Monday, June 24, 2013

Dems Hijack GOP's Frederick Douglass Party to Stump for D.C. Statehood


The "District Clause" in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

[The Congress shall have Power] 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.
........................

In 1790, the land on which the District is formed was ceded by Maryland following the passage of the Residence Act. Virginia also ceded land that helped form the District, but that land was returned to Virginia in 1847. The Congress did not officially move to the new federal capital until 1800. Shortly thereafter, the Congress passed the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 and incorporated the new federal District under its sole authority as permitted by the District Clause. Since the District of Columbia was no longer part of any state, its residents lost voting representation in the Congress.[1]

Residents of Washington, D.C., were also originally barred from voting for the President of the United States. This changed after the passage of the Twenty-third Amendment in 1961, which grants the District three votes in the Electoral College. This right has been exercised by D.C. citizens since the presidential election of 1964.

Arguments against

Prior to the District's founding, James Madison argued (in Federalist No. 43) that the national capital needed to be distinct from the states in order to provide for its own maintenance and safety. He wrote, "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."

More recently, opponents of D.C. statehood have expressed objections to statehood on the grounds that the federal government would be dependent on a single state for its security and operations. The new state might enact policies inconsistent with operating the federal government for the benefit of the nation as a whole. The District would be far smaller than any other state by area and the city's population is smaller than all but two states, which could potentially grant the District unfair influence in national politics.

Opponents argue that the newly formed state would also be unique in that interests would be dominated by those of the federal government, which would be the state's largest employer. It would also be the only state to have no rural residents and thus no need to consider the interests of non-urban areas, making the proposal unpopular in states with large rural populations. Some have expressed concern that the newly formed state might enact a commuter tax on non-residents that work in the city; such a tax is currently illegal under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.

There is also a question as to whether granting statehood to the District would need the approval of Maryland. The U.S. Constitution requires that any new states formed from an existing state receive permission from the legislature. Since Maryland granted land to form the national capital and not a new state, some lawmakers have concluded that Maryland must also consent to the new state.
.......................

(If the socialists/communists get their way they would create a permanent "ruling regime" in the "state of DC". Currently Americans have a defacto ruling regime that has very little interest in representing Americans in any way. Democrats are pushing the DC statehood proposal. Its another way to take away your freedoms under the US Constitution.) Story Reports

..............................

Dems Hijack GOP's Frederick Douglass Party to Stump for D.C. Statehood

No comments: