Anonymous wrote:All if this is merely pipe dreams because the state of Maryland could absolutely claim back its land given that the certain swaths of the District are prime real estate. I would back Governor Hogan in this pursuit. DC statehood could be tied up for years maybe even a decade should MD rightfully sue.

Larry Hogan would not want to absorb thousands of Dem votes. The Md GOP would never go for this. You would need to pass it in the Md legislature with only Dem votes. But they won't support it either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, this is all well worked out by the fairly large legal effort DC has used over the years to design appropriate statehood legislation.

It's all here. DC Govt has a website specifically because the vast majority of its residents want statehood.
Here is the site:
https://statehood.dc.gov/

There is actual proposed legislation that answers all the bad-faith questions above.
https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/HR%20-%2051%20.pdf

Here's the table of contents of the bill:

TITLE I—STATE OF WASHINGTON, D.C.
Subtitle A—Procedures for Admission
Sec. 101. Admission into the Union.
Sec. 102. Election of officials of State.
Sec. 103. Issuance of presidential proclamation.
Subtitle B—Description of Washington, D.C. Territory
Sec. 111. Territories and boundaries of Washington, D.C.
Sec. 112. Description of District of Columbia after admission of State.
Sec. 113. Continuation of title to lands and property.
Subtitle C—General Provisions Relating to Laws of Washington, D.C.
Sec. 121. Limitation on authority of State to tax Federal property.
Sec. 122. Effect of admission of State on current laws.
Sec. 123. Continuation of judicial proceedings.
Sec. 124. United States nationality.
TITLE II—RESPONSIBILITIES AND INTERESTS OF FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
Sec. 201. Continuation of revised District of Columbia as seat of Federal Government.
Sec. 202. Treatment of military lands.
Sec. 203. Waiver of claims to Federal lands and property.
Sec. 204. Permitting individuals residing in new seat of government to vote in
Federal elections in State of most recent domicile.
Sec. 205. Repeal of law providing for participation of District of Columbia in
election of President and Vice-President.
Sec. 206. Expedited procedures for consideration of constitutional amendment
repealing 23rd Amendment.
TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. General definitions.
Sec. 302. Certification of enactment by President.

All if this is merely pipe dreams because the state of Maryland could absolutely claim back its land given that the certain swaths of the District are prime real estate. I would back Governor Hogan in this pursuit. DC statehood could be tied up for years maybe even a decade should MD rightfully sue.

Maryland's claim to DC extinguished 200+ years ago when it gave the land to the District.

DC lost its right to statehood when it allowed a District resident to represent the population via the state of Maryland in Congress.

How would it have prevented that? Was there even an elected DC govt at the time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, this is all well worked out by the fairly large legal effort DC has used over the years to design appropriate statehood legislation.

It's all here. DC Govt has a website specifically because the vast majority of its residents want statehood.
Here is the site:
https://statehood.dc.gov/

There is actual proposed legislation that answers all the bad-faith questions above.
https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/HR%20-%2051%20.pdf

Here's the table of contents of the bill:

TITLE I—STATE OF WASHINGTON, D.C.
Subtitle A—Procedures for Admission
Sec. 101. Admission into the Union.
Sec. 102. Election of officials of State.
Sec. 103. Issuance of presidential proclamation.
Subtitle B—Description of Washington, D.C. Territory
Sec. 111. Territories and boundaries of Washington, D.C.
Sec. 112. Description of District of Columbia after admission of State.
Sec. 113. Continuation of title to lands and property.
Subtitle C—General Provisions Relating to Laws of Washington, D.C.
Sec. 121. Limitation on authority of State to tax Federal property.
Sec. 122. Effect of admission of State on current laws.
Sec. 123. Continuation of judicial proceedings.
Sec. 124. United States nationality.
TITLE II—RESPONSIBILITIES AND INTERESTS OF FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
Sec. 201. Continuation of revised District of Columbia as seat of Federal Government.
Sec. 202. Treatment of military lands.
Sec. 203. Waiver of claims to Federal lands and property.
Sec. 204. Permitting individuals residing in new seat of government to vote in
Federal elections in State of most recent domicile.
Sec. 205. Repeal of law providing for participation of District of Columbia in
election of President and Vice-President.
Sec. 206. Expedited procedures for consideration of constitutional amendment
repealing 23rd Amendment.
TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. General definitions.
Sec. 302. Certification of enactment by President.

All if this is merely pipe dreams because the state of Maryland could absolutely claim back its land given that the certain swaths of the District are prime real estate. I would back Governor Hogan in this pursuit. DC statehood could be tied up for years maybe even a decade should MD rightfully sue.

Maryland's claim to DC extinguished 200+ years ago when it gave the land to the District.

DC lost its right to statehood when it allowed a District resident to represent the population via the state of Maryland in Congress.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, this is all well worked out by the fairly large legal effort DC has used over the years to design appropriate statehood legislation.

It's all here. DC Govt has a website specifically because the vast majority of its residents want statehood.
Here is the site:
https://statehood.dc.gov/

There is actual proposed legislation that answers all the bad-faith questions above.
https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/HR%20-%2051%20.pdf

Here's the table of contents of the bill:

TITLE I—STATE OF WASHINGTON, D.C.
Subtitle A—Procedures for Admission
Sec. 101. Admission into the Union.
Sec. 102. Election of officials of State.
Sec. 103. Issuance of presidential proclamation.
Subtitle B—Description of Washington, D.C. Territory
Sec. 111. Territories and boundaries of Washington, D.C.
Sec. 112. Description of District of Columbia after admission of State.
Sec. 113. Continuation of title to lands and property.
Subtitle C—General Provisions Relating to Laws of Washington, D.C.
Sec. 121. Limitation on authority of State to tax Federal property.
Sec. 122. Effect of admission of State on current laws.
Sec. 123. Continuation of judicial proceedings.
Sec. 124. United States nationality.
TITLE II—RESPONSIBILITIES AND INTERESTS OF FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
Sec. 201. Continuation of revised District of Columbia as seat of Federal Government.
Sec. 202. Treatment of military lands.
Sec. 203. Waiver of claims to Federal lands and property.
Sec. 204. Permitting individuals residing in new seat of government to vote in
Federal elections in State of most recent domicile.
Sec. 205. Repeal of law providing for participation of District of Columbia in
election of President and Vice-President.
Sec. 206. Expedited procedures for consideration of constitutional amendment
repealing 23rd Amendment.
TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. General definitions.
Sec. 302. Certification of enactment by President.

All if this is merely pipe dreams because the state of Maryland could absolutely claim back its land given that the certain swaths of the District are prime real estate. I would back Governor Hogan in this pursuit. DC statehood could be tied up for years maybe even a decade should MD rightfully sue.

Maryland's claim to DC extinguished 200+ years ago when it gave the land to the District.

Retrocession to Md. We get everything that DC Council and mayor cannot provide. Just a ridiculous power play that'll result in more gentrification.

Anonymous wrote:Umm, this is all well worked out by the fairly large legal effort DC has used over the years to design appropriate statehood legislation.

It's all here. DC Govt has a website specifically because the vast majority of its residents want statehood.
Here is the site:
https://statehood.dc.gov/

There is actual proposed legislation that answers all the bad-faith questions above.
https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/HR%20-%2051%20.pdf

Here's the table of contents of the bill:

