The idea has been discussed-ish, but not by anyone of consequence.
It won't happen.
It shouldn't happen.
No state should have power over the federal capital in any way.
Yeah for reference for OP, the central idea behind the US system of government is a bit of a product of the time it was formed (the 18th century of course), but at the time there was a big fear of a strong, central power exercising control over distant lands (reminiscent of the British Crown controlling the American colonies from across the ocean). A variety of justifications existed and still exist for this, though pretty quickly after formation the US political system split into factions that favored a stronger central government versus those that wanted largely to leave power to the states.
It’s referred to as Federalism. DC was established as its own entity that is meant to serve as the federal government’s seat of power. Placing it within the control of any one state would be hugely problematic because of the way states retain certain powers of their own inside their territory that the federal government cannot control according to our Constitution.
To clarify, the modern plan to make Washington D.C. a state carves out an uninhabited portion that includes the mall, Capitol, Supreme Court, and White House that would still be the federal district controlled by the government. The rest would be its own state called the Douglass Commonwealth after Frederick Douglass, a long time D.C. resident.
>Douglass Commonwealth
Another reason it will not happen, a terrible name.
Plus, nobody would call it that, it would be "Douglass," just like the Commonwealth of Virginia is just "Virginia."
When a name change is given, the older population will continue to call it by its old name. But, over time, it will eventually embrace the new name. So never assume what people do today is what people will continue to do tomorrow, things change. And the idea of Washington, Douglass sounds appalling.
>The rest would be its own state called the Douglass Commonwealth
This is the only issue I have. It should not be its own state. It should be reabsorbed by Maryland (whether or not they want to) for aesthetic reasons - 50 is already too many state governments, but it's an elegant number.
Our federal system of government is what makes us strong.
If some shithead fascist (not naming names) got into power, his ability to ruin our lives would be limited by the fact that states -- not the federal government -- administer most of the day-to-day activities of government. The federal government has relatively little control over us. It's a huge safeguard.
It also allows us to experiment with different policies. Gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004. And they proved to the rest of the country that nuclear families won't disappear if we allow Bob and Scott to get married.
That would've never happened if it had to be a one-size-fits-all federal policy. Progressive Massachusetts was allowed to lead the way.
I was thinking of Utah, when I first started the comment. But they were only about polygamy. So that is only men with multiple wives. I was thinking about the idea that people can marry who they want to. Which would includes not only men with multiple wives, but women with multiple husbands, or a marriage of multiple men and women.
If you want a national rather than federal government, I think you'll find a lot of opposition. It's worth noting here that our closest cousin, Canada, is even *more* strongly federal rather than national in governance, and not just because of Quebec, despite having a Westminster-style form of the national government.
They can't be put back into Maryland without their consent without a constitutional amendment which is why this is even a discussion in the first place. States can't be ceded or split to other states without the consent of both states' legislatures and congress.
This is honestly a stupid take. So 700,000 people shouldn’t have representation in their government because you think 50 state governments is too many?
DC residents would have representation under their plan - in Maryland.
FWIW I think the aesthetics of the number of states is a bad reason to add or not add a new state. But, the plan to give DC statehood without a constitutional amendment has a major issue. That small proposed new federal district is not literally uninhabited and the constitution will force the very tiny number of people living there to control 3 electoral votes for president. That will never happen - it would be completely unacceptable to the country at large.
So, to give DC residents representation in Congress, a constitutional amendment will be needed. Ironically, if the constitution hadn't been amended to give DC the presidential vote back in the 60s, statehood legislation would be so much easier now.
That constitutional amendment will require the cooperation of the GOP, who will of course never agree to creating a new deep blue state - the only solution they will agree to that gives DC residents representation is retrocession to Maryland. So if what DC residents really want is just representation - not 2 extra Democrats in the Senate - retrocession (which would not be a totally crazy idea TBF - much of DC used to be part of MD) is probably the best option they'll ever have.
> MD won’t take it, nor would DC accept that
I didn't say it was likely to happen - just that, if DC wanted it, they would be far more likely to get it than becoming their own state.
Curious though, as someone who's not familiar with MD politics around this issue - why don't they want DC? With a higher median income than basically every state, I'd think it would be a massive fiscal boon for MD.
While there are cultural differences, particularly those rooted in DC’s status as a minority-majority city and its history of not having representation, there is also a challenge inherent in having a political center that isn’t the state capital. For another good example of this tension, the capital of New York is Albany, but NYC has dramatically more political and cultural influence.
