Why would it take 2/3? Congress admits states by joint resolutions.
I think Columbia is the obvious solution. Oddly enough, that name was originally proposed for Washington state, but was rejected because it would get confused with DC. I guess the city was not commonly called Washington in those days.
There’s already a Columbia, Maryland, not very far away. My vote at the moment is for Shitsylvania.
It would be called DC, pronounced Dick.
It would be called Confusion.
Having it be a part of Maryland would be opkay too, but that kind of takes the fun out of the thread.
It should be a state or part of a state, though, because that is the right thing to do.
Activists around here seem to prefer “State if New Columbia,” but I would just call it the “State of Columbia.”
It’s not admitting it as a state that requires an amendment; it’s making it not exclusively a federal jurisdiction so it’s a territory to be admitted. Article I, Section 8, gives Congress exclusive legislative power over the designated capital. To make it a state - and therefore to have its own Constitutional powers - you have to rescind that statement.
Incorrect. The Federal district to be administered by Congress would consist only of Federal property. Everything outside of that Federal property (that is, if it is not a government building, National Park, etc) would then be part of the new state.
District 9
If you can have the state of West Virginia, you can have the state of East Virginia also, surely? There would be a pleasing symmetry there.
Winchestertonfieldville
Or maybe
MarBarry
Most people in the world think “Washington = capital city of the US.” So let’s call the new state Washington, and rename the current State of Washington to something else.
The bulk of the current District of Columbia could certainly be either retroceded to Maryland, or admitted as a state, without a constitutional amendment. From this map, you could include everything in the new state (or if y’all insist, in the area retroceded to Maryland) except for the grounds of the White House (including the Old Executive Office Building and the Treasury Building, and the Ellipse), the National Mall (all the way from the Lincoln Memorial on the west and the Jefferson Memorial on the south, and including the Smithsonian and the National Gallery of Art), the U.S. Capitol (including the main Congressional office buildings), the Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, and (I think) everything in that triangle between Pennsylvania Avenue and Constitution Avenue. I believe all of that (contiguous and reasonably compact) area is already federal lands and U.S. