April 18, 2007
D.C., Maryland?
While thousands of District residents braved wind and rain on Monday to demand that Congress pass legislation granting the city a voting representative, one congressman went a step further and introduced legislation that would similarly give the District two senators. Well, kind of.
The legislation, introduced by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) -- yes, that Louie Gohmert -- calls for the retrocession of all District lands not containing a federal building or monument to Maryland. In short, District residents would become Maryland residents, with all the benefits of full representation. In a press release, Gohmert, a critic of the current legislation before the House, argued that his proposal was both politically feasible and constitutional, noting:
Belittling and misquoting the messenger does not change the Constitution. Now, in a Constitutional effort to give District of Columbia residents a representative, I will be filing a bill on Monday that will cede all District of Columbia land that is not occupied by a federal building back to Maryland. Doing so will allow American citizens in the District to have a representative with a vote in Congress by a Constitutional method, which should not be struck down by the Courts as the DC Voting Rights Act surely would be.The idea isn't terribly new, and it has often been marched around as the best remedy to the District's disenfranchisement. (Similar legislation was introduced in 2005, and George Will recently endorsed the idea in a Post op-ed.) Supporters have long argued that a precedent exists for the measure, noting that the land granted by Virginia for the creation of Washington (including parts of Arlington County and Alexandria) was ceded back in 1847. But opponents argue that the District has developed its own identity and history, and that simply lumping the District back into Maryland would be a lazy way to resolve a longstanding injustice. Moreover, some question whether Maryland would want to assume the District's responsibilities, including its debt, infrastructure and pressing social concerns.
Currently, Gohmert's legislation only has one co-sponsor, though it may pick up support from Republicans opposed to the current legislation. Past attempts at retrocession have never gotten far, and in a Democratic Congress, the chances are that this one won't either. But the question still stands -- would you want to be a Maryland resident?
|
No. If I wanted to be a resident of Maryland, I'd move to Maryland.
If I were a Maryland resident, I'd protest profusely.
As long as I have representation in Congress and pay lower taxes (or see better results for the taxes that I pay), then I'm all for it.
Hell, I don't care if they make us part of Wyoming.
My question, what about residents who live downtown? Where does the line get drawn?
As a marylander, I'll state that we don't want you or your problems, but if Texas wants you all the power to them.
Perhaps you should check for "the most best remedy" to your grammar problems...
Seriously, though, this doesn't seem like a bad idea. As a Maryland city, DC would retain much of its autonomy. We'd have to deal with meddling from Annapolis, but I don't see how that would be any worse than the current meddling from Texas, Alaska, North Dakota, ...
Honestly I wouldn't mind the politics of Maryland are similar to the District's. As long as I get 2 senators and one Representative I wouldn't care what two letters go after Washington in my address.
But then I guess I'd have to pay those pesky MD parking tickets though.
I'd rather cede the non-federal parts of Texas back to Mexico.
If we want to have a serious discussion about full voting rights for DC residents, then this has to be one idea that is explored. Sure, DC has developed its own identity over the years, but so have all American cities, and they all manage to survive although their citizens are also residents of a state as well as the city.
This proposal also appears to be free of constitutional concerns and is probably the easiest way to extend Senate representation to the people of DC. So if representation is truly all voting rights opponents are after (as opposed to, say, two additional Democrats in the Senate) it is something that should be looked at.
I'm sure Maryland would be thrilled to provide services for DC’s non-tax-payers: embassies, think tanks, churches, and The Creature That Ate Foggy Bottom, GWU. But why Maryland? Can’t DC be part of, say, Texas? The lovely Piney Woods of the First District, maybe. Why not? When it comes to the District of Columbia, Congress can do whatever it wants.
I will be pissed if DC becomes part of MD after paying out of state tuition at UMD.
This is a sad waste of time. Nobody in DC, save for a few people at the Committee for a Capital City (Google it) support this idea. The supporters of this idea are just very vocal about it...
Nobody in DC wants this. Nobody in Maryland wants it. Why is a Congressman from Texas working on this? I doubt he will get one co-sponsor from Maryland.
Don't get suckered into a debate with this crowd. Focus on the bill that's in Congress now and getting it passed.
i heard somewhere that dc residents get in state tuition to any state.
Only if we get to keep our cool ass license plates, minus the "Taxation Without Representation" line at the bottom, of course.
