Constitutional question about DC

[Anonymous]

I thought of something this morning, as a solution to DC's lack of federal representation. Two questions: Is it an old idea, and would it be constitutional?

Treat DC, for federal purposes only, as part of Maryland (which it once was, and geographically still is). Let us vote for MD senators; they often feel morally obliged to represent our interests even now, and are usually Democrats anyhow, so it would not have major political impact. And give us a representative who would be considered part of the Maryland delegation, so the Congress would continue being apportioned among the states as the Constitution requires. But keep us separate from Annapolis, still subject to whatever home rule Congress grants us, as delineated in the Constitution.

With very little change to the institutions of government, this would solve the glaring hole at the center of our democracy.

I am not claiming that it will happen with a snap of my fingers, but do you see any fatal flaws?

[Anonymous]

I don't see what this would accomplish.
Plus, the Republic Party of Maryland would never accept this.

[Anonymous]

This makes no sense and solves nothing. DC is a district and not part of any state per the constitution and while run by a mayor and city counsel the ultimate authority is Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This makes no sense and solves nothing. DC is a district and not part of any state per the constitution and while run by a mayor and city counsel the ultimate authority is Congress.

I ran it up the flagpole, and you have a right not to salute. But the fact that it does not make sense to you does not mean it makes no sense. And it would certainly solve the problem that I don't get to vote for anyone in the House or the Senate.

However, I looked at the wording of the Constitution, and I admit it can be understood to preclude the idea. On the other hand, the first sentence of the 14th Amendment assures that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens "of the State wherein they reside." To me, that means I must have a state of residence. Either it's DC or one of the 50 states, Maryland being the most obvious candidate.

Words are often given legal meanings that do not quite match their normal usage. For purposes of Congressional elections, our state of residence could be legally defined to be Maryland, even as we remain, for all other purposes, residents of DC. Just as, for purposes of apportionment, a slave was once 3/5 of a person, and for purposes of freedom of speech, a corporation is a person. As one who lives two blocks from Maryland, I think the legal fiction of calling me a Maryland resident for Congressional elections would be one of the less far-fetched legal fictions that exist in our nation.

[Anonymous]

Hell no. I'd rather have it this way than be part of Maryland. We'd be in the same situation with all democrat senators anyway. I'd rather have a federal tax exemption than any of those other retrocession ideas.

PS. Worst case scenario I'd rather be aligned with virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hell no. I'd rather have it this way than be part of Maryland. We'd be in the same situation with all democrat senators anyway. I'd rather have a federal tax exemption than any of those other retrocession ideas.

PS. Worst case scenario I'd rather be aligned with virginia.

Sounds like you'd be a possible GOP vote, which would make us a little less odious to the MD GOP.

BTW, I really think the best idea would be for DC, PG, MC, Fairfax, Alexandria, and Arlington to be a state. There are probably enough GOPers in NV and MC to make it possible for a GOP senator to slip in now and then, and anyhow, the rest of VA would probably be reliably GOP to compensate.