ExpressLane
Verified User
They need to allow DC residents to vote in and be represented by Maryland.
Whoever heard of a STATE only 8 miles wide???
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
Matt Dillon
Semolina comes from wheat
Text Drivers are Killers
Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
Jane you ignorant slut.
Representation is based on the numbers of people, not land mass .. but of course you didn’t know that.
DC has more people than both Wyoming and Vermont, and has more people than any state had at the time of their admission, with the exception of Oklahoma .. but of course you didn’t know that either.
A state has to be more than 8 miles wide you idiot. THINK
Really? What law or part of the Constitution says a state has be larger than 8 miles?
It seems you are the simpleton. But then you always prove you are the simpleton.
Matt Dillon
Semolina comes from wheat
Representation is based on the numbers of people, not land mass .. but of course you didn’t know that.
DC has more people than both Wyoming and Vermont, and has more people than any state had at the time of their admission, with the exception of Oklahoma .. but of course you didn’t know that either.
How many people, tar baby?
Then let's make West Virginia part of Virginia and North Dakota part of South Dakota. Problem solved indeed.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Washington, D.C.’s unique status in the federal system is enumerated in the Constitution.
The only way to change that legally is to amend the Constitution.
But when has that ever stopped DEMOCRATS?
That might be a little difficult since they would first have to secede from the state they are in which means the residents would have to agree to do that and the state would have to agree to let them. Then they would have to hope that after they become a territory that is not part of a state that Congress would vote to make them a state. I wonder how many cities would really be willing to take that chance.
1 independent Senator and 1/2 a rep.
Both must be midgets!
But not mental midgets, plenty of those in DC as it is
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Why not try it?
Of course the problem for republicans is that most large major cities are democratic controlled already .. and try seeing if broke-ass Georgia is anxious to let go of deep blue rich and populous Atlanta.
Matt Dillon
Semolina comes from wheat
Why not try it?
Of course the problem for republicans is that most large major cities are democratic controlled already .. and try seeing if broke-ass Georgia is anxious to let go of deep blue rich and populous Atlanta.
Than why is NYC not its own state?
Hoosier Daddy
Verified User
Washington, D.C. has 5.3 million people living there. None of them have full and equal federal voting rights compared to all other US citizens in the mainland, or Alaska and Hawaii. They pay the same taxes and yet remember how the Founding Fathers said "No taxation without representation?"
DC has way more people than Delaware, who has less than a million people. And way more than Montana, which has just a little over a million.
Then. Because it isn't. Any other stupid questions?
Clause 17
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 Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/
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 Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/
There seems to have been no consideration, at least none recorded, given at the Convention or in the ratifying conventions to the question of the governance of the citizens of the District.
Madison, in The Federalist, did assume that the inhabitants will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them, as a municipal legislature for all local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.
Although there was some dispute about the constitutional propriety of permitting local residents a measure of home rule, to use the recent term, almost from the first there were local elections provided for.
In 1802, the District was divided into five divisions, in some of which the governing officials were elected; an elected mayor was provided in 1820.
District residents elected some of those who governed them until this form of government was swept away in the aftermath of financial scandals in 1874 and replaced with a presidentially appointed Commission in 1878.
The Commission lasted until 1967 when it was replaced by an appointed Mayor-Commissioner and an appointed city council.
In recent years, Congress provided for a limited form of self-government in the District, with the major offices filled by election.7 District residents vote for President and Vice President and elect a nonvoting delegate to Congress.
An effort by constitutional amendment to confer voting representation in the House and Senate failed of ratification.
Constitutionally, it appears that Congress is neither required to provide for a locally elected government nor precluded from delegating its powers over the District to an elective local government.
The Court has indicated that the exclusive jurisdiction granted was meant to exclude any question of state power over the area and was not intended to require Congress to exercise all powers itself.
Chief Justice Marshall for the Court held in Hepburn v. Ellzey that the District of Columbia was not a state within the meaning of the diversity jurisdiction clause of Article III.
This view, adhered to for nearly a century and a half, was overturned in 1949, the Court upholding the constitutionality of a 1940 statute authorizing federal courts to take jurisdiction of non-federal controversies between residents of the District of Columbia and the citizens of a state.
