up = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_up <= '2022-10-04 20:49:44' )
     
      AND ( a.publish_down = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_down >= '2022-10-04 20:49:44' )
     
      AND a.access <= 0
      AND cc.access <= 0
      AND s.access <= 0
     
      AND ( a.catid IN (39,42) )
     
      ORDER BY a.created DESC
      LIMIT 0,5
  16. SELECT a.*, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(a.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", a.id, a.alias) ELSE a.id END AS slug, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(cc.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", cc.id, cc.alias) ELSE cc.id END AS catslug
      FROM jos_content AS a
      INNER JOIN jos_categories AS cc
      ON cc.id = a.catid
      INNER JOIN jos_sections AS s
      ON s.id = a.sectionid
      WHERE a.state = 1  
      AND a.access <= 0
      AND cc.access <= 0
      AND s.access <= 0
      AND (a.publish_up = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_up <= '2022-10-04 20:49:44' )  
      AND (a.publish_down = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_down >= '2022-10-04 20:49:44' )
      AND cc.id = 82
      AND cc.SECTION = s.id
      AND cc.published = 1
      AND s.published = 1
      ORDER BY a.ordering
      LIMIT 0, 5

0 legacy queries logged

    Language Files Loaded

    Untranslated Strings Diagnostic

    None

    Untranslated Strings Designer

    None
    Smok Nord 4 Poppers Türkiye bahis siteleri slot siteleri canlı casino siteleri İstanbul VIP Taksi Kiralama Şehirler arası nakliyat Kacak bahis sitesi Şehirlerarası evden eve nakliyat instagram takipçi bedavasohbetodalari.site instagram takipçi Evden eve nakliyat Türkiye'den Almanya'ya evden eve nakliyat Almanya'ya ev taşıma fiyatları Gebze Evden eve nakliyat Kilit taşı istanbul ofis taşıma Depolama istanbul evden eve nakliyat casino siteleri deneme bonusu veren siteler bahis siteleri deneme bonusu slot siteleri güvenilir bahis siteleri gaziantep escort gaziantep escort Deneme Bonusu Betz 1 Deneme bonusu veren siteler Bonus veren bahis siteleri Casino siteleri Freespin Yatırımsız deneme bonusu Freebet veren siteler Çevrimsiz deneme bonusu veren siteler Slot casino Deneme bonusu forum Bahisikayet.com Deneme bonusu Deneme bonusu veren siteler Bahis forum Forum bahis Bahis forumu Banko tahmin Sosyal içerik platformu Deneme Bonus bahisdene.com jetbahis Rexbet hovarda güncel adres mobilbahis güncel adres sekabet.net asyabahis güncel adres maltcasino güncel adres> pinbahis100.com betduman.com olabahis.top سایت شرط بندی shartkade.com لیست سایت های شرط بندی سایت های پیش بینی یک بت شهر پوکر شرط وین شرط برو 1xbet-mobil.com