Good points. Some have defined the capital of the USA as the location where Congress meets, so if Congress happens to meet somewhere else (for whatever reason, maybe the beer is better), then the capital automatically, ipso facto changes to the new location without any specific legislation, order, or ruling necessary other than Congress’s normal call to order. The very fact of Congress meeting there makes it the capital. Quite a number of cities have therefore been identified as former capitals. While most people know that NYC and Philadelphia were former capitals, other cities such as Princeton, Trenton NJ, Lancaster PA, York PA, and Baltimore are on the list since Congress did, in fact, hold at least one official meeting in each of those cities.
India is also a federal system.
And the question I responded to wasn’t asking what was “politically possible in the United States.”
And that’s not even the question asked in the OP. It’s asking if the capital has to be in the state.
And excuse me if I yawn at another “this-is-America-and-you-don’t-understand-no-one-is-like-us” tantrum.
The US Constitution has a list of things that the states are not allowed to do. If the Constitution doesn’t ban it, then there is essentially nothing, except possibly for a US Federal Law, that could legally stop them.
I wonder if placing a state’s capital out of state would necessarily constitute “enter[ing] into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power”. I suppose that if Kentucky wanted its capital to be Nashville, Tennessee, then Kentucky officials could just set themselves up in Nashville as private citizens and conduct business via their Constitutional rights to Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Speech, without specifically getting Tennessee’s permission to do so. Any attempt by Tennessee to interfere would come under normal civil liberties principles and would spend years dragging through the courts.
Your answer about what happens in India was entirely irrelevant to the actual question asked in the OP, which is about the US.
I fail to see how pointing out that answering a question about the US system with an irrelevant response is a tantrum.
Yawn away. Knock yourself out!
While you’re at it, you might consider actually, you know, reading the OP.
That is a very good point. It extends to allowing one state to affect the process of another, for example by denying Kentucky physical access to it’s own capital city, and beyond that possibly to allowing the Federal government control as well. To look at one example of this the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (well known because of Bridgegate) is authorized by an act of Congress. It’s employees are barred from elected office and other government positions in the states.
The problem with such hypotheticals is that if it ever did occur under whatever bizarre circumstances could bring about such action, the state and federal laws would be immediately changed to manage the situation.
Did you read it? Did you read the posts I responded to? It asks if any state constitutions restrict the location of the state capital. It doesn’t ask what’s “politically possible” in the United States. It doesn’t ask about our (oh so preciously unique!) federal system. And neither did the comment by Colibri that I was reacting to.
A suggestion: Avoiding the implication that comments you take issue with are inherently irrational may lead to a more constructive discussion.
Article IV of the Missouri constitution specifies “The executive and administrative officials and departments herein provided for shall establish their principal offices and keep all necessary public records, books and papers at the City of Jefferson.” It also provides that the Supreme Court will be located there. Oddly enough, I can’t find a requirement for the state legislature.
Legislators are generally elected from local districts, not statewide. A West State legislator who voted to put the capital in East State would probably be voted out of office sooner than one who put it out-of-state.
Seriously, you think people prioritize global issues over local issues, petty as they may be, in electing their state representatives?
If Kentucky and Tennessee received Federal permission to form an “Agreement or Compact”, it might consist of Tennessee explicitly ceding criminal and civil jurisdiction, zoning authority, taxation, etc. over Kentucky state officials and property in exchange for a promise to keep the Kentucky capital in Tennessee for a certain period of time and possibly provide a certain level of economic benefit (e.g. Kentucky state government contracts for local Tennessee companies, jobs for Tennessee residents in Kentucky civil service, etc.). You could end up with an embassy-like situation with a Nashville city block that is off-limits to regular Tennessee police and is administered as if it was (even though it is not) part of Kentucky. Kentucky officials conducting official business in their Tennessee capital could be issued diplomatic immunity-type papers exempting them from being stopped by TN police, or that at least required TN police to immediately call in KY police and turn over the investigation.
Without any specific “Agreement or Compact”, Kentucky would have to operate like an independent business in Tennessee, making sure that they stay compliant with applicable Tennessee laws, paying Tennessee property tax on their legislature’s meeting hall, getting Tennessee license plates for Kentucky state vehicles, registering the weapons of Kentucky capital cops under Tennessee weapons laws, etc, and living with the fear of a sudden Tennessee police raid for whatever reason.
I don’t see a penalty for violating that clause. If “The executive and administrative officials and departments” decided to willfully and knowingly flout the statute by moving their principal offices and public records, books, and papers into an old warehouse in St. Louis and the Missouri justice system found out and was able to prove it in court, what penalties could be imposed? A fine? One year in jail? Civil asset forfeiture of the officials’ cars? Double-secret probation with random strip searches and drug testing? Penal transportation to Branson?
Writ of mandamus.
Constitutional restrictions on government aren’t usually enforced through criminal penalties.
Like any other constitutional issue, it’s possible for all constitutional authorities to decide not to abide by the restrictions, and if the voters choose not to remove them from office, then that’s that.
Are you saying Staunton VA is not in Augusta County? If not what county is it in?
See post No. 12. In Virginia, a city is not part of any county. Virginia cities are county-equivalent jurisdictions.
Why on earth would anyone want their capital to be in another state? And how would that even work anyway?
Mostly the second meaning, but as mentioned, many states in their constitutions officially identify a specific city as “seat of government” and say what should be there, and those who don’t do so by statute.
The nature of the federal capital and the capitals of the states are different. DC exists under the power of Congress to “exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District … as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the 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”
At the Federal Level what evolved was that the District is to be the home of the three constitutionally created branches: Presidency, Congress, SCOTUS, and their central support structure so that they be free from interference by state authority, and have the body politic within which they operate be subordinate to themselves. A statutory dependency like the Defense Department OTOH can be headquartered in Virginia because anywhere they were located they’d be equally subordinate to POTUS, all you need is for them to be within easy commute of the Boss’ office.
Meanwhile, if there is and where is the capital of a US state is within the reserved powers of the respective states. In some it is state-constitutionally mandated that the Governor shall have a permanent office in a specific city, and that the Legislature will sit in regular open session at a location in that city. Others leave it entirely to ordinary legislation wat they’ll do about it. But none operates a DC-style “capital territory”: Columbus is still an incorporated municipality of the State of Ohio, not a special reserve ruled as the Ohio Legislature sees fit. It would be quite unexpected for a state legislature to decide to sit and work in a location where they do not have jurisdiction and authority, for the reasons **robert_columbia **described.
(Legally, municipalities of a US state are creatures of the state, subdivisions of it, while the States OTOH are constituent parts of the USA, not dependencies of the federal government.)
Say, for example, Hawaii comes under a massive military invasion or natural disaster and it is not safe for anyone to be there. The state legislature could (maybe) choose to evacuate and conduct the affairs of state government from a temporary “capital” in San Francisco. I would doubt if any state would have such a law prohibiting such a move. Really, no more difficult than getting a change of venue for a criminal trial, if there are demonstrable circumstances to warrant it.
But that’s not really moving the capital. It’s just setting up a temporary headquarters until the situation returns to normal. And even in that scenario, with San Francisco a six-hour flight away it’s hard to think of them even trying that. If it’s so dire, there won’t be anything for the state legislature to govern anyway.
It’s conceivable that the territory and boundaries and transportation infrastructure of a state might be such that the most efficient location in terms of accessibility from all areas is in a city outside the jurisdiction of the state.
It’s conceivable that a state might have a population and economy such that it is not efficient to build the infrastructure of governmental institutions inside the state and merely lease them, for example, from a city in another state.
It’s conceivable that the political and security situation in a state might be so unstable and dangerous that it is prudent for governmental institutions to meet outside the boundaries of the state.
It’s conceivable that during certain seasons, the climate of the state might be so inhospitable that it makes sense for governmental institutions to operate from a location outside the state.
It’s conceivable that a state might be such a newly created entity, that it has not had the time to establish infrastructure and services in a location within its borders and thus it chooses a location outside the state for its governmental institutions to operate.
It’s conceivable—as in the case of Panjab and Haryana—that two geographically small states in close proximity might choose to share the costs of establishing the infrastructure and services to serve the operations of governmental institutions in a common city.
…
Others could maybe think of more …