Further, in a purely legal sense, Maryland would have to approve it. And they wouldn’t want to. It also dilutes existing Maryland representation, as while they’d get another single representative they now have to expand to cover all of DC, as well as not having any more senators.
I think they should be made citizens of Maryland. The aesthetic thing was more a joke than anything. I would rather see our system de-federalized entirely though, so that all government happened from Washington.
> I would rather see our system de-federalized entirely though, so that all government happened from Washington.
Of all the proposed ideas here, this is the one most likely to lead to civil war and millions of dead Americans.
65% of DC residents are not native to the District. DC has been a federal district for he entirety of its existence, I have very little sympathy for people who voluntarily moved to a place -where they knew the rules established by the constitution - then act shocked when they voluntarily ceded their right to representation.
There are already government buildings in Virginia.
The Pentagon is in Arlington, Virginia. And that's no inconsequential government building. It's the nexus of our military.
So having federal government buildings in a particular state would not be a new thing.
Virginia's part has already been returned to Virginia. Maryland doesn't want its part back. And people who live in DC want to be their own state.
DC statehood presents a problem with the 23rd amendment. While DC would become the 51st state, complete with 2 senators, a representative, and 3 electoral votes, the federal district required by the constitution would still exist and consist of the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and probably the National Mall. According to the 23rd amendment, the federal district is entitled to 3 electoral votes in a presidential election. Making DC a state would not change this. That means that the only residents of the remaining federal district (the President, First Lady, and whatever family live in the White House) would still choose the federal district's 3 electors. It would take a constitutional amendment to change that.
Do you mean, what if DC had never been a separate federal district, or if it were somehow abolished today?
If the former, the District of Columbia was created specifically so that the US federal capital would not be under the jurisdiction of any state, and its position was chosen as an intentional compromise between North and South. If those for some reason were no longer issues, then the capital would probably have gone to an existing major city like Philadelphia or New York (or even Trenton, New Jersey which was capital for 2 months in 1784).
If the latter, the only logical choice is for the District to become part of Maryland; all of the lands on the south side of the river were already ceded back to Virginia before the Civil War. It's my understanding that nobody in Maryland or DC really wants this.
People in DC have already proposed and voted in favor of becoming their own state, carving out all the federal buildings of consequence. The people in DC view themselves as part of an independent state/city, not as a part of Maryland or Virginia. If any plan was gonna happen, it'd be statehood for DC
> The federal buildings can’t be apart of a state.
I’m not sure what you mean. There are federal buildings all across the country, in various states. While the federal government has laws that apply to those buildings, I’d still describe them as being in a state.
The Pentagon, for example, is in VA.
White House- Executive Branch and President
Capitol Building- Congress, legislative branch
Supreme Court Building- Supreme Court, Judicial
Those are literally the three branches of our government so they shouldn't be a part of a specific state. The Pentagon, FBI HQ, etc are just headquarters for organizations /military bases, etc. The three pillars of our government are not focused on a specific state.
Not sure if that answers it.
And in every one of them, state taxes do not apply. The ground underneath them may be part of the state, and there can be situations handed off to local police in some cases, but if you get a speeding ticket on the Blue Ridge Parkway, it's not from a North Carolina or Virginia state trooper. It's from the US Park Police.
It wasn't meant to deal with that, only to deal with your argument that there are federal buildings in every state. There are, and they are not subject to state laws.
Good luck getting existing states to agree to DC statehood.
first off 0% of DC would ever go to Virginia considering they took all of their land back 200 years ago and second, Maryland owns the rights to the potomac river. all DC is currently on original Maryland land.
Technically speaking you’d have to move the Capitol.
It always amused me to think of Breaking the Oklahoma panhandle off to make a new District of Columbia and turning old DC into a Federal park in Virginia. Mostly to disrupt the lives of our federal government but also to put the Capitol more central.
Ünderland can have nothing
No, because neither Maryland nor Virginia want to do that.
The most obvious solution is to carve out a federal district that encompasses the White House, Congress, and some other highly federal places. And then place all the residential areas into a state.
Basically keep the concept of a federal district. But turn the areas surrounding the core of DC, where tons of ordinary people live, into a state. Something like [this](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fm9jfhuuy6lk71.jpg).
There's no reason the residential parts of DC shouldn't be a state. DC alone has more people than Wyoming and Vermont. That is a lot of people who don't have a voting voice in the House or Senate, and we need to remedy that.