The decision was by a five to four division, but the five in the majority disagreed among themselves on the reasons. Three thought the statute to be an appropriate exercise of the power of Congress to legislate for the District of Columbia pursuant to this clause without regard to Article III.
Two others thought that Hepburn v. Ellzey had been erroneously decided and would have overruled it. But six Justices rejected the former rationale and seven Justices rejected the latter one; since five Justices agreed, however, that the statute was constitutional, it was sustained.
It is not disputed that the District is a part of the United States and that its residents are entitled to all the guarantees of the United States Constitution including the privilege of trial by jury and of presentment by a grand jury.
Legislation restrictive of liberty and property in the District must find justification in facts adequate to support like legislation by a state in the exercise of its police power.
Congress possesses over the District of Columbia the blended powers of a local and national legislature.
This fact means that in some respects ordinary constitutional restrictions do not operate; thus, for example, in creating local courts of local jurisdiction in the District, Congress acts pursuant to its legislative powers under clause 17 and need not create courts that comply with Article III court requirements.
And when legislating for the District Congress remains the legislature of the Union, so that it may give its enactments nationwide operation to the extent necessary to make them locally effective
Madison, in The Federalist, did assume that the inhabitants will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them, as a municipal legislature for all local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.
Although there was some dispute about the constitutional propriety of permitting local residents a measure of home rule, to use the recent term, almost from the first there were local elections provided for.
In 1802, the District was divided into five divisions, in some of which the governing officials were elected; an elected mayor was provided in 1820.
District residents elected some of those who governed them until this form of government was swept away in the aftermath of financial scandals in 1874 and replaced with a presidentially appointed Commission in 1878.
The Commission lasted until 1967 when it was replaced by an appointed Mayor-Commissioner and an appointed city council.
In recent years, Congress provided for a limited form of self-government in the District, with the major offices filled by election.7 District residents vote for President and Vice President and elect a nonvoting delegate to Congress.
An effort by constitutional amendment to confer voting representation in the House and Senate failed of ratification.
Constitutionally, it appears that Congress is neither required to provide for a locally elected government nor precluded from delegating its powers over the District to an elective local government.
The Court has indicated that the exclusive jurisdiction granted was meant to exclude any question of state power over the area and was not intended to require Congress to exercise all powers itself.
Chief Justice Marshall for the Court held in Hepburn v. Ellzey that the District of Columbia was not a state within the meaning of the diversity jurisdiction clause of Article III.
This view, adhered to for nearly a century and a half, was overturned in 1949, the Court upholding the constitutionality of a 1940 statute authorizing federal courts to take jurisdiction of non-federal controversies between residents of the District of Columbia and the citizens of a state.
The decision was by a five to four division, but the five in the majority disagreed among themselves on the reasons. Three thought the statute to be an appropriate exercise of the power of Congress to legislate for the District of Columbia pursuant to this clause without regard to Article III.
Two others thought that Hepburn v. Ellzey had been erroneously decided and would have overruled it. But six Justices rejected the former rationale and seven Justices rejected the latter one; since five Justices agreed, however, that the statute was constitutional, it was sustained.
It is not disputed that the District is a part of the United States and that its residents are entitled to all the guarantees of the United States Constitution including the privilege of trial by jury and of presentment by a grand jury.
Legislation restrictive of liberty and property in the District must find justification in facts adequate to support like legislation by a state in the exercise of its police power.
Congress possesses over the District of Columbia the blended powers of a local and national legislature.
This fact means that in some respects ordinary constitutional restrictions do not operate; thus, for example, in creating local courts of local jurisdiction in the District, Congress acts pursuant to its legislative powers under clause 17 and need not create courts that comply with Article III court requirements.
And when legislating for the District Congress remains the legislature of the Union, so that it may give its enactments nationwide operation to the extent necessary to make them locally effective
DC won't be a state.
It's more DemoKKKrat bullshit and distraction.
DemoKKKrat distraction from their having destroyed the economy, doing nothing about UBI or M4A, the looming eviction crisis they created, endless wars (and more on the way), etc.
More people than Wyoming and Alaska combined.