So would all of Washington, D.C. become Washington, Maryland? And what about counties? Maryland already has a Washington County.
It makes sense to me--a lot more sense than adding a rep. in Utah to offset DC's vote.
Yes, students graduating from D.C. public high schools qualify for in-state tuition to most state universities in the country.
I'd guess they'd make DC an independent city like Baltimore. Most of the other cities in MD aren't even incorporated. Towson and Ellicott City have flip-flopped back and forth as the largest un-incorporated county seats in the country.
Yeah, Bitter Student. I call BS. DC gives in-state tuition price breaks to any public university. I guess that could be a newer policy that you missed on, but it's certainly no longer germane to the argument at hand.
Retrocession is the only plan that makes sense. It's certainly better than the disaster of a bill the Democrats tabled. If Maryland will take us, we should waste no time approving the switch.
And what about counties? Maryland already has a Washington County.
Well, Baltimore City is separate from Baltimore County. Maybe it would be an independent jurisdiction.
Wouldn't all having all those random islands of federal property dotted throughout "Maryland" be terribly confusing?
Speaking as a Maryland resident, I say if they throw in NoVA they've got themselves a deal.
What say you, NoVA people? Would you rather become Marylanders than read with RoVA?
I've lived in DC over 10 years, and would be fine with retrocession to Maryland. For one thing, it would guarantee no more Robert Ehrlichs. I think it's a good idea.
Mike Panetta is right. Opponents can't use gun laws to distract us now, so they pull out this shop-worn non-starter.
Write and call friends and relations and have them contact congresspersons in support of HR 1433. Do it now. The Post says the bill is coming up Thursday -- tomorrow.
@ Sure, it sounds like under Gohmert's plan all of DC would become Maryland and federal buildings would remain under federal control (as is the case in all other states). There would be no line drawn.
I like the retrocession idea, but I think a small geographically cohesive "federal city" should be preserved regardless of the presence of federal buildings. I like the idea of a federal city that is separate from state-like concerns and activities.
Just as a clarification of "Why Maryland"
Blame the original logistics and our founding fathers:
From infoplease:
DC history began in 1790 when Congress directed selection of a new capital site, 100 sq mi, along the Potomac. When the site was determined, it included 30.75 sq mi on the Virginia side of the river. In 1846, however, Congress returned that area to Virginia, leaving the 68.25 sq mi ceded by Maryland in 1788. The seat of government was transferred from Philadelphia to Washington on Dec. 1, 1800, and President John Adams became the first resident in the White House.
To retrocede (which is what the bill is proposing) requires that the original land was ceded from another state. Since we've already returned to Virginia what they offered, all we have left is Maryland.
Alas, Texas wasn't around to contribute anything to that bargain.
I believe the in-state tuition only applies if you start college within 4 years of graduating high school and you're going for your first degree. It doesn't help those of us living here who may decide to pursue a 2nd degree, etc.
RD:
There would be a (very long) line drawn to outline the federally-controlled areas. Here it is:
Beginning at the point on the present Virginia-District of Columbia boundary due west of the northernmost point of Theodore Roosevelt Island and running due east of the eastern shore of the Potomac River;
thence generally south along the shore at the mean high water mark to the northwest corner of the Kennedy Center;
thence east along the north side of the Kennedy Center to a point where it reaches the E Street Expressway;
thence east on the expressway to E Street Northwest and thence east on E Street Northwest to Nineteenth Street Northwest;
thence north on Nineteenth Street Northwest to F Street Northwest;
thence east on F Street Northwest to Eighteenth Street Northwest;
thence south on Eighteenth Street Northwest to Constitution Avenue Northwest;
thence east on Constitution Avenue to Seventeenth Street Northwest;
thence north on Seventeenth Street Northwest to H Street Northwest;
thence east on H Street Northwest to Madison Place Northwest;
thence south on Madison Place Northwest to Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest;
thence east on Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest to Fifteenth Street Northwest;
thence south on Fifteenth Street Northwest to Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest;
thence southeast on Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest to Tenth Street Northwest;
thence north on Tenth Street Northwest to E Street Northwest;
thence east on E Street Northwest to Ninth Street Northwest;
thence south on Ninth Street Northwest to Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest;
thence southeast on Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest to John Marshall Place Northwest;
thence north on John Marshall Place Northwest to C Street Northwest;
thence east on C Street Northwest to Third Street Northwest;
thence north on Third Street Northwest to D Street Northwest;
thence east on D Street Northwest to Second Street Northwest;
thence south on Second Street Northwest to the intersection of Constitution Avenue Northwest and Louisiana Avenue Northwest;
thence northeast on Louisiana Avenue Northwest to North Capitol Street;
thence north on North Capitol Street to Massachusetts Avenue Northwest;
thence southeast on Massachusetts Avenue Northwest so as to encompass Union Square;
thence following Union Square to F Street Northeast;
thence east on F Street Northeast to Second Street Northeast;
thence south on Second Street Northeast to D Street Northeast;
thence west on D Street Northeast to First Street Northeast;
thence south on First Street Northeast to C Street Northeast;
thence east on C Street Northeast to Third Street Northeast;
thence south on Third Street Northeast to Maryland Avenue Northeast;
thence south and west on Maryland Avenue Northeast to Constitution Avenue Northeast;
thence west on Constitution Avenue Northeast to First Street Northeast;
thence south on First Street Northeast to Maryland Avenue Northeast;
thence generally north and east on Maryland Avenue to Second Street Northeast;
thence south on Second Street Northeast to East Capitol Street;
thence east on East Capitol Street to Third Street Northeast;
thence south on Third Street Northeast to Independence Avenue Southeast;
thence west on Independence Avenue Southeast to Second Street Southeast;
thence south on Second Street Southeast to C Street Southeast;
thence west on C Street Southeast to New Jersey Avenue Southeast;
thence south on New Jersey Avenue Southeast to D Street Southeast;
thence west on D Street Southeast to Washington Avenue Southwest;
thence north and west on Washington Avenue Southwest to the intersection of Independence Avenue Southwest and Second Street Southwest;
thence south on Second Street Southwest to Virginia Avenue Southwest;
thence generally west on Virginia Avenue to Third Street Southwest;
thence north on Third Street Southwest to C Street Southwest;
thence west on C Street Southwest to Sixth Street Southwest;
thence south on Sixth Street Southwest to E Street Southwest;
thence west on E Street Southwest to Seventh Street Southwest;
thence north on Seventh Street Southwest to Maryland Avenue Southwest;
thence west on Maryland Avenue Southwest to Ninth Street Southwest;
thence north on Ninth Street Southwest to Independence Avenue Southwest;
thence west on Independence Avenue Southwest to Twelfth Street Southwest;
thence south on Twelfth Street Southwest to D Street Southwest;
thence west on D Street Southwest to Fourteenth Street Southwest;
thence south on Fourteenth Street Southwest to the middle of the Washington Channel;
thence generally south and east along the midchannel of the Washington Channel to a point due west of the northern boundary line of Fort Lesley McNair;
thence due east to the side of the Washington Channel;
thence following generally south and east along the side of the Washington Channel at the mean high water mark, to the point of confluence with the Anacostia River, and along the northern shore at the mean high water mark to the northernmost point of the Eleventh Street Bridge;
thence generally south and west along such shore at the mean high water mark to the point of confluence of the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers;
thence generally south and east along the northern side of the Eleventh Street Bridge to the eastern shore of the Anacostia River;
thence generally south along the eastern shore at the mean high water mark of the Potomac River to the point where it meets the present southeastern boundary line of the District of Columbia;
thence south and west along such southeastern boundary line to the point where it meets the present Virginia-District of Columbia boundary;
thence generally north and west up the Potomac River along the Virginia-District of Columbia boundary to the point of beginning.
The official rules of the tuition program are found here: www.seo.dc.gov/seo/cwp/view,a,1226,q,559807.asp
Rusty says "If Maryland will take us"
Rusty - Maryland won't. Forget it. It's not happening. This has come up before. Congress can kick DC around, but not MD. End of discussion.
The vote on the DC Vote may be tomorrow, so contact your out-of-town pals and urge them to tell their congresspersons to support HR 1433. Get Eleanor the vote.
Though recession would give DC residents a voting member of Congress, it would strip away two of the District's three reliably Democratic votes in the Electoral College.
Best comment ever DGB.
DCWhee,
To go along with your comment:
Georgetown U.'s seal still has the Latin words for "on the Potomac in Maryland" on it.