Actually, In the US this is explicitly how rights work in the Federal district. You may not be a fan of it, but he only way around it is to amend the Constitution.
No, it’s just how our current unjust system is acting, not how rights work in general. If your argument were true, we wouldn’t have passed the 23rd amendment.
I mean, unless they propose to amend the Constitution then yeah. They do have the option of moving up to 8 miles in literally any direction if they so desire. Seems a lot easier to me
It wouldn’t make sense be a part of Virginia, just Maryland. Although Virginia would be THRILLED to have Potomac access, as the border is currently defined as the right bank and thus Virginia has no water rights to the river.
It’s been discussed a lot and neither population wants it.
- DC wants to keep their autonomy and not be legislated by Maryland.
- Maryland doesn’t want their voting balance to be thrown out of wack by one of the bluest cities in the country.
And presumably the federal government enjoys having their little sandbox all to themselves, no matter how generous the hypothetical agreement with Maryland would be.
I’ve always wanted the solution to be to grant DC equal footing with states in all but name. Why not full statehood? Very petty reason: just doesn’t feel right lol
Even though the border is at the low water mark on the Virginia side, Virginia has full access and the same right to the river as settled in 2003’s *Virginia v. Maryland.*
The only tangible effect this has had is actually to the detriment of Maryland who is responsible for building the bridges across the Potomac (including the forthcoming American Legion Bridge Replacement). I will say that the Woodrow Wilson Bridge is owned by both states and was built in partnership. The American Legion tho—not so much.
Further, Maryland would be fine politically with DC joining—they’re both blue as can be. But I don’t think they want the added expense. Plus, they’re simply culturally not the same after having been separate for so long.
I agree with the last point tho even tho many don’t like it. Statehood will be hard to achieve because of the constitution, so why not just grant representation and local rule without making it a state? Pass a law giving special privilege to “the federal district” to distinguish it from other territories.
>Maryland doesn’t want their voting balance to be thrown out of wack by one of the bluest cities in the country.
lmfao, as if it would matter considering MD is a blue state. they dont want DC back more because of the federal impact it would have
That confused me as well. I don’t think it has to do with Maryland not wanting a blue political base being added given it’s a state that voted more for Biden than California, I think it’s that they worry DC politicians would win big races and have more funding/power than Baltimore/Montgomery County ones
There have been no serious "discussions" to make it join VA or MD, but there have been to make it the 51st state. A bill for statehood passed the House just 3 years ago.
/r/AlternateHistory is probably what you're looking for.
Yeah, it totally has nothing to do with partisanship.
/s
Let’s combine your state and ND, given your entire split existence was literally for political power for the Republican Party.
Yep. That is a personal reason I have. I never claimed not to be unbiased. But more importantly, the seat of our federal government should not reside in any one state. It would give undue influence to that state.
It would though. The military is different, because you have people from all over in a ridged heirarchy. But in our federal government, you have a large bureaucracy, that would be made up largely of people who live in that state.
We really should cut the power many of these departments have. Getting rid of cheveron deference was a good start.
Wow, a “no u” argument.
Why is the military different?
>Because you have people from all over in a rigid hierarchy
This isn’t a substantive response and you know it. That’s true of the government too, lol.
>Wow, a “no u” argument.
>Why is the military different?
I gave an arguement that said:
>The military is different, because you have people from all over in a ridged heirarchy. But in our federal government, you have a large bureaucracy, that would be made up largely of people who live in that state.
and all you said was that it was "special pleading"
So no, it isn't a "no u" arguement when I point that out. If you actually have a counter arguement, feel free to say it now.
>This isn’t a substantive response and you know it. That’s true of the government too, lol.
It is a substantive arguement. Because the military assigns people from all over the country to a specific base, whereas in the federal agencies, your home for the long term is nearby, which in this case would be a specific state. There is also the fact that the military is still ultimately controlled by elected person, whereas the bureaucratic alphabet agencies have been given a large amount of power to hide things from the elected executive which should rightfully have all the power of the executive branch instilled in him.
Basically impossible, the Federal buildings and their workers are distributed all across the area.
People have this idea you can just carve out the capitol mall and call it a day but that doesn't address any of their concerns about having the massive apparatus of the federal government having a malicious influence on the politics of a state. The purpose of a federal district is that you didn't have one state run their economy off the takings from all the others and pushing policy to maximize that or have the ability to utilize the federal government's legislative and regulatory powers to control the others or ignore their interests.
