kenderstest

"In 1871, nearly 100 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the District had its first democratically elected government. It was organized like a territorial government and consisted of a governor, a bicameral legislature with an appointed 11-member Upper House, and an elected 22-member Lower House. This government was notoriously corrupt and wasteful."


This is a little known issue "outside the beltway" as they say, and one I was unaware of until last night, but I feel that this needs some light shed on it.

The city of Washington was first incorporated in 1791 on the northern shore of the Potomac River near Georgetown, Maryland, and across the river from Alexandria, Virginia. The "Federal District," or the "District of Columbia" as it came to be called, consisted of pieces of land that were ceded by Maryland and Virginia to be used as the seat of the Federal Government.

Prior to the establishment of the District of Columbia in December 1800, residents of the newly founded city of Washington, and the existent cities of Georgetown and Alexandria, continued to vote for federal congressional representatives as citizens of either Maryland or Virginia.

As you can see what is now D.C. was once part of Maryland and Virginia.

When Congress arrived to take up residence in the new capital city in 1801, they passed the Organic Acts of 1801, which first disenfranchised the people living in the District of Columbia. The Act no longer permitted residents of the District of Columbia to continue to vote in the states from which the District had been created.

Now there is a reason why Congress took this action.

The Framers of the Constitution perceived that mischief could occur if the meeting place of the new federal government were in the control of, and subject to the vicissitudes of, local and/or state politics. So they provided in Article I, Section 8, that "The Congress shall have power – To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cessation of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States...."

As one can see, our Founding Fathers were wise, and realized that a city government in control of laws of the Capital could create "mischief", so they wrote in a clause that gave the federal government control of the District that the Capital would be in, as at the time of the writing the new capital had not been chosen.

They are working on a solution however, and legislation is in the works regarding this problem right now.

"On May 3, 2005, Representative Tom Davis [R-Virginia] introduced The DC Fairness in Representation Act (H.R. 2043) in the U.S. House with 12 Republican and Democrat co-sponsors." Here is the source.

Personally I think that "retrocession" should be the order of the day, as the call for a new state seems rather extreme.

A personal objection I have is a flag with 51 stars. I know I know, it is a personal quirk of mine, but it is a quirk I really like, this penchant for certain things to be in even numbers, but it is still a personal objection.

One of the valid (I believe) arguments I do have against statehood for D.C. is a new influx of federal dollarrs goint to D.C. for schools, policing, healthcare and other typical federal expenditures to the states.

On one side of this argument is that D.C. does have a high crime rate, but it has been falling the last few years, however it is embarrassingly high for the Capital of The Greatest Nation on the planet. (My patriotism is showing isn't it?)

D.C. also needs a hospital it seems, and it is well known that their schools are among the worst in America.

However making D.C. a state would pump in federal dollars by the boatload for what amounts to a city of just over half a million people, and I foresee that an influx of cash like that would bring up the schools and increase the police force, thereby raising property values. People that own homes there would of course have cause for celebration, however since D.C. itself is mostly a lower income black urban population, the percentage of renters is high, and with increased property values rents rise, thereby forcing out many of todays residents, and the calls of racism that would arise from D.C. being a state that "chases out the black folk" would be deafening.

I see that leading to calls for new programs to help the poor "disenfranchised" residents of D.C. stay there simply to avoid the appearence of racism in this stupidly PC world.

Programs such as rent control, something I am against as it stinks of socialism and takes away the freedom of property owners to profit from their investments.

I believe that the course to follow here is to look way outside the box to innovative solutions, such as giving the residents of D.C. the right to vote for their representatives in government back through the states they historically belonged to while keeping the control of D.C. itself under the watchful eye of Congress. Thta has been suggested.

Some people believe that there is another possible solution to the disenfranchisement of District residents from having voting representation in the U.S. Congress. Congress could pass legislation that would give District of Columbia residents the right to vote in the elections for Maryland's two U.S. Senators and could combine DC's population with Maryland's for the purposes of apportioning U.S. House of Representative seats. Under this solution, DC would not be reunited (or retroceded) back to Maryland, but District residents would share congressional representatives with the state of Maryland. If DC residents were counted with Maryland residents in the U.S. Census taken every ten years, Maryland would likely gain an additional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Maryland's congressional districts would then be drawn to include DC and its voters. Although Congress would retain exclusive legislative authority over the District, its residents would have full congressional voting representation in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House as if they were residents of Maryland.

Why this is not being discussed more is beyond me, except to say that the documentary I saw seems to bring up race a lot and outright says that America doesn't seem to be ready for a "minority state". It also brings up territories such as Puerto Rico and America Samoa as examples of that.

Of course the arguments fly aout D.C. becoming a state and having their two senators may lead to major cities vying for the same thing, and proponents of D.C.s statehood remind us that other US cities do have representation in the federal government, however I could see, for example, San Francisco demanding statehood rights under the very valid argument that most of the rest of California considers them a bunch of far left socialist environmental wackos. However since states do control their own borders and territory,

"See Article IV, Section 3, "...nor shall 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."

I really don't see that happening no matter how much S.F. may wish it were the idea to occur to them, if it hasn't already that is.

This is an issue that needs more light shed on it, as right now the residents of D.C. are indeed being taxed without respresentation.

This is one of the major sticking points that led to our Revolution, and the fact that it continues is simply not right.

For more indepth analysis go here.

Crossposted at The Wide Awakes