- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 10,320
- Reaction score
- 2,116
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
That clause gives Congress the POWER to exercise exclusive legislation over a district. It doesn't specify where the district is located, nor does it mandate that Congress exercise this power at all.
DC is no longer part of Maryland; the original reason it was surrendered to the federal government is irrelevant. This clause doesn't matter because DC is not located "within the jurisdiction of any other state."
But as that district has been created and it is currently under the authority of Congress, there is no territorial legislature to draft a Constitution for the territory to propose for statehood.
I would like to see a judicial opinion on this, but I don't think it would fly. There is still some Constitutional controversy over the ceding of Alexandria county back to the state of Virginia.
I disagree. The reason is very important. These two clauses combined make a legal argument for DC statehood without Constitutional amendment tenuous at best.
Again, a Supreme Court opinion would be nice, but we aren't going to get one and there is no DC territorial legislature to push for it, either.
We have an elected council and an elected mayor?
If there is, it's merely an academic point and no one seriously questions it. I've lived here for a few years and I've never heard anything about it.
DC has a legislature, just like every state or protostate has. The only things that are required for DC (or any other protostate) is for it to create a constitution with a republican form of government, petition the federal government for statehood, and an act of Congress.
DC receives far more. It isn't a self sufficient city by any means. Maryland didn't want it because of the cost. I think it's best staying as a territory of the federal government subject to Congress. It's the federal city home to congressional buildings, the capitol, and many other important federal agencies. It's better off being run and funded by the federal government and not turned into an independent state that now houses the branches of the federal government.The federal government could still retain control over the National Mall, and turn the rest of the District over to the people. Many of the federal agencies are in suburban Maryland or Virginia anyway, so federal funds are already going toward specific states to fund the operations of the federal government. And let's not even get into all the military bases that are located around the country, thus funding the economies of those various states.
Besides, the federal government is already sending a certain amount of money to this part of the country, regardless of whether you call it a "state" or a "district" or whatever else. So if it's a question of fairness it isn't like the other 50 states would suddenly be worse off.
So how will DC be paid for as a state? As I said, the main reason is the sheer cost of the city. DC should not become a state. It's best for the country to have it remain as a federal territory under the jurisdiction of Congress. I think it's important that Congress keep ultimate power over DC and not have it turn into an independent state run by an independent state government. Maryland gave up its land to the federal government to create a federal district, not to create a new state.Maryland doesn't want DC back, which is why DC should become a state. It's ridiculous that we have no representation in Congress despite the fact that we have MORE at stake in congressional decisions than any state does, since Congress can and does veto the actions of our city council for their own political whims.
DC receives far more. It isn't a self sufficient city by any means. Maryland didn't want it because of the cost. I think it's best staying as a territory of the federal government subject to Congress.
It's the federal city home to congressional buildings, the capitol, and many other important federal agencies. It's better off being run and funded by the federal government and not turned into an independent state that now houses the branches of the federal government.
Maryland gave up its land to the federal government to create a federal district, not to create a new state.
The federal government could still retain control over the National Mall, and turn the rest of the District over to the people. Many of the federal agencies are in suburban Maryland or Virginia anyway, so federal funds are already going toward specific states to fund the operations of the federal government. And let's not even get into all the military bases that are located around the country, thus funding the economies of those various states.
Besides, the federal government is already sending a certain amount of money to this part of the country, regardless of whether you call it a "state" or a "district" or whatever else. So if it's a question of fairness it isn't like the other 50 states would suddenly be worse off.
Maryland doesn't want DC back, which is why DC should become a state. It's ridiculous that we have no representation in Congress despite the fact that we have MORE at stake in congressional decisions than any state does, since Congress can and does veto the actions of our city council for their own political whims.
The reasons that Maryland gave up land 200 years ago are not relevant to whether the people of DC should have a representative democracy today. Especially since Maryland doesn't want it back.
Actually, I believe it is quite relevant. Besides, no one is forcing people to live in Washington, D.C. If they want representation, they can move to Maryland or Virginia.
I'd also like to point out that we have the best license plate motto in America. :mrgreen:
DC is property of the federal government. The land that is now Washington DC was given by Maryland to the federal government to create the capitol city. Washington DC also consumes an extreme amount of federal funds, making it a state and then having the feds fund it like it does simply because the state holds the capitol wouldn't be very fair to the other states. The only way I think DC should ever become a "state" would be to give it back to Maryland. The feds actually tried this and Maryland declined because DC would cost too much in state funds. I think it's best that DC remain a federal district and not a state.
I suspect lots of residents of DC aren't paying much in the way of federal taxes either
The residents of DC are able to vote for president like any state...we just don't have any representation in Congress (aside from a non-voting delegate).
I don't think the U.S. will ever add another state. Solely because it would mess up the balance of red states and blue states in the Senate.
I agree. I think in order to add one state they'd have to add two, unless said state had a balanced political view.
Do you agree that residents of DC should at least have a voting member of Congress instead of a non-voting member like Eleanor Holmes Norton?
Whether or not people agree that DC should become a state, I believe that they should AT LEAST have a voting member in Congress.
In a representative democracy we shouldn't NEED to move elsewhere to exercise our rights to representation.
Seems to me that you don't have any right to representation. :shrug:
How about we abolish all the other states and make DC the sole state with a republican form of government. Then if any of YOU want to be represented, you can pick up and move here.
I don't really have a major problem with them having a voting member in congress, but allowing that would open the door for other territories of the US like Puerto Rico and Guam having representation in Congress.
Thinking about it, DC has a bigger population than Wyoming, so why not let it be a state?
Guam and Puerto Rico can vote to become states or independent at any time. DC, does not have this luxury.
Because it is district that was part of the State of Maryland specifically ceded to the federal government to be the national capital of the country. Wyoming was a territory carved out of the Louisiana Purchase which was acquired via Federal Treaty. Big difference...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?