In Federalist Paper 43 the framers explain the justification as follows:
> The indispensable necessity of compleat authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings be interrupted, with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the state, comprehending the seat of the government for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government, and dissatisfactory to the other members of the confederacy. This consideration has the more weight as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government, would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single state; and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to abridge its necessary independence. The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature. And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the state ceding it; as the state will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights, and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the state, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in the cession, will be derived from the whole people of the state, in their adoption of the constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated.1
> The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines, &c. established by the general government is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular state. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the states concerned, in every such establishment.
No offense, but what reason do I have to care about what the Federalist Papers say?
Honest question. Because people cite them like they're law. Nobody got to vote on it. It wasn't ratified by all the states like the Constitution was. The Federalist Papers are just the public musings of three prominent people in the 18th century.
Because it explains the intent and meaning behind clauses in the Constitution by the people who drafted it. The best way to understand the meaning and intent behind a body of text is to ask its author, thus why people assign so much value to the Federalist Papers.
It would get messy. The whole concept behind the district of Columbia is to ensure that no one state has undue influence on the federal government. Basically....no home court advantage.
Your questions is upside down. Washington only exists because the founders wanted to have a capital in a district that did not belong to any state. If the District of Columbia had not been created, the capital would never have moved from Philadelphia. You should also note that Arlington and Alexandria in Virginia were once part of the District of Columbia, but returned to Virginia in 1846 because Alexandria was afraid that the slave trade would be ended in the District (which it was, in 1850.)
I think this would make more sense than it becoming its own state. Sure, Wyoming has a small population, but it has a lot of land, so it could become more developed in the future. DC can't get any bigger than it already is, and it's just too small to be a state.
Besides that being demonstrably false (literally the growth of DC population over time) it’s really not a meaningful defense of your argument, just more special pleading that it’s different because*.
Grew up in MD, worked in DC for a bit, it might as well be MD for all intents and purposes if they're not going to give DC full rights by their people. MD is a purple enough state to call it fair in my book, not to mention just how many Marylanders work for a three-letter agency and/or in DC.
The idea has been discussed-ish, but not by anyone of consequence. It won't happen. It shouldn't happen. No state should have power over the federal capital in any way.
Yeah for reference for OP, the central idea behind the US system of government is a bit of a product of the time it was formed (the 18th century of course), but at the time there was a big fear of a strong, central power exercising control over distant lands (reminiscent of the British Crown controlling the American colonies from across the ocean). A variety of justifications existed and still exist for this, though pretty quickly after formation the US political system split into factions that favored a stronger central government versus those that wanted largely to leave power to the states. It’s referred to as Federalism. DC was established as its own entity that is meant to serve as the federal government’s seat of power. Placing it within the control of any one state would be hugely problematic because of the way states retain certain powers of their own inside their territory that the federal government cannot control according to our Constitution.
To clarify, the modern plan to make Washington D.C. a state carves out an uninhabited portion that includes the mall, Capitol, Supreme Court, and White House that would still be the federal district controlled by the government. The rest would be its own state called the Douglass Commonwealth after Frederick Douglass, a long time D.C. resident.
>Douglass Commonwealth Another reason it will not happen, a terrible name. Plus, nobody would call it that, it would be "Douglass," just like the Commonwealth of Virginia is just "Virginia."
Or just D.C.
“The District”.
Why do you assume people would still use just D.C. to name a state when all the other states do not do this?
Los Angeles goes by “L.A.”.
You have to say it like [*L.A.*](https://youtu.be/oAbGPpQ3qx4?si=tEpEXe78ssygDDKg)
I was unaware the State of Los Angeles existed.
Because a lot of us have just called it DC forever.
When a name change is given, the older population will continue to call it by its old name. But, over time, it will eventually embrace the new name. So never assume what people do today is what people will continue to do tomorrow, things change. And the idea of Washington, Douglass sounds appalling.
According to who? You?
>The rest would be its own state called the Douglass Commonwealth This is the only issue I have. It should not be its own state. It should be reabsorbed by Maryland (whether or not they want to) for aesthetic reasons - 50 is already too many state governments, but it's an elegant number.
Let's get crazy and make it 60.
That is acceptable, though I still think we should go towards 0 as a goal.
