Democrats introduce bill to make Washington, D.C., the 51st state

In that case, I'd suggest identifying an objection and coming up with a counter argument - vs. a response that identifies nothing at all.

 

None of your objections speak to any point worth discussing.

 

Exactly. It's the issue of taxation without representation - which our founders considered tyranny.

It's the fact that any decision that DC makes (from budget to any other law) may be countered by the House. Thus even local taxes, borrowing money for DC projects, etc., comes at the discretion of the House.

It's the fact that the president appoints the top judges for Washington, DC and congress ratifies those selections - obviously not REMOTELY like other states who select their own high court.

And, I've already pointed out why your retrocession idea is an absolute dead end - something you ignored, yet you proposed that solution!!! Do you have ANY response to the reasons that retrocession is NEVER going to happen?

As for you snide remark about the size of Washington, DC, maybe you are unaware that there are two states less populous than DC. And, DC pays more federal taxes than 19 other states. And again, they do so with ZERO REPRESENTATION.

 

Then you could answer those points pretty easily - LOL!

 

Well, no. That would be honoring your deflection.

 

At NO time have I deflected.

 

Let's just say you've been reluctant to engage the Constitutional issues.

 

Let's just admit you've been spamming platitudes as a way of avoiding issues.

 

No. My position has been a principled defense of the Constitution.

 

You can try that if you want.

However, the last time you didn't just spout platitudes you were holding to retrocession - even though I pointed out in the constitution the reason that is never going to happen.

 

And I have subsequently demonstrated that your constitutional claim is unfounded. Please review my #399.

 

As was pointed out, that is not possible, as Maryland does not want to accept retrocession of Washington, DC.

Any retrocession to a state requires acceptance by that state. This is true even for federal land within states. While it is common for the state to want such territory, in this case Maryland does not want it. Not only do the people not want it, but neither political party wants it.

Of course, YOU might suggest a constitutional amendment that would REQUIRE states to take land whether they like it or not. But, that is just plain ludicrous. States aren't going to ratify a bill that gives the federals government the right to force them to take land in that way. There are all sorts of negatives that would come to mind. For example, the federal government could force Nevada to accept Yucca Mountain nuclear waste cite.

Retroceding the federal district to Maryland is simply not a solution.

In fact, there have been times when Republicans wanted the district to be retroceded to Maryland, and their efforts consistently failed.

 

No and no. Retrocession can be done over Maryland's objection. There is no constitutional impediment.

 

Why would it be “contiguous” make it more “defendable” ?

 

Movement of troops and defenses is easier when you don't have to notify anyone else and coordinate between two different districts, as one simple example. Buffer zones also shrink, etc.

 

If our founders considered that unconstitutional, why did they set it up in such a manner?

 

That would be acceptable if those you are defending against are after land. When they are after strategic targets (which in DC mainly exist in one district), that would not matter.

 

You're focusin on how state lines are drawn. That may still be an issue as we haven't had a case of the federal government forcing states to accept border changes. imho, I still think this would be an issue.

But, there is still the issue of retrocession law including the numerous retrocessions that have taken place so far. These have required the assent of the state acquiring the specified territory or other asset.

States have laws in this regard, setting out their process for accepting or denying acceptance, usualy determining that the governor of the state is the central state figure.

So, we shall see. However, I just don't see it as remotely likley that the federal government will force Maryland to take DC as part of the state. If they can do that, then the federal government could certainly force retrocession on any other asset as well.

It would be a totally new direction on the whole idea of how retrocession works.

And, I don't believe any state would support that direction. Without that, congress can't make that move, as state representation wouldn't allow it.

 

My understading is that our founders thought that residents of DC would present undue duress on our federal government. Someohow they believed that giving residents of DC no representation would ensure that wouldn't happen.

Someone might help fill out that argument, as it still doesn't quite make sense to me. I would think that duress could be applied regardless of whether there was actual representation.

For example, the January 6 Republican assault on congress and our democracy wasn't inhibited by DC residents having no representation.

 

There is a much better chance of states supporting retrocession than supporting DC statehood. Then of course:

 

When you think about it, a lot of the District of Columbia/Federal district doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would you carve out a 10x10 mile square of the country, and then assume nobody would live there? Even the people who might end up working for the Federal Government? Were they supposed to all commute?

Founding fathers were pretty good on the theories, but sometimes lacking in practicality (see your 2nd amendment as well)

 

The point of our federal system of states was, in the view of the FF's, to convey representative democratic republican government at distance on a continental scale. Residents within the District of Columbia were deemed already to enjoy this, residing in the seat of representative democratic republican government. The development of modern communications and transportation hides that original motive.

 

Well, it's true that those living there would always be present, while representatives from various states might find travel a serious impediment.

BUT, being there when you have NO representation doesn't mean you have representation.

 

That was considered a small price to pay in an era when many (most?) people's primary allegiance was to their state, not the US.