As a DCer, I love the idea of making DC part of Maryland. I only wish more people took the idea more seriously. I don't understand this strange sense of territorialism that some people are exhibiting, with the whole "my identity is defined by being in DC, not Maryland" nonsense; they're like territorial dogs, if you're asking me.
This counter proposal is nothing but confusion and misdirection, and political cover for opponents of DC voting rights.
I live and work in the District and I am 100% for this idea.
For the record, retrocession can be accomplished over the objections of Maryland and D.C.'s nonvoting delegate.
Sure it's relatively easy, but it's no easier than DC statehood itself would be. Only an act of congress is required. This boils down to a political fight: Republicans don't want any solution that results in two more Democratic senators. I'm sure the Democrats would be just as opposed if the Republicans stood to gain.
Arlington retroceded to Virginia because that's what both wanted. Unless both DC and Maryland assent to retrocession, it should not happen.
Retrocession to Maryland is a good idea. It will give us our longed for House representation and two U.S. Senators. It will also give us representation in a state legislature and governor's office. It would also attract new political talent to city council and mayoral races who could use those offices as spring boards to higher statewide and national offices. As a 12 year DC resident I'm all for it.
I think this is a good idea. For one, it would remove from our city government the responsibilities of a state. Our government could focus solely on responsibilities of a city.
Further, I'm not sure whether Maryland is required to "accept" Washington back. Additionally, I doubt Annapolis would turn away the tax revenue that would come from Washington residents, plus all the tons of federal spending that is directed to Washington (e.g. highway money, medicare, etc.) would flow through Annapolis first.
I suspect that in the end, the most voicerfous opponents to this idea are the ones that care more about the power of the Democratic party than representation.
No No No No!
Article IV Sec. 3 of the Constitution would require that Maryland agree to allow DC join its state, and consequently the Gohmert legislation requires that Maryland agree to the plan before it may move forward.
However, the DC city government would not have a say in the process because Congress exercises control over the district.
I'm actually torn as to where I stand on retrocession... but am more amazed that it was less than a month before Rep. Gohmert completely lost his personal "vested interest" in being our new Representative.
I've already been a resident of Maryland and while there was a different governor in office, I wasn't impressed.
Now I'm a resident of DC and am definately not for becoming a MD resident. I am not one of those DCers who needs to be a state either, I'd be happy with just a Rep and 1 Senator, let's call it "fine, just take it."
And if I wanted to be a MD resident again, I'd move back.
Plus, DC does have it's own history and culture and identiy as the District, but part of that was because it had no state identity of its own.
I'd be stunned if the national Republican party would seriously support this idea and betray Maryland state Republicans in the process. The whole idea is a distraction from the actual, more viable bill.
"This counter proposal is nothing but confusion and misdirection, and political cover for opponents of DC voting rights."
Mark and others -
That may well be their goal. But the confusing part is how this became the distraction and the blatantly unconstitutional proposal became the focus of all our energy. In the unlikely event that the current proposal passes and isn't vetoed, it will be struck down by the courts. I love Norton too, but she's leading us down a deadend alley here. if it were to pass and get struck down, that would be a death knell for future efforts.
And hell, the courts would be right. the constitution is actually pretty clear on this point. (and constitution aside, it is every bit as undemocratic to give Utah citizens 2 votes as to deny us the vote entirely. the clear justice of DC voting rights don't justify such blatantly unjust, unconstitutional, undemocratic action that dilutes everyone else's vote.)
I'm sure Maryland doesn't want us. They don't seem to particularly want Baltimore's problems either. But Congress can force it down their throats perfectly constitutionally. They have some vote in the matter, not a veto.
i heard somewhere that dc residents get in state tuition to any state.
Not always the case. Because of my advanced age (37), I don't qualify for the tuition assistance grant.
"Article IV Sec. 3 of the Constitution would require that Maryland agree to allow DC join its state, and consequently the Gohmert legislation requires that Maryland agree to the plan before it may move forward."
I read that section, and I don't see how it gives Maryland a veto over retrocession. That section says that no new state can be formed within an existing state or from two states without the states' consent. That's not what is proposed.
My guess is that whatever document was signed granting the land to the federal government contains the clauses governing retrocession.
I would love to see the district ceded back to Maryland--but I can't believe it would ever happen.
Does anyone know how this would affect our financial situation? it seems to me that if this happened, DC would stand to lose a fair amount of the financial subsidy that it receives from congress. furthermore Maryland seems to be failing Baltimore in terms of education - graduation rate in bmore is 38% compared to 58% in dc (this must be a lie) and the adult literacy rate is about the same. Frankly, I fail to see how retrocession will solve some of our fundamental problems, as it seems Maryland is doing a pretty bad job with a city of considerable size, and furthermore it seems that such a marriage will only constrain the finances of both parties. I haven't read George Will's article yet, but I'll try to get around to it today
It's simple. When Rep. Gohmert found out that he represented DC and gained 600,000 new "constituents," he decided to go about the business of divesting himself of that new responsibility.
Let's face it -- retrocession ain't gonna happen. This isn't 1847, when then-called Alexandria County was nothing but unused swampland. MD doesn't want the responsibility. The bill is just a political stunt that no one outside the Beltway will notice.
DGB, why do you give the entire river to the feds from roosevelt island down to the wilson bridge? isn't that a little much?
Maryland's capital (Baltimore) has a higher violent crime rate than Washington, DC and a troubled school system. I'm not sure that Maryland is prepared to deal with our problems in DC as of yet.
Am I the only one who thinks that Baltimore might not be too thrilled about this concept? Having to fight to be the number 1 city in MD?
IMGoph:
DGB was simply quoting the proposed bill's boundaries. This is as it was written in Gohmert's proposal.
Here is a link to the Washington Post article today. This is what the Maryland Senate President had to say about retrocession:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/17/AR2007041701782.html?hpid=topnews
Instead of pressing for voting representation, I say DC residents should fight for eliminating our federal tax responsibilities.
Mitch,
Elementary school geography was a pain wasn't it?
Annapolis is the capital of Maryland, not Baltimore.
No, retrocession cannot be done against MD's wishes. The Constitution is quite clear about that one.
And it's not as easy as people seem to think. For example, gay rights. DC has very good gay rights legislation. And if they could they'd legalize gay marriage tomorrow. MD, while not nearly as hateful as VA, isn't as progressive as DC. So how do you merge those two sets of legislation?
This is just one example. I'm sure there are hundreds more.
Sorry, Donald, you've got it bass-akwards. We should vote to dissolve home rule and eliminate our local tax obligations and throw the entire maintainence of the District back on the feds. They'd negotiate much more quickly if they had that looming disaster on their hands.
Retrocess today!
Sorry. I may have misspoke about the Constitutionality of retrocession against MD's will. But I can pretty much guarantee the MD politicians would filibuster it forever.
While Gohmert says that retrocession to MD is political feasible, his statement stands in direct contrast to the Maryland Senate President, Maryland residents as a whole, Maryland Senators and Maryland Representatives to the House. The Maryland Senate President has just stated that it is politically impossible. Now, that is quite a contrast.
What is up with Gohmert?
Reid,
You're right, the Section 3 language doesn't explicitly address this type of situation, but a case could be made that Maryland would have to approve. I should have been more clear, but because the Gohmert bill requires Maryland to approve anyway, the constitutional point it moot.
IMGoph,
I don't know why the bill would give the Potomac to the feds. Maybe its for simplicity sake, so there wouldn't be a sliver of Maryland waters between Virginia and the fed-controlled land? But I bet it would give the portion of the Anacostia to the feds so they could control the waters around the Navy Yard.
I'd be for it. One condition: A majority of residents must be able to correctly pronounce Maryland. Hearing "Muurlan" makes me cringe.
Baltimore is the #1 city of Maryland. Retrocession will cause a power shift to D.C. and this will not be viewed as favorable to Maryland residents. Simple as that.
Retrocession, while being one of the most constitutionally viable options (more than the 1/3 representation offered by the constitutionally dubious Davis Bill), will not become popular without the support of Maryland residents AND D.C. residents.
We should vote to dissolve home rule and eliminate our local tax obligations and throw the entire maintainence of the District back on the feds.
Interesting idea! Does Congress have the power to levy local taxes?
Let's fold Maryland into DC!
Hillman, NoVA isn't nearly as hateful as the rest of the Commonwealth. We opposed last year's gay marriage amendment and got Jim Webb elected. In fact, I want NoVA to leave Virginia altogether, since we can't seem to get along with the rest of the state on transportation issues, among other things. Secession NOW!
Why is it that governments past have had no trouble adding to the holy Constitution when it comes to idiotic things like Prohibition (because that worked out so well), but when it comes to disenfranchisement of a large number of people it's ok. The Gohmerts and Bushes use the document when it suits their evil purposes, and only then. Bottoms up.
Phil: You raise a valid point. I should have pointed out that generally NOVA is in fact light years ahead of the rest of the state on social issues. But I'd still argue that even NOVA wouldn't be nearly as close to DC is on granting gay citizens equality.
"And it's not as easy as people seem to think. For example, gay rights. DC has very good gay rights legislation. And if they could they'd legalize gay marriage tomorrow. MD, while not nearly as hateful as VA, isn't as progressive as DC. So how do you merge those two sets of legislation?"
Well, we'd be in the exact same situation every other city in this country is in. Isn't that what this is all about? Or is it about having our cake and eating it too?
Whether it seems unpopular in MD right now is important, but not determinative (remember that statehood is very unpopular across the country, yet people still argue for it). I suspect that if a case is made to Maryland, enough people would be won over. For example, people talk about the power shifting from Baltimore to Washington, but why would the millions of people in the Washington suburbs be opposed to that?
Additionally, wouldn't the Maryland Democratic party appreciate the 400k new votes?
And I still think people like the MD state senate president would be happy to be granted the power to divy up Washington's federal money (i.e. highway $$).
It seems like a lot (but not all) of the arguments against retrocession are as reliant on symbolism and tradition as are the arguments against DC's representation.
Hill Rat - Congress can make any legislation necessary for DC, so I'd think they could levy a tax on DC.
Phil - Amen brother. Vive le NoVA libre!
Reid: No, we wouldn't be in exactly the same situation as every other city. No other city has set policy independent of a governing state like DC has, nor had an independent judiciary, etc.
As for divvying up the Fed $$, it's my impression that the statistical imbalance that the DC Control Board found to be very real is still in effect. Assuming all the Federal burdens may be something MD doesn't want.
And the logistics issues are endless. Start with pensions. DC has horrendous government employee pension burdens coming due in coming decades. I'm not sure MD's pension system can possibly handle such an infusion of liabilities.
And whose pension rules win? If the MD pension benefits are less, do DC residents that were promised better have to lose their benefits? If they don't, then wouldn't the pensioners in MD feel short-changed?
What about judicial system procedure and sentencing guidelines? Whose wins, MD's or DC's?
How about gun control?
School policies?
DC has long shouldered many of the functions of a state government. In that respect, DC is unique amongst cities. So in those many instances it'd be more like trying to merge two existing states.
"We should vote to dissolve home rule and eliminate our local tax obligations and throw the entire maintainence of the District back on the feds."
Horrible idea. If we did this, people would look at Meridian/Malcom X Park as the gold standard of federal infrastructure maintenance in residential areas.
Jeez, Gohmert is really getting what he wants out of this. 72 comments on this absurd infeasiblity when HR 1433 is due for a vote tomorrow.
Hillman has got a point.
DC has set policy independent of a governing state. Now, that would have an effect on the citizens of DC if, all of sudden, that would be taken away and replaced with Maryland laws. And, there are people who do move to DC for some of those policies such as gay rights, etc. because it is not Maryland or Virginia.
I beg to differ, Mike. Probably none of us typing have a vote on 1433. All Gomer's done is reminded us and kept us riled up about the fact that we have no representation. Not to say his cynical proposition isn't just that. In fact, it probably deserves another round of calls to his office (okay, and other offices too)
alright, i made a map of this:
http://imgoph.blogspot.com/2007/04/mister-louies-dc-bill.html
Doesn't it seem contradictory that Gohmert wants to introduce a bill retroceeding DC back to Maryland when the House Majority Leader, D-Md, who represents Maryland, is the one pushing legislation for DC to get its own vote?
Hillman, you are just describing the issues faced by every town that gets swallowed up by a city or a county, which happens frequently (see for example the city of Louisville's recent merger). They are complex problems, no doubt, but they are not unprecedented nor are they insurmountable.
Besides, you could really question DC's "history" of operating a separate government, considering Home Rule only goes back about 35 years.