TITLE I—STATE OF WASHINGTON, D.C.
Subtitle A—Procedures for Admission
Sec. 101. Admission into the Union.
Sec. 102. Election of officials of State.
Sec. 103. Issuance of presidential proclamation.
Subtitle B—Description of Washington, D.C. Territory
Sec. 111. Territories and boundaries of Washington, D.C.
Sec. 112. Description of District of Columbia after admission of State.
Sec. 113. Continuation of title to lands and property.
Subtitle C—General Provisions Relating to Laws of Washington, D.C.
Sec. 121. Limitation on authority of State to tax Federal property.
Sec. 122. Effect of admission of State on current laws.
Sec. 123. Continuation of judicial proceedings.
Sec. 124. United States nationality.
TITLE II—RESPONSIBILITIES AND INTERESTS OF FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
Sec. 201. Continuation of revised District of Columbia as seat of Federal Government.
Sec. 202. Treatment of military lands.
Sec. 203. Waiver of claims to Federal lands and property.
Sec. 204. Permitting individuals residing in new seat of government to vote in
Federal elections in State of most recent domicile.
Sec. 205. Repeal of law providing for participation of District of Columbia in
election of President and Vice-President.
Sec. 206. Expedited procedures for consideration of constitutional amendment
repealing 23rd Amendment.
TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. General definitions.
Sec. 302. Certification of enactment by President.

All if this is merely pipe dreams because the state of Maryland could absolutely claim back its land given that the certain swaths of the District are prime real estate. I would back Governor Hogan in this pursuit. DC statehood could be tied up for years maybe even a decade should MD rightfully sue.

Umm, this is all well worked out by the fairly large legal effort DC has used over the years to design appropriate statehood legislation.

It's all here. DC Govt has a website specifically because the vast majority of its residents want statehood.
Here is the site:
https://statehood.dc.gov/

There is actual proposed legislation that answers all the bad-faith questions above.
https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/HR%20-%2051%20.pdf

Here's the table of contents of the bill:

TITLE I—STATE OF WASHINGTON, D.C.
Subtitle A—Procedures for Admission
Sec. 101. Admission into the Union.
Sec. 102. Election of officials of State.
Sec. 103. Issuance of presidential proclamation.
Subtitle B—Description of Washington, D.C. Territory
Sec. 111. Territories and boundaries of Washington, D.C.
Sec. 112. Description of District of Columbia after admission of State.
Sec. 113. Continuation of title to lands and property.
Subtitle C—General Provisions Relating to Laws of Washington, D.C.
Sec. 121. Limitation on authority of State to tax Federal property.
Sec. 122. Effect of admission of State on current laws.
Sec. 123. Continuation of judicial proceedings.
Sec. 124. United States nationality.
TITLE II—RESPONSIBILITIES AND INTERESTS OF FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
Sec. 201. Continuation of revised District of Columbia as seat of Federal Government.
Sec. 202. Treatment of military lands.
Sec. 203. Waiver of claims to Federal lands and property.
Sec. 204. Permitting individuals residing in new seat of government to vote in
Federal elections in State of most recent domicile.
Sec. 205. Repeal of law providing for participation of District of Columbia in
election of President and Vice-President.
Sec. 206. Expedited procedures for consideration of constitutional amendment
repealing 23rd Amendment.
TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. General definitions.
Sec. 302. Certification of enactment by President.

Its certainly a history lesson learned here worth reviewing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems DC cannot have statehood without the permission of MD. Read below to find out why.


Originally DC was formed from Maryland and Virginia land, but the Viriginia land was ceded back to Virginia in 1846. Thus, all of DC's current land was originally Maryland's land. And as noted above, there's already been a case (1793-1794) where a DC resident represented Maryland in the U.S. Congress.

Uriah Forrest (who lived in DC) represented Maryland in the U.S. House of Representatives. Up until 1801, people who lived in DC voted just like any other U.S. citizen (voting in either Virginia or Maryland, depending on where the DC land came from). However, the "Organic Act" passed by Congress in 1801 stripped DC residents of their rights to vote in Federal elections. In 1801 this didn't affect many people, but this 1801 law now affects hundreds of thousands of people. Given this strong historical precedent, it would make sense for DC residents to vote in Federal elections as Marylandians. Although a bill was passed in 1961 to give residents the right to vote in presidential elections we still lack proper congressional representation. DC Vote has more information on this)

Which leads us back to the thesis sentence: Although Maryland ceded the land of DC for purposes of creating a Federal capital district, there's evidence that Maryland never ceded that land for the purpose of creating another state. That's important, because states have to specifically okay the creation of another state from their land. Indeed, there's historical evidence that Maryland did not intend for another state to be created, since a DC resident has represented Maryland!

Credit to: David A. Wheeler
https://dwheeler.com/essays/dc-in-maryland.html

1. But a new state would not be created from Maryland. but from land that has been DC for over 200 years. I don't see where the constitution says it matters that that original concession from Maryland was to a federal district rather than a state. Once having ceded the land to the federal district, it does not appear Maryland would have any further control whatever its intentions in were back then

2. Given the politics of the issue, I doubt Maryland would withhold its permission, though it MIGHT make it conditional on say, there never being a commuter tax.

Here's what the relevant portion of the Constitution says:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The question is whether DC is "within the jurisdiction" of Maryland, or when DC was ceded to the federal government Maryland lost all claims. Certainly until 1800 DC residents were considered to be citizens of Maryland.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems DC cannot have statehood without the permission of MD. Read below to find out why.


Originally DC was formed from Maryland and Virginia land, but the Viriginia land was ceded back to Virginia in 1846. Thus, all of DC's current land was originally Maryland's land. And as noted above, there's already been a case (1793-1794) where a DC resident represented Maryland in the U.S. Congress.

Uriah Forrest (who lived in DC) represented Maryland in the U.S. House of Representatives. Up until 1801, people who lived in DC voted just like any other U.S. citizen (voting in either Virginia or Maryland, depending on where the DC land came from). However, the "Organic Act" passed by Congress in 1801 stripped DC residents of their rights to vote in Federal elections. In 1801 this didn't affect many people, but this 1801 law now affects hundreds of thousands of people. Given this strong historical precedent, it would make sense for DC residents to vote in Federal elections as Marylandians. Although a bill was passed in 1961 to give residents the right to vote in presidential elections we still lack proper congressional representation. DC Vote has more information on this)

Which leads us back to the thesis sentence: Although Maryland ceded the land of DC for purposes of creating a Federal capital district, there's evidence that Maryland never ceded that land for the purpose of creating another state. That's important, because states have to specifically okay the creation of another state from their land. Indeed, there's historical evidence that Maryland did not intend for another state to be created, since a DC resident has represented Maryland!

Credit to: David A. Wheeler
https://dwheeler.com/essays/dc-in-maryland.html

1. But a new state would not be created from Maryland. but from land that has been DC for over 200 years. I don't see where the constitution says it matters that that original concession from Maryland was to a federal district rather than a state. Once having ceded the land to the federal district, it does not appear Maryland would have any further control whatever its intentions in were back then

2. Given the politics of the issue, I doubt Maryland would withhold its permission, though it MIGHT make it conditional on say, there never being a commuter tax.

Clearly you missed the ProQuest information and reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

Anonymous wrote:It seems DC cannot have statehood without the permission of MD. Read below to find out why.


Originally DC was formed from Maryland and Virginia land, but the Viriginia land was ceded back to Virginia in 1846. Thus, all of DC's current land was originally Maryland's land. And as noted above, there's already been a case (1793-1794) where a DC resident represented Maryland in the U.S. Congress.

Uriah Forrest (who lived in DC) represented Maryland in the U.S. House of Representatives. Up until 1801, people who lived in DC voted just like any other U.S. citizen (voting in either Virginia or Maryland, depending on where the DC land came from). However, the "Organic Act" passed by Congress in 1801 stripped DC residents of their rights to vote in Federal elections. In 1801 this didn't affect many people, but this 1801 law now affects hundreds of thousands of people. Given this strong historical precedent, it would make sense for DC residents to vote in Federal elections as Marylandians. Although a bill was passed in 1961 to give residents the right to vote in presidential elections we still lack proper congressional representation. DC Vote has more information on this)

Which leads us back to the thesis sentence: Although Maryland ceded the land of DC for purposes of creating a Federal capital district, there's evidence that Maryland never ceded that land for the purpose of creating another state. That's important, because states have to specifically okay the creation of another state from their land. Indeed, there's historical evidence that Maryland did not intend for another state to be created, since a DC resident has represented Maryland!

