Although it says that, the description of the boundary is such that it follows the high water mark, so only those bits of the airport under water are in DC; OK for flying boats ;).
It sounds to me as this is no great matter of principle, but it turns out to be the same case as other federal land in other states. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that this is no longer a special case, but that the Airport is now treated the same as other federal land.
IIRC there was a similar jurisdiction on landfill problem between NY and NY on Staten Island, solved in a similar manner.
We’re not telling you, Fiver. But we’ll all still be here when you’ve figured it out.
Many of these posts would be better in the sister thread, but they are interesting never the less.
Now, if I may try to put this train back on the tracks from which it jumped and put the follow up question to all of our resident constitutional law experts.
Now remember, this is for the luggage and the dinette set: Doesn’t the “lesser status” of Washingtonians lead to some sort of equal protection problem? Maybe it’s not a matter of equal protection, but I can’t find the words to make my point. Maybe it’s equal representation. More to the point- what makes it right that I pay a huge hunka federal tax but have no say in what happens to it?
Why hasn’t somebody ever addressed the inequality here? Has the SCOTUS ever ruled on the issue? Was there ever some decision that said residents of DC have to pay federal taxes but don’t get full representation, and that’s just the way it’s going to be no matter what it says on our license plates?
Why can’t we end our status as the only Americans the American Revolution left behind? We already have our modern-day stamp act to the tune of $2 billion (making us #2 in the nation per capita). Do we have to have another tea party?
Eleanor Holmes Norton does a fine job of whining about it, but what is it about this issue that falls from legal recourse?
Hmmm … this looks like a job for the U.S. Constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 17!
Normally, this would mean states could not impose any taxes within such “Federal areas” inside their borders (since the Federal government has exclusive jurisdiction there), butthe Buck Act, 4 USC 105-110, specifically allows the state to impose its normal income taxes and sales taxes therein.
Attrayant, why do you think District residents are unique? Remember that residents of other territories and the 1 commonwealth also cannot vote for President, have no voting representation in Congress, and are subject to laws passed by Congress too. Heck, even we state residents are subject to Federal authority. So your beef is that DC should no longer be a territory like Guam or the Virgin Islands? Better make a case for that as such, then - and, while you’re at it, comment on DC’s history of success in managing its own internal government, and how that qualifies it for statehood.
Now, as for the cold dead hand of the Congressional committees responsible for DC administration: Do you think they don’t care about their work? Maybe they don’t, but their members work and (largely) live there; so why wouldn’t they be concerned? And how much difference does it make - DC does have its own internal government, like other territories. I recall an interview with Mayor Williams where he mentioned that over 99 percent of his job had nothing to do with Congress at all, much as most other big-city mayors’ jobs don’t involve their state governments much.
Left conveniently unmentioned by DC statehood activists is that most of Washington’s business core, unlike most cities’, is not mandatorily taxable. To gain the same revenue base that other cities have requires Congressional appropriations, yes. But that would still be true regardless of DC’s status, wouldn’t it? A fully self-governing DC would mean a fully self-financing DC, STILL subject to getting funding from the Feds. The difference then would be what, exactly?
So I’m baffled as to how your position is really any more than simply automatically blaming others for your own city’s problems.
Wait - it’s necessary to qualify for statehood? What are the requirements, and were they applied to other territories before admission was granted? I almost feel like those are my parents up on The Hill saying that I can’t be trusted to take care of myself because ten years ago I spent my allowance on some magic beans.
I’m not well armed enough to make the case for statehood, and even if I was I’m not sure I’d want to be an “activist”. But in exchange for my $2 billion, can I be represented in Congress, pretty please? I’d rather be looking for DC to go back to Maryland, but MD doesn’t want us.
A voice (vote) in Congress. True, other territories don’t have representation, but does that make it right? If residents of Baltimore lost their representation, would you be telling them that it’s OK because DC, Guam and the Virgin Islands don’t get that either?
Glendening now says he opposes retrocession, but when the idea first came up, he said Maryland would be happy to take back its portion of D.C. If push came to shove and the only thing standing between D.C. citizens and Congressional representation was Parris Glendening, I think he could be convinced. He’s pretty good at doing 180 degree turns.
The killer would be the D.C. referendum, though. If HR-810 were to make its way through Congress and the President, D.C. residents would have a tough choice to make. Vote for it, and kiss statehood goodbye. Vote against it and make it look as if the whole “taxation without representation” argument was bogus.