By DR. LARRY MOSES
No one asked me but… Statehood for Washington, D.C. has become a hot topic for the Democrats. With a tear in her eye Speaker Pelosi lamented the fact that the 750,000 Americans living within the confines of the District of Columbia have no voice in the Senate or the House of Representatives. This got me to looking at the origin of the only federal “District” in the United States.
In Article I Section 8 clause 17 of the Constitution the Founding Fathers provided for a federal “District” to serve as the nation’s capital. “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, …”
While our elected officials have sworn to uphold the Constitution, it appears that they have not read that which they have sworn to uphold.
President Biden has stated that: “No amendment, no amendment to the Constitution is absolute.” This is a man who, for over fifty years, has held government positions that required him to swear he would uphold the Constitution. It would appear that President Biden and his colleagues need to re-read the document they have pledged to uphold. I would suppose it would be too much to ask that those wishing to bestow statehood on the denizens of Washington, D. C. propose a Constitutional Amendment making it Constitutionally legal to do so.
Washington, DC, founded in 1790, is unique as it is the only “District” established by a provision of the Constitution of the United States. Keep in mind that Washington, D.C. is not a city, it is a federal “District.” The location of the “District” is the result of a compromise. Northern Hamiltonians wanted the federal government to assume the Revolutionary War debts of all the states. Southern Jeffersonians wanted the new capital to be placed in an area friendly to slave holding states. The resulting compromise is the location of the “District.”
Newly elected President George Washington was allowed to choose the cite for the “District.” Maryland and Virginia ceded land to the Constitutionally created “District.” Washington chose the area because it was centrally located and within the reasonable reach of representatives of all the states.
During the War of 1812, the “District” was burned including the newly completed White House. Dolly Madison, the First Lady, escaped the fire with the original copy of the Constitution.
After the devastation, the “District” had very few permanent residents. In 1847, the “District” shrunk in size, as the people of Virginia took back the land they had ceded to the federal government. However, the “District” increased in size as a result of the Civil War when slaves owned in Washington were emancipated on April 16, 1862, and the city became a refugee for a large African American population which included the abolitionist Frederick Douglass. The Democrats are suggesting the new state be named after Mr. Douglas.
Post-Civil War Washington slowly expanded eventually absorbing nearby Georgetown and surrounding rural areas. Neighborhoods grew up around the Capitol. The expansion of streetcar lines in the mid-19th century spurred creation of new suburbs.
It was not until 1964, that the residents of the “District” were allowed to vote in Presidential elections. In 1973, the “District” was allowed to elect its own mayor.
Presently the residents of Washington, D.C. are represented in Congress by a non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives and a shadow Senator. There are approximately 750,000 residents of Washington, D.C. which is a population greater than the states of Vermont and Wyoming. However, the 68 sq. miles that make up the “District” is much smaller than the smallest state, Rhode Island (1,545 square miles).
All that being said, let’s look at the real motivation behind the Democrat drive to acquire statehood for Washington, D.C. One might wish that it was motivated by the fact that it seems unfair that 750,000 Americans are not being represented in Congress. One might like to believe it is because these American citizens are being taxed without representation. But the motivation behind the statehood move becomes suspect when one realizes that statehood for D.C. would add two more Democrat Senators to a Senate that is presently split fifty-fifty.
If indeed the Democrats are concerned about the lack of representation of the residents of the “District,” maybe they should return the boundaries of the “District” to those originally established by Pierre Charles L’Enfant. This would encompass all the government buildings. The rest of the area could be returned to the State of Maryland and the residents of that area could vote for and be represented by Congressmen/women and Senators from that state. That, however, would not increase the Democrat representation in the House and Senate.
Here is a real radical idea. Let’s return the entire area back to Maryland and move the capital. George Washington selected the area because of its central location. The geographical center of the contiguous 48 states has change; it is now in a remote area near Lebanon, Kansas, a town of 218 people. Since the Constitution gives no specific location for the “District,” this would not require a Constitutional amendment.
What better project for the $2 trillion infrastructure program being touted by our free-spending federal government? There is plenty of land available and a modern capital could be built. Modern government buildings could be constructed along with a new residence for the President and Vice President.
We could appease the race baiters by not calling the new Presidential residence the “White House.” Dorms could be built to house Senators and members of the House. No private residence would be allowed. Outside the Capital, towns belonging to the state of Kansas could be developed.
Environmentally-friendly mass transit could be developed to bring the permanent workers into the “District.” The state of Maryland could use the old capital as a tourist draw as the monuments and the buildings they did not destroy in the name of racial cleansing would remain protected by a Historical Preservation Act.
I am sure this would not be done, as this would defeat the real purpose of the Pelosi gang. But it is always fun to think outside the box.
Thought of the week… It’s good to see things…in a new, weird way.
– Tim Burton