A while above, Phil said, "This isn't 1847, when then-called Alexandria County was nothing but unused swampland." It actually outdates Washington by 50 years.
It was first settled residentially around 1748 (it had previously been a port of call and warehouse site) and incorporated as a town in 1779 -- and was well-regarded, too. From the city's website: "In 1796, a visitor, the Duc de La Rochfoucauld Liancourt, commented that: 'Alexandria is beyond all comparison the handsomest town in Virginia--indeed is among the finest in the United States.'"
Here, read up on Alexandria's history before you go off making more inane comments: www.alexandriava.gov/city/about-alexandria/about.html#history
Maybe not contradictory (just because one is true doesn't mean the other can't happen -- that is just because Hoyer supports one bill doesn't mean Gohmert can't introduce his; this sort of thing happens in Congress on a daily basis). But it does mean that Gohmert's bill is less likely to pass, let alone come to a vote, as Hoyer has great influence over which bills actually come to the floor for a vote.
Well, "J", if you read www.exploredc.org/index.php?id=51, you will see that my comment wasn't as "inane" as you say. But your confusion is actually understandable.
The City of Alexandria and "Alexandria County" became two different entities in 1870. At the time, the City of Alexandria was a bustling port, while the rest of Alexandria County was predominately rural. Alexandria County was renamed Arlington in 1920 partially out of the name confusion, after which it gradually lost its rural characteristics.
Okay you de-frocked LAs; we need your help now. Draft the "State of Texas -- Republic of Mexico Reunion Bill"
"A Bill To provide for the retrocession of State of Texas to the Republic of Mexico, and for other purposes."
You know what to do.
A desperate nation awaits your efforts.
It is clear that DC deserves representation. Denial of representation violates our founding principle that a government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. The US seeks to spread democracy, but why should dictators abroad pay any attention to it if it will not even let the residents of its Capitol vote?
The opponents of representation have not made any principled arguments for their position, only expedient ones. But there are many unprincipled reasons that drive the opponents. Many candidly admit they do not want to see any more Democrats in Congress, and thus would continue to deny the vote to DC residents because of their political beliefs. Others privately vote against representation because DC has a black majority. Those people know who they are.
Many argue that DC residents should just move if they want to vote, but this is not a principled stand. Freed slaves were once told to move to colonies because the US would never grant them equality. The Patriots in 1776 could have moved to England for representation, but they chose self-government. Black people in the southern States were denied the right to vote, but the nation responded with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, not with an order to move. African-American residents to this day encounter housing discrimination, and many are too poor to move to wealthy suburbs. So please drop this argument.
It is not principled to argue that the founders wanted DC to have no vote, because the political compromises necessary to secure ratification of the Constitution permitted slavery and the fugitive slave act, and denied the vote to women and blacks. The need for a politically neutral, secure Capitol, can be achieved by drawing a capitol district with offices and parks, but no residents, and enough police, building guards and military personnel to defend a small nation.
The main problem right now, however, is that the Davis-Norton bill, which purports to add a seat to the House by mere legislation, is patently unconstitutional, as testified repeatedly by Professor Jon Turley of GW Law.
Thus, its opponents are free to take a principled stand. The only constitutional means for representation are statehood, retrocession with the express consent of Maryland [which is lacking] or constitutional amendment. Reuters is incorrect when it says that statehood requires a constitutional amendment, since all states since the first 13 have been admitted by statute.
A constitutional amendment could validly grant one Representative in the House for D.C. If Davis-Norton were rewritten as a constitutional amendment granting a single voting representative, then there would be no constitutional argument whatsoever against it. Also, the President's signature would not be needed, so there would be no veto threat.
The proposals for retrocession are idle chatter, since Maryland will not grant its consent. History shows that Alexandria could not be returned to Virginia in 1846 until the state legislature voted its consent.
How odd. The map outlined in the bill (see comments 26 and 77) cuts out the federal areas around L'Enfant plaza, including the Department of Energy and US Postal Service headquarters. I'm sure there are likely more oddities, but it seems a bit much to cut out an entire agency as well as a semi-private federal corporation...
Phil. You specifically say "This isn't 1847, when then-called Alexandria County was nothing but unused swampland."
There was certainly rural space in Alexandria County, but it was far from "nothing but unused swampland". It had, you know, the bustling town of Alexandria in it.
