Mexico changed the name five years ago, with no status change. Distrito Federal (DF) changed to Ciudad de Mexico (CDMX), or “City of Mexico” in English. Complicated be the fact that CDMX is surrounded by Estado de Mexico (“State of Mexico”) which is within the country of Mexico, “United Mexican States”…
So, now it’s “Mexico, Mexico, Mexico”? The city so nice they named it thrice?
Just go with Douglass Commonwealth; Frederick Douglass get’s honored and nobody has to change their stationary (only their flags). We already have 4 states that style themselves commonwealths instead of states; the only difference here is that the long form nomenclature is reversed (instead of Commonwealth of Douglass) and grandfather in the USPS abbreviation. There are much bigger issues with DC statehood than new state’s name.
I really don’t see why not, there is no reason a state can’t be called a district as well as a commonwealth (for example). It is the assigned status of the district that counts, not the name.
That’s an interesting point. I assume it could be handled via amendment. It would probably take some sort of amendment to make DC a state so that could be rolled in as part of it.
Why would that be more fair? What if your locality was lumped in with some other larger entity, would that be more fair for you? The people of Washington DC live in Washington DC, not Maryland. There’s no reason for them to become part of Maryland, or Virginia, or Delaware, or Florida, or Alaska. They want statehood, They are not interested in suiting your arbitrary sense of fairness.
Would the people of a majority Black state want it to be named after a white slave-holder, rather than a Black abolitionist?
Are you absolutely sure it is required?
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
Note the “may” part.
But one has to consider fairness to all voters, surely? Adding another absurdly small state adds to the incredible imbalance to the Senate; adding DC to Maryland doesn’t. Maryland, conveniently, has (with or without DC) a population that roughly approximates one fiftieth of the population of the United States.
They should declare they will name the new state Reagan. (They’ve already got the airport.)
Then let Republicans be faced with the problem of explaining why they are voting against the proposal.
The residents of Eastern Washington would find this offensive. Being born and raised in Washington, I find using that name for the new state to be rather stupid. It’s like whoever wrote the bill has never been west of the Mississippi.
If you’re concerned about being fair to all voters, would you agree to combine Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming into one state? Their combined population would still make them smaller than New York City so it seems reasonable to cut them down to just two Senators.
I suppose an explanation satisfying their rubes could come easily enough though,
Well you see, those evil Dems want to name it after some Black guy whose last name *also* happens to be Reagan …
Sure. It’s impossible to do, though.
You also can’t really call it anything with Columbia in it because the “District of Columbia” would still exist. A small section of current DC, including the Capitol and the White House, would remain in its own district, outside of any state.
Well, it’s “possible,” but you would have to get the legislatures of at least four of those five states to agree to put themselves out of business.
I don’t see that as a problem. We would have a state of Columbia and a District of Columbia (along with several towns and cities, a university, and a record company). We have a state of Washington and a city named Washington now and we manage.
Is there any reason why the rump district has to be called the “District of Columbia” specificially? Could it not be named the “Federal Capital District” or something similar?
So were the meetings of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5h Congresses unconstitutional because they met in cities that were parts of states? (New York and Philadelphia?)
No rule says they always have to meet in the Capital.
Well, indeed:
SEC. 111. Territory and boundaries.
…
(b) Exclusion of portion remaining as seat of Government of United States.—The territory of the State shall not include the area described in section 112, which shall be known as the “Capital” and shall serve as the seat of the Government of the United States, as provided in clause 17 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States.
…
Remember from all this discussion, it seems part of the political angle of the local establishment is for the name and identity of “Washington DC” to be retained by this newly-sovereign entity.