Credit to: David A. Wheeler
https://dwheeler.com/essays/dc-in-maryland.html

1. But a new state would not be created from Maryland. but from land that has been DC for over 200 years. I don't see where the constitution says it matters that that original concession from Maryland was to a federal district rather than a state. Once having ceded the land to the federal district, it does not appear Maryland would have any further control whatever its intentions in were back then

2. Given the politics of the issue, I doubt Maryland would withhold its permission, though it MIGHT make it conditional on say, there never being a commuter tax.

It seems DC cannot have statehood without the permission of MD. Read below to find out why.


Originally DC was formed from Maryland and Virginia land, but the Viriginia land was ceded back to Virginia in 1846. Thus, all of DC's current land was originally Maryland's land. And as noted above, there's already been a case (1793-1794) where a DC resident represented Maryland in the U.S. Congress.

Uriah Forrest (who lived in DC) represented Maryland in the U.S. House of Representatives. Up until 1801, people who lived in DC voted just like any other U.S. citizen (voting in either Virginia or Maryland, depending on where the DC land came from). However, the "Organic Act" passed by Congress in 1801 stripped DC residents of their rights to vote in Federal elections. In 1801 this didn't affect many people, but this 1801 law now affects hundreds of thousands of people. Given this strong historical precedent, it would make sense for DC residents to vote in Federal elections as Marylandians. Although a bill was passed in 1961 to give residents the right to vote in presidential elections we still lack proper congressional representation. DC Vote has more information on this)

Which leads us back to the thesis sentence: Although Maryland ceded the land of DC for purposes of creating a Federal capital district, there's evidence that Maryland never ceded that land for the purpose of creating another state. That's important, because states have to specifically okay the creation of another state from their land. Indeed, there's historical evidence that Maryland did not intend for another state to be created, since a DC resident has represented Maryland!

Credit to: David A. Wheeler
https://dwheeler.com/essays/dc-in-maryland.html

In order to grant the residents of the District of Columbia voting representation and control over their local affairs, some members of Congress, such as Rep. Dan Lungren, have proposed returning most parts of the city to Maryland. These proposals go back at least as far as 1839, when some members of Congress proposed retrocession of the portion of the District west of Rock Creek to Maryland. In recent years since at least 2001, several failed attempts, mostly supported by Republicans, have been made to return most of the District to Maryland and give them full voting rights: H.R. 810 & H.R. 381, both sponsored by Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH); and H.R. 1858, H.R. 1015, H.R. 3732 and H.R. 2681, all sponsored by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX). The proposals received little support from congressional Democrats.

If both the Congress and the Maryland state legislature agreed, jurisdiction over the District of Columbia could be returned to Maryland, excluding a small tract of land immediately surrounding the United States Capitol, the White House and the Supreme Court building which would become known as the "National Capital Service Area". The idea to retrocede all but the federal lands to Maryland dates back to at least 1848.

https://www.dcvote.org/sites/default/files/documen...s/articles/mdrretrocession.pdf

ProQuest has a few pretty good articles about DC retrocession as it relates to MD. Do people see this likely to happen?

Born in DC , prefer we dont become a state. We were not set up that way. There are 50 states to choose from. Some very close.

“A new campaign is hoping to make statehood for the District of Columbia a priority for Democrats in early states Iowa and New Hampshire — and a priority for the possible next president.

With Democrats flirting with radical ideas to reform the political system, one of the most popular is to make Washington, D.C., the 51st state, which would almost certainly give Democrats two more members in the Senate.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1007541?__twitter_impression=true