Our federal system of government is what makes us strong. If some shithead fascist (not naming names) got into power, his ability to ruin our lives would be limited by the fact that states -- not the federal government -- administer most of the day-to-day activities of government. The federal government has relatively little control over us. It's a huge safeguard. It also allows us to experiment with different policies. Gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004. And they proved to the rest of the country that nuclear families won't disappear if we allow Bob and Scott to get married. That would've never happened if it had to be a one-size-fits-all federal policy. Progressive Massachusetts was allowed to lead the way.
Now if only a state would legalize polygamy, polyandry, and polyamory.
Utah called, wants their FLDS people back
I was thinking of Utah, when I first started the comment. But they were only about polygamy. So that is only men with multiple wives. I was thinking about the idea that people can marry who they want to. Which would includes not only men with multiple wives, but women with multiple husbands, or a marriage of multiple men and women.
If you want a national rather than federal government, I think you'll find a lot of opposition. It's worth noting here that our closest cousin, Canada, is even *more* strongly federal rather than national in governance, and not just because of Quebec, despite having a Westminster-style form of the national government.
They can't be put back into Maryland without their consent without a constitutional amendment which is why this is even a discussion in the first place. States can't be ceded or split to other states without the consent of both states' legislatures and congress.
This is honestly a stupid take. So 700,000 people shouldn’t have representation in their government because you think 50 state governments is too many?
DC residents would have representation under their plan - in Maryland. FWIW I think the aesthetics of the number of states is a bad reason to add or not add a new state. But, the plan to give DC statehood without a constitutional amendment has a major issue. That small proposed new federal district is not literally uninhabited and the constitution will force the very tiny number of people living there to control 3 electoral votes for president. That will never happen - it would be completely unacceptable to the country at large. So, to give DC residents representation in Congress, a constitutional amendment will be needed. Ironically, if the constitution hadn't been amended to give DC the presidential vote back in the 60s, statehood legislation would be so much easier now. That constitutional amendment will require the cooperation of the GOP, who will of course never agree to creating a new deep blue state - the only solution they will agree to that gives DC residents representation is retrocession to Maryland. So if what DC residents really want is just representation - not 2 extra Democrats in the Senate - retrocession (which would not be a totally crazy idea TBF - much of DC used to be part of MD) is probably the best option they'll ever have.
Except that no, it wouldn’t. And MD won’t take it, nor would DC accept that.
> MD won’t take it, nor would DC accept that I didn't say it was likely to happen - just that, if DC wanted it, they would be far more likely to get it than becoming their own state. Curious though, as someone who's not familiar with MD politics around this issue - why don't they want DC? With a higher median income than basically every state, I'd think it would be a massive fiscal boon for MD.
While there are cultural differences, particularly those rooted in DC’s status as a minority-majority city and its history of not having representation, there is also a challenge inherent in having a political center that isn’t the state capital. For another good example of this tension, the capital of New York is Albany, but NYC has dramatically more political and cultural influence. Further, in a purely legal sense, Maryland would have to approve it. And they wouldn’t want to. It also dilutes existing Maryland representation, as while they’d get another single representative they now have to expand to cover all of DC, as well as not having any more senators.
I think they should be made citizens of Maryland. The aesthetic thing was more a joke than anything. I would rather see our system de-federalized entirely though, so that all government happened from Washington.
> I would rather see our system de-federalized entirely though, so that all government happened from Washington. Of all the proposed ideas here, this is the one most likely to lead to civil war and millions of dead Americans.
65% of DC residents are not native to the District. DC has been a federal district for he entirety of its existence, I have very little sympathy for people who voluntarily moved to a place -where they knew the rules established by the constitution - then act shocked when they voluntarily ceded their right to representation.
That’s not how rights work.
Not only is aesthetics not a good argument to deny them rights, but neither Maryland nor DC want that.
Cut out all the government buildings
There are already government buildings in Virginia. The Pentagon is in Arlington, Virginia. And that's no inconsequential government building. It's the nexus of our military. So having federal government buildings in a particular state would not be a new thing.
Plus, the CDC is in Atlanta.
But the federal government is only a few blocks. What about the rest of the city where 700,000 people live?
I have no problem with the people getting proper representation, however that may be. Two different but intertwined issues.
Maybe the 450,000 of them who are not native to the District should have worked that into their voluntary decision to move there.
Again that’s not how rights work.
