I've always thought D.C. statehood would require a constitutional amendment.

[Jeebo]

I'm all for D.C. statehood, but wouldn't it be necessary first to amend the constitution to allow it? Isn't the District of Columbia set aside by the constitution as a legislative/executive/judicial district for the national federal government and therefore it can't be a state? Somebody who's smarter than I am, please explain this for me.

-- Ron

[unblock]

1. two scenarios: one yes; the other, no.

scenario one: making d.c. as it is now in its entirety would require a constitutional amendment.

scenario two: shrink the federal district down to just the core government buildings (white house, congress, etc.) and make that the official capital; that frees up the rest of what is now d.c. (the residential and commercial part) to be a state by simple majority vote in both houses and biden's signature. no constitutional amendment required.

[exboyfil]

8. Isn't the precedent to give it back to Maryland

That is what happened to the Virginia portion of DC.

I understand the political reasons for wanting to make it another state given its population (700K) is larger than two current states. Also apparently Maryland doesn't want it back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession#:~:text=The%20portion%20west%20of%20the,that%20came%20with%20district%20citizenship%2C

[unblock]

13. D.c. and Maryland don't want each other LOL

[SheltieLover]

12. AWESOME!!!!

Ty!

[JHB]

2. No, but it does require redefinition of what constitutes the federal district

The extra-state federal district can be reduced to the immediate area within a few blocks of the Mall where most of the Federal business takes place, leaving the wider city and suburbs to finally be fully represented and govern themselves without congressional interference.

[elleng]

3. Just found this, dated April 2016.

*Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the document reads, “The Congress shall have Power To …exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States."

James Madison outlined the reasoning behind this provision in Federalist 43, calling the arrangement an “indispensable necessity.” He wrote, “The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it… Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.”

In other words, the founders worried that if the capital were to be a state, the members of the government would be unduly beholden to it. Madison envisioned that voting members of a D.C. state would be able to ‘insult’ or ‘interrupt’ the proceedings of government to get their way, simply by virtue of physical proximity to the halls of power.

When the capital was officially moved to D.C., residents lost voting representation in Congress and the Electoral College, as well as a say in Constitutional Amendments and the right to home rule. Members of the district won a victory in 1961 with the passage of the 23rd amendment to the Constitution, which granted them votes in the electoral college.

To this day, D.C. does not have voting representation in Congress, and the federal government maintains jurisdiction over the city. For proponents of D.C. statehood like Mayor Muriel Bowser, there is still a long way to go.'

https://time.com/4296175/washington-dc-statehood-history/

[lagomorph777]

4. Congress can shrink the Federal District to any size less than 10 miles square.

Last edited Thu Jan 28, 2021, 03:52 PM - Edit history (1)

It could easily be shrunk to include only the actual seats of Government (Capitol, White House, Supreme Court, and some associated office buildings). Probably would only need to include about 10% of the District's land area. The remaining 90% would be fully eligible for statehood, under the normal rules.

[elleng]

6. Yes, and should do.

I used to live and work there, so might (if as in old days) work in the FEDERAL district, live in the State, and have VOTING representation!

P.S. When on a business trip (for my Federal agency) to Washington STATE, person checking me into motel didn't believe that people LIVED in Washington DC! I persuaded her otherwise.

[Hokie]

5. The answer is not clear

It has been discussed here in several threads. The current bill would reduce the federal enclave to a couple of square miles including White House, the US Capitol and most other federal buildings. The rest of DC would become a state. Some think that would meet what's in the Constitution.

Here is an article from another thread:

https://statehood.dc.gov/page/why-statehood-dc

There is a precedent for shrinking the District. Congress has the authority to redefine the borders of the federal district and shrink its size, as it did in 1846, when the portion west of the Potomac was returned to Virginia (now Arlington and Alexandria Counties.)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Here's an explanation:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/08/washington-dc-statehood-faq/

[elleng]

10. Thanks.

' A 2019 Gallup poll found that nearly two-thirds of Americans opposed D.C. statehood. Last year, statehood advocates launched a campaign to introduce the nation to everyday residents of their country’s capital, arguing that perhaps the nation doesn’t know enough about the people who live in the District to have an informed position about making it a state.'

[frazzled]

9. It's worth pointing out that

the population of a DC state (692,683 ) would be larger than that of two other current states: Vermont (600,412) and Wyoming (578,759).

[Dem4Life1102]

11. D.C. is not in the constitution

[East_Bay_Man77]

16. But D.C. id in the constitution in a way

"D.C. is not in the constitution" - Well, yes and no - Perhaps not specifically just exactly as it exists in its present form that it is today, but the instructions (or the "recipe", if you will) for creating it were in the Constitution. However, as has been discussed previously, there do seem to be ways to make an "end-run" around objections based on "constitutionality", although I'm not sure just how easily that will be accomplished.

[Dem4Life1102]

17. Where?

Here’s a link to the constitution https://bri-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/Branded-Constitution.pdf
Please point out exactly where it’s in the constitution.

[Bmoboy]

14. small tax base

One challenge would be the preponderance of federal property (outside the newly delineated "federal district&quot and other properties not subject to DC taxes.

Navy Yard, Fort McNair, Joint Base Andrews - Bolling, Naval Observatory, lots of embassies, hospitals, universities, churches, and federal offices outside the central area.

That may be one reason why Maryland is not interested in absorbing DC.

[Bonn1997]

15. SC might strike down DC statehood legislation for a BS reason