Today in Supreme Court History: May 3, 1802

5/3/1802: Washington D.C. incorporated as the capital of the United States. Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress to "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 the Government of the United States."

Comments

[apedad]

The DC area should be shrunk to the absolute minimum of the Federal Triangle and the Mall, with the rest being returned to Maryland - and NOT statehood.

There's about 690,000 people in DC so it would only add one Representative to the Maryland delegation.

[Brett Bellmore]

How do you deal with the constitutional amendment that gives DC electoral votes as though it were a state? Would some homeless person living on the Mall end up a king maker in Presidential elections?

Returning the territory wouldn't repeal that amendment, after all.

A bigger issue is, does Maryland WANT the area back?

[DaivdBehar]

The idea was to put it in the middle of the country. If an amended is passed, move the Capital to Wichita, the middle of the country today. Return all of the degenerate rent seeking capital to Maryland.

[Sarcastr0]

I thought that before I moved to the District as well. But neither DC natives nor MD want that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why not statehood?

Another highly educated, modern, accomplished state -- with excellent teaching and research institutions and important cultural assets -- could be a welcome addition in many respects.

I believe three candidates -- D.C. (Douglass Commonwealth), >a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPrklRwn1HE&t=2s">Puerto Rico, and Pacific Islands -- should be considered for admission to the union. That consideration seems overdue. And, in the medium to long term, quite likely.

(For those who focus on length, an even longer one)

[Fergus McGee]

How would DC statehood be reconciled with this clause?

[Dan Schiavetta]

It sets an upper limit on the size but not a lower. Congress can always change its mind as to size.

[Brett Bellmore]

"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;"

I notice that "by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be" language is pretty much ignored these days.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Do you really think Maryland still has a say on any of this? It gave its consent and walked away a long time ago.

[Brett Bellmore]

Huh? No, that language applies to the "like authority" part of the clause, federal jurisdiction over things like military bases. Not to the District, which IS a done deal.

As I understand it, if the federal government buys property within a state, unless it goes to the state legislature for authorization, it's just an ordinary property owner like anybody, and state law continues to apply on that property. With state legislature approval, places like military bases become federal enclaves.

Only, when was the last time you heard of them bothering to obtain that permission, for a post office, for instance? They just buy the land, and assume the jurisdiction comes with it.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

It also says "and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature". IANAL but isn't that final once purchased? Not leased or rented. Once done, the state legislature has no more say in the matter.

I don't know how the land was obtained. Did they purchase it way back then, with the state legislature's consent?

Also, given the wording, does such consent bypass the governor's signature?

[Brett Bellmore]

Finally, an application of independent state legislature doctrine besides election law!

But, I was just comment on how they don't bother getting the legislature's consent anymore, so far as I can tell.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Has any land been purchased recently? That's my confusion. If none has been purchased since 1802 or thereabouts, how can you tell they haven't been getting the legislature's consent?

[Brett Bellmore]

They didn't stop building post offices, court buildings, parks, and so forth.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

But was that land bought from the state 200 years ago, or from itself more recently? I've always assumed they "bought" the entire DC at once.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think we're talking past each other?

I'm not talking about DC, I'm noting that they don't seem to bother with the permission of the legislature thing anymore.

[David Nieporent]

Why do you think they necessarily purchase that land rather than lease it?