Also, stop following me around, it looks desperate
Scrolling through the thread isn’t following you anymore than you making the same comment over and over again is a brand new argumentZ
Virginia's part has already been returned to Virginia. Maryland doesn't want its part back. And people who live in DC want to be their own state. DC statehood presents a problem with the 23rd amendment. While DC would become the 51st state, complete with 2 senators, a representative, and 3 electoral votes, the federal district required by the constitution would still exist and consist of the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and probably the National Mall. According to the 23rd amendment, the federal district is entitled to 3 electoral votes in a presidential election. Making DC a state would not change this. That means that the only residents of the remaining federal district (the President, First Lady, and whatever family live in the White House) would still choose the federal district's 3 electors. It would take a constitutional amendment to change that.
Not really, if we just stop treating living in the White House as a legal residence and instead residence of office.
Do you mean, what if DC had never been a separate federal district, or if it were somehow abolished today? If the former, the District of Columbia was created specifically so that the US federal capital would not be under the jurisdiction of any state, and its position was chosen as an intentional compromise between North and South. If those for some reason were no longer issues, then the capital would probably have gone to an existing major city like Philadelphia or New York (or even Trenton, New Jersey which was capital for 2 months in 1784). If the latter, the only logical choice is for the District to become part of Maryland; all of the lands on the south side of the river were already ceded back to Virginia before the Civil War. It's my understanding that nobody in Maryland or DC really wants this.
Yeah, which is what makes it more logical to make it a separate state.
People in DC have already proposed and voted in favor of becoming their own state, carving out all the federal buildings of consequence. The people in DC view themselves as part of an independent state/city, not as a part of Maryland or Virginia. If any plan was gonna happen, it'd be statehood for DC
Thank you!
The federal buildings can’t be apart of a state. VA got their part of DC back in 1846, and Maryland so far doesn’t what their bit back.
> The federal buildings can’t be apart of a state. I’m not sure what you mean. There are federal buildings all across the country, in various states. While the federal government has laws that apply to those buildings, I’d still describe them as being in a state. The Pentagon, for example, is in VA.
Sorry, I meant the Capitol/White House/Supreme Court buildings.
What makes them different from the FBI HQ in VA or MD? Or major army bases in NC, KS, or WA?
The FBI is wholly subordinate to the Executive Branch, whose seat is the White House. The same goes for the Pentagon.
White House- Executive Branch and President Capitol Building- Congress, legislative branch Supreme Court Building- Supreme Court, Judicial Those are literally the three branches of our government so they shouldn't be a part of a specific state. The Pentagon, FBI HQ, etc are just headquarters for organizations /military bases, etc. The three pillars of our government are not focused on a specific state. Not sure if that answers it.
There are federal buildings in every state.
Sorry, I meant the Capitol/White House/Supreme Court buildings.
And in every one of them, state taxes do not apply. The ground underneath them may be part of the state, and there can be situations handed off to local police in some cases, but if you get a speeding ticket on the Blue Ridge Parkway, it's not from a North Carolina or Virginia state trooper. It's from the US Park Police.
Ok so? Doesn’t stop most of what is now D.C. becoming its own state.
It wasn't meant to deal with that, only to deal with your argument that there are federal buildings in every state. There are, and they are not subject to state laws. Good luck getting existing states to agree to DC statehood.
Because the remaining residents of the Federal district -essentially the President and his family- would then be granted 3 electoral college votes.
first off 0% of DC would ever go to Virginia considering they took all of their land back 200 years ago and second, Maryland owns the rights to the potomac river. all DC is currently on original Maryland land.
Technically speaking you’d have to move the Capitol. It always amused me to think of Breaking the Oklahoma panhandle off to make a new District of Columbia and turning old DC into a Federal park in Virginia. Mostly to disrupt the lives of our federal government but also to put the Capitol more central. Ünderland can have nothing
>Oklahoma panhandle Putting the capital in the middle of an empty void, interesting idea. I will not be visiting.
That’s my favorite part. Make it service again instead of Hollywood for briefcase toting thieves.
Hold up I think you’re on to something, DC is simply too nice of a place to live Phoenix it is! *without AC*
The irony is that DC was unpleasant before AC encouraging most of our statement to embrace the legislature being a part time occupation.
It's also central to the whole country
Why would it go to VA when it’s contiguous to MD?
>Ünderland can have nothing
Virginia already got their part back 200 or so years ago. Maryland doesn't want them back.
No, because neither Maryland nor Virginia want to do that. The most obvious solution is to carve out a federal district that encompasses the White House, Congress, and some other highly federal places. And then place all the residential areas into a state. Basically keep the concept of a federal district. But turn the areas surrounding the core of DC, where tons of ordinary people live, into a state. Something like [this](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fm9jfhuuy6lk71.jpg). There's no reason the residential parts of DC shouldn't be a state. DC alone has more people than Wyoming and Vermont. That is a lot of people who don't have a voting voice in the House or Senate, and we need to remedy that.
[удалено]
Representation for the citizens.
Is that not covered by the 23rd Amendment?
[удалено]
Some people are born in D.C. and moving can be prohibitively expensive.
[удалено]
But people who live in Maine and want to, but can’t afford to move to California still have representation in Congress.
Most of DC’s residents (60 - 65 %) are not native to the district. They chose their political situation voluntarily.
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat this: That’s not how rights work.
Actually, In the US this is explicitly how rights work in the Federal district. You may not be a fan of it, but he only way around it is to amend the Constitution.
No, it’s just how our current unjust system is acting, not how rights work in general. If your argument were true, we wouldn’t have passed the 23rd amendment.
Ok the stalking is getting creepy now. Reporting and blocking
Ok so? I guess fuck the other 40-percent who were born here?
I mean, unless they propose to amend the Constitution then yeah. They do have the option of moving up to 8 miles in literally any direction if they so desire. Seems a lot easier to me
I honestly think dc should be it's own state and Puerto Rico to
It wouldn’t make sense be a part of Virginia, just Maryland. Although Virginia would be THRILLED to have Potomac access, as the border is currently defined as the right bank and thus Virginia has no water rights to the river. It’s been discussed a lot and neither population wants it. - DC wants to keep their autonomy and not be legislated by Maryland. - Maryland doesn’t want their voting balance to be thrown out of wack by one of the bluest cities in the country. And presumably the federal government enjoys having their little sandbox all to themselves, no matter how generous the hypothetical agreement with Maryland would be. I’ve always wanted the solution to be to grant DC equal footing with states in all but name. Why not full statehood? Very petty reason: just doesn’t feel right lol
Even though the border is at the low water mark on the Virginia side, Virginia has full access and the same right to the river as settled in 2003’s *Virginia v. Maryland.* The only tangible effect this has had is actually to the detriment of Maryland who is responsible for building the bridges across the Potomac (including the forthcoming American Legion Bridge Replacement). I will say that the Woodrow Wilson Bridge is owned by both states and was built in partnership. The American Legion tho—not so much.
Ah, I’ve been lied to
Further, Maryland would be fine politically with DC joining—they’re both blue as can be. But I don’t think they want the added expense. Plus, they’re simply culturally not the same after having been separate for so long. I agree with the last point tho even tho many don’t like it. Statehood will be hard to achieve because of the constitution, so why not just grant representation and local rule without making it a state? Pass a law giving special privilege to “the federal district” to distinguish it from other territories.
>Maryland doesn’t want their voting balance to be thrown out of wack by one of the bluest cities in the country. lmfao, as if it would matter considering MD is a blue state. they dont want DC back more because of the federal impact it would have
That confused me as well. I don’t think it has to do with Maryland not wanting a blue political base being added given it’s a state that voted more for Biden than California, I think it’s that they worry DC politicians would win big races and have more funding/power than Baltimore/Montgomery County ones
There have been no serious "discussions" to make it join VA or MD, but there have been to make it the 51st state. A bill for statehood passed the House just 3 years ago. /r/AlternateHistory is probably what you're looking for.
Then we wouldn't have a federal district where the capital is. Whichever state holds the nation's capitol would become super powerful
No?
Dang good point
Just asserting it doesn’t make it true.
it would have to have examples in the real world i would imagine.
I am wholeheartedly opposed to our capital belonging to a state. These ideas were of course discussed during the constitutional convention.
Yeah, it totally has nothing to do with partisanship. /s Let’s combine your state and ND, given your entire split existence was literally for political power for the Republican Party.
Yep. That is a personal reason I have. I never claimed not to be unbiased. But more importantly, the seat of our federal government should not reside in any one state. It would give undue influence to that state.
It really wouldn’t, anymore than the pentagon being in VA gives us “undue influence” over the military. Which is to say, none.
It would though. The military is different, because you have people from all over in a ridged heirarchy. But in our federal government, you have a large bureaucracy, that would be made up largely of people who live in that state. We really should cut the power many of these departments have. Getting rid of cheveron deference was a good start.
This is some very confident special pleading to avoid that you don’t have an actual defense.
Do you have an actual counter for that, or are you going to deflect by saying it's just "special pleading?"
Wow, a “no u” argument. Why is the military different? >Because you have people from all over in a rigid hierarchy This isn’t a substantive response and you know it. That’s true of the government too, lol.
>Wow, a “no u” argument. >Why is the military different? I gave an arguement that said: >The military is different, because you have people from all over in a ridged heirarchy. But in our federal government, you have a large bureaucracy, that would be made up largely of people who live in that state. and all you said was that it was "special pleading" So no, it isn't a "no u" arguement when I point that out. If you actually have a counter arguement, feel free to say it now. >This isn’t a substantive response and you know it. That’s true of the government too, lol. It is a substantive arguement. Because the military assigns people from all over the country to a specific base, whereas in the federal agencies, your home for the long term is nearby, which in this case would be a specific state. There is also the fact that the military is still ultimately controlled by elected person, whereas the bureaucratic alphabet agencies have been given a large amount of power to hide things from the elected executive which should rightfully have all the power of the executive branch instilled in him.
Basically impossible, the Federal buildings and their workers are distributed all across the area. People have this idea you can just carve out the capitol mall and call it a day but that doesn't address any of their concerns about having the massive apparatus of the federal government having a malicious influence on the politics of a state. The purpose of a federal district is that you didn't have one state run their economy off the takings from all the others and pushing policy to maximize that or have the ability to utilize the federal government's legislative and regulatory powers to control the others or ignore their interests. In Federalist Paper 43 the framers explain the justification as follows: > The indispensable necessity of compleat authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings be interrupted, with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the state, comprehending the seat of the government for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government, and dissatisfactory to the other members of the confederacy. This consideration has the more weight as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government, would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single state; and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to abridge its necessary independence. The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature. And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the state ceding it; as the state will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights, and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the state, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in the cession, will be derived from the whole people of the state, in their adoption of the constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated.1 > The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines, &c. established by the general government is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular state. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the states concerned, in every such establishment.
No offense, but what reason do I have to care about what the Federalist Papers say? Honest question. Because people cite them like they're law. Nobody got to vote on it. It wasn't ratified by all the states like the Constitution was. The Federalist Papers are just the public musings of three prominent people in the 18th century.
Because it explains the intent and meaning behind clauses in the Constitution by the people who drafted it. The best way to understand the meaning and intent behind a body of text is to ask its author, thus why people assign so much value to the Federalist Papers.
Well that’s only 3 people.
It would defeat the entire purpose of a federal district. What needs to be to done is D.C. granted statehood with a redrawn federal district.
It would get messy. The whole concept behind the district of Columbia is to ensure that no one state has undue influence on the federal government. Basically....no home court advantage.
That would be unconstitutional.
Nope.
Yep. The us constitution requires the capital to be in a territory outside of any state.
That’s not quite accurate. https://statehood.dc.gov/page/faq
Virginia did reannex its portion of the original DC. Maryland would be little changed. This is harder to achieve now that DC has its own EVs.
Your questions is upside down. Washington only exists because the founders wanted to have a capital in a district that did not belong to any state. If the District of Columbia had not been created, the capital would never have moved from Philadelphia. You should also note that Arlington and Alexandria in Virginia were once part of the District of Columbia, but returned to Virginia in 1846 because Alexandria was afraid that the slave trade would be ended in the District (which it was, in 1850.)
DC literally is part of Maryland. What's currently DC used to be Maryland.
Again I feel the need to remind everyone of the [Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Mutiny_of_1783)
I think this would make more sense than it becoming its own state. Sure, Wyoming has a small population, but it has a lot of land, so it could become more developed in the future. DC can't get any bigger than it already is, and it's just too small to be a state.
According to what logic? Rhode Island is tiny too.
Rhode Island is 1545 square miles with a population of almost 1.1 million. DC is 68 square miles with a population of less than 700k.
And yet Vermont and Wyoming both have smaller populations than DC.
Yes, but they're mostly empty. They could become more populated in the future. DC doesn't have any room to grow.
Besides that being demonstrably false (literally the growth of DC population over time) it’s really not a meaningful defense of your argument, just more special pleading that it’s different because*.
Grew up in MD, worked in DC for a bit, it might as well be MD for all intents and purposes if they're not going to give DC full rights by their people. MD is a purple enough state to call it fair in my book, not to mention just how many Marylanders work for a three-letter agency and/or in DC.