The DC license plate reads “Taxation Without Representation”. So I think I have a pretty good idea of what’s up on that issue.
We pay all Federal taxes that people in the 50 states do, in contrast to Americans who live in the various territories.
People in DC pay federal and DC income taxes.
They have no vote in Congress. Until recently they couldn’t even spend their own tax money without complete control of the city budget by Congress.
The DC government recently put “Taxation Without Representation” as the motto on District license plates to make the point.
If the territory is in fact self-governing – which D.C. is not, but could be, without statehood – then, no, I see no benefits or responsibilities – other than representation.
I repeat. Does anyone have any ideas?
What problem does this solve that isn’t better solved by folding the whole mess into Maryland?
No. These are some of the wealthiest and most populous counties of each state, and home to features many would count integral to their life and identity. Many Marylanders and Virginians, inside and outside the counties in question, would strenuously object.
Neither of these notions is remotely as practicable as simple DC statehood. That requires only that Congress get on board.
Why is this even a question? It’s like asking what would it take for Connecticut to give Bridgeport to New York. It’s a proposal that nobody is interested in.
A state can’t be completely abolished, or taken over, or its government removed or destroyed and ruled by Congress. DC has no such protection. It has no sovereignty. It has no right even to exist. Congress can govern it however it wants. And simply declaring it to be “self-governing” doesn’t change that. A state is sovereign - it needs no other government’s permission to exist or self-govern, and no other state or federal government can ever take that away from it. There’s an enormous difference.
There’s no factual answer–your last sentence points out that this is a “view.” I’m expressing my view, you yours. This issue has never been definitively settled legally. We’re speculating here, unless you have claim that you have definitive legal proof and I’m somehow running afoul of it?
I can’t imagine anything that we could offer, because those are the richest, highest tax base, fastest growing counties of those respective states. If you were offering to take up western Maryland or southwest Virginia you might be able to come to some agreement, but I can’t fathom any constitutionally valid things we could offer to Virginia or Maryland that would be better for them than keeping those counties that surround DC.
Theoretically maybe if you offered Virginia and Maryland perpetual grants from the Federal government, equal to some share of their GDP, in an amount > than the tax revenues they could enjoy from the ceded counties, but again Congress can’t make that deal. Any law Congress writes a future Congress can unwrite, and the other 48 states (or 36 of them anyway) wouldn’t sign on to making a constitutional change to make said arrangement permanent.
But you’re speculating that “cession” does not mean “cession.” You’re literally saying that the words in the Constitution don’t mean what they mean. How is that even a defendable assertion?
I might as well argue that “Congress” when used in the Constitution doesn’t mean a legislative body, it means two people fornicating. “All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in people in the process of sexual intercourse…”
You’re arguing “cession” implies some irrevocability or permanency. The term “retrocession” has been used in reference to giving Virginia control of its land, which makes it obvious a cession in this context is a process that can be undone. Further there is no precise meaning of “cession”, does it mean giving up territory permanently? Or just right of control? If the latter then there is no redrawing of any state borders by a retrocession, just a relinquishment of Federal right of control–which the State has no right to veto.
The retrocession to Virginia was not done without Virginia’s consent. I have no idea why this is an argument for why retrocession can be done without Maryland’s consent. This sounds like gibberish.
If you sell me something, and I resell it to you, that doesn’t mean that your sale to me wasn’t a permanent state of affairs when that transaction was conducted.
As far as the plain English definition of cession:
http://thelawdictionary.org/cession/
Do you see anything in those definitions that imply a temporary state of affairs, as though a cession is some type of loan?
My stance is that DC is the Federal district. If the Federal Government wants to shrink the Federal district, it has to determine a disposition for the remainder of DC. It doesn’t automatically go anywhere, no more than if the Federal Government decided to abandon its claim to the Louisiana Territory would Iowa suddenly be part of France.