Washington DC Statehood

[Kasandra]

There are a number of possible resolutions to giving state citizenship to the residents of Washington, DC.  Here's an overview of the issues. All solutions I've seen carve out the area comprising the federal buildings, but not the population of the DC area.
Briefly,

* Make WDC the 51st state
* Give the land back to Maryland or Virginia
* Give WDC semi-state status with voting rights in Congress.  Different proposals have been discussed.

Reasons given to oppose,

* Making it a state would add to the Democratic Party membership in Congress.
* The state would be 3rd smallest by population, adding to the imbalanced influence of small states on Congress and the electoral college
* The federal government would be surrounded by the new state and dependent on it for services and commerce

Yea or nay?

[wmLambert]

Nay. Fed should stay separate from State.

[Kasandra]

Nay. Fed should stay separate from State.

I didn't mean a simple vote.  Why?

[TheDeamon]

There are a number of possible resolutions to giving state citizenship to the residents of Washington, DC.  Here's an overview of the issues. All solutions I've seen carve out the area comprising the federal buildings, but not the population of the DC area.
Briefly,

* Make WDC the 51st state
* Give the land back to Maryland or Virginia
* Give WDC semi-state status with voting rights in Congress.  Different proposals have been discussed.

Reasons given to oppose,

* Making it a state would add to the Democratic Party membership in Congress.
* The state would be 3rd smallest by population, adding to the imbalanced influence of small states on Congress and the electoral college
* The federal government would be surrounded by the new state and dependent on it for services and commerce

Yea or nay?

Give the land back to Maryland would be in keeping with existing precedent. Arlington County, Virginia used to be part of Washington D.C. prior to being ceded back to Virginia by the Federal Government. What remains is the Maryland portion.

But that doesn't resolve the issue of the "Federal reservation" containing the highest echelons of the Federal Government then falling largely under the jurisdiction and control of the state of Maryland. Granted, there are other examples for department branches being headquartered outside of Washington D.C.

I guess another option is the process of returning Washington D.C. to Maryland while the Federal Government begins the process of selecting a new capital selection process, where a new Federal District is constructed from bedrock up at a new location which a new grouping of states have agreed to cede to Federal Control. Only this time "the federal reservation" will not play host to permanent residents so as to avoid the issue in the future. Likewise, all land within that "reservation" will remain property of the Federal Government, private property will not exist in the Federal District 2.0 much like the case in many Military bases across the country.

There may be housing constructed, it may even be "leased" out for third parties to manage and maintain, but only Federal Employees(on "temporary assignments"), Elected Government Officials, and foreign diplomats would be allowed to obtain occupancy.

Edit: Of course dissolution(/reconstitution elsewhere?) of Washington D.C. as a Federal Entity then creates some "interesting" constitutional questions in other ways.

[DonaldD]

What about Puerto Rico? With about 3,000,000 people, it would be the 31st most populous state...

[TheDeamon]

What about Puerto Rico? With about 3,000,000 people, it would be the 31st most populous state...

Puerto Rico is a weird case. Becoming a state means they'd actually lose some federal money they get currently.

Democrats are mixed on adding them because PR has historically been to the left of the Dems(not so sure these days), and have their own major parties which are not the DNC or GOP. But for major candidates, they'd be likely to side Democrat.

But the Democrats won't force them into statehood, and because of the Federal money involved, PR politicals will discourage people from supporting statehood.

The Republican side of it also is a little weird, "obviously" they have no reason to support it, as make things harder for them, but they've historically been supportive of such efforts in the past; although some of that may be due to realizing that PR is unlikely to pursue it.

[Kasandra]

I guess another option is the process of returning Washington D.C. to Maryland while the Federal Government begins the process of selecting a new capital selection process, where a new Federal District is constructed from bedrock up at a new location which a new grouping of states have agreed to cede to Federal Control. Only this time "the federal reservation" will not play host to permanent residents so as to avoid the issue in the future. Likewise, all land within that "reservation" will remain property of the Federal Government, private property will not exist in the Federal District 2.0 much like the case in many Military bases across the country.

That's what the Founders did in creating a "bedrock...federal reservation" in WDC. It is completely impractical and unnecessary to move it from its current location for a host of reasons.  If you don't want to make a new state, we could just make the changes you suggest and the problem would be solved.

[TheDeamon]

I guess another option is the process of returning Washington D.C. to Maryland while the Federal Government begins the process of selecting a new capital selection process, where a new Federal District is constructed from bedrock up at a new location which a new grouping of states have agreed to cede to Federal Control. Only this time "the federal reservation" will not play host to permanent residents so as to avoid the issue in the future. Likewise, all land within that "reservation" will remain property of the Federal Government, private property will not exist in the Federal District 2.0 much like the case in many Military bases across the country.

That's what the Founders did in creating a "bedrock...federal reservation" in WDC. It is completely impractical and unnecessary to move it from its current location for a host of reasons.  If you don't want to make a new state, we could just make the changes you suggest and the problem would be solved.

Uh, now, I was being quite literal about "from bedrock up" or are you somehow unaware of all the bunkers that are known to exist in D.C. as well as the extensive tunnel system that happens to exist there?

Any new national capital that is built anywhere in the world is almost guaranteed to feature all kinds of underground tunnels, bunkers, and other such features.

Besides, if you believe the AGW hysteria, DC is probably going to be largely underwater in 100 years anyway. Best to get started on the move.

[Kasandra]

Besides, if you believe the AGW hysteria, DC is probably going to be largely underwater in 100 years anyway. Best to get started on the move.

The best and maybe only good reason to move it .  Or if you're a Grover Norquist fan, keep it there and "drown it in the bathtub" of AGW reality.

[TheDeamon]

The House has voted to admit Washington D.C. as the 51st state, with a democratic Senate majority coming soon and a Biden presidency as well, it will be interesting to see how the Constitutional challenge of DC statehood plays out. Nullifying the 23rd Amendment without going through the proper ratification process is an "interesting" legal problem.

[DonaldD]

That could be a matter of redefining the borders of the District - possibly to include just the land associated to government buildings and lands of the Capitol and the White House.  Article IV section 3 wouldn't seem to apply since DC is not a state.  The 23rd could till apply, just to a radically smaller DC.

[TheDeamon]

That could be a matter of redefining the borders of the District - possibly to include just the land associated to government buildings and lands of the Capitol and the White House.  Article IV section 3 wouldn't seem to apply since DC is not a state.  The 23rd could till apply, just to a radically smaller DC.

There actually is an interpretation of that article from prior Democratic Administrations that argues "permanent" means exactly that, and while returning the land to Maryland could edge around that issue(as happened with Virginia). The problem with creating a state whose borders exist entirely within the "permanent federal district" runs directly into SCotUS rulings where Statehood is "permanent and non-revocable." As the federal district would arguably be able to revoke statehood at some time in the future.

So again the constitution conflicts with DC Statehood unless they relocate the Federal Capitol District.

There also is the minor Constitutional matter of no territory belonging to a state shall be used to form another state without the consent of said state. The issue is minor in this case as Maryland is Democrat Controlled.