Moose - Maybe Gohmert is one of the nuts who believes the Department of Energy shouldn't exist and USPS should be privatized? HUD, another perennial "waste" agency, is also in that area, but I just can't tell on the map if it's included or not.
Regarding the Potomac River...
I'll oversimplify this a bit, but basically:
Maryland "owns" the river all the way to the edge of Virginia under the terms of its colonial charter.
This is highly unusual. In other cases (e.g., the Delaware River between Pennsylvania and New Jersey) the states' respective borders are drawn directly down the middle of the river.
Because the District was carved out of Maryland, DC likewise "owns" the river between itself and Virginia.
Presumably, that "ownership" would transfer to the Federal City under this (ridiculous) bill.
For a better explanation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potomac_river#Legal_issues
It is rather odd because it took a year if not years for the Norton Davis bill to be crafted, and we have Gohmert working on this retrocession bill in what a few days? lol How ridiculous. Sounds like a haste job to me to divert attention away from the primary bill to give DC voting rights.
This seems to be a diversionary tactic, but ironically may be a more realistic option. Or alternatively, it could be a move to cut the oversight/funding responsibility for the vast majority of DC land that has absolutely nothing to do with the Federal government. Kinda like the equivalent of cutting the fatty parts off a steak and feeding it to the dog (Maryland) so you can keep the good meat to yourself. Bear in mind I'm projecting a politician from TX here, not my own viewpoint.
I'm with Mike Licht on this:
"A Bill To provide for the retrocession of State of Texas to the Republic of Mexico, and for other purposes."
Has a nice ring to it. If we're worried about lost revenue, perhaps Halliburton could set up another foreign HQ. Defrocked DAs- Get to it!
How about if D.C. becomes part of Massachusetts? There's no rule that says a state has to be contiguous. The gay marriage problem would be solved. Maryland Republicans would still have hope.
Come on in! I'm actually shocked so many people are for this. Frankly, I'm tired of people assuming I live in Baltimore when I say I'm from Maryland. This could up our cool factor a little. Oh yeah, and end disenfranchisement for you all, yadda, yadda, yadda.
If you're curious what Louie Gohmert's rump DC would look like, I created a Google Map and snapped a Flickr image of it.
"Washington, MD." Weird.
This really makes more sense than any other proposal. Remember, D.C. is the 24th largest city in the United States. Asking Congress to make it the 49th largest state (by population) is a losing battle. There are 23 larger cities that have to share their Senators. While it might sound good to get a Representative, it is really a concession of defeat for the District. While D.C. would get a single vote in 437, people outside the District would forget that we still have the highest tax burden in the country, no vote in the Senate, and a crippled city government.
On the other hand, we have the option of retrocession. It's been done before--successfully--and without amending the Constitution. I agree, it would be hard to get Marylanders behind it, but a good marketing campaign could still bring them around to the benefits--after all, Maryland would gain a substantial tax base and the center of commercial activity in the region. At the same time, D.C. could function as a real city within a real state--no more crippled government, no more need to provide state as well as city services, no more need to pay out-of-state tuition in Maryland schools. While Washington would lose the District and with it, two Electoral College votes, we would gain real autonomy and the same representation that any major U.S. city has.
Best idea, ever.
Sign me up, I'll be happy to be a DC, Maryland resident.
This is a great idea. The differences between DC and Maryland are minute. The only real problem is people who think DC is a cooler "state" of residence than Maryland. One person commented "If I wanted to live in MD I'd have moved to MD." What the hell is the difference besides the name? By combining the two jurisdictions you can eliminate redundancies in the two governments, each of which is providing the functions of a state. Think of it, instead of requiring state prisons for the District to be in the District where they drive real estate prices way down in high density areas, we can instead have those prisons in the middle of nowhere in MD where they don't bother anyone. I live in Bethesda and I fully support this idea.
Absolutely not. I'm a DC girl, born and raised, and anyone who says "the differences between DC and Maryland are minute" doesn't know what they're talking about. Part of DC's character is the fact that it's not in a state. We natives love to correct the idiots from abroad who ask us what state we're in ("but doesn't it say Virginia on your address?"). I love when I meet someone in another city who's really from DC proper - there's only like 500,000 of us left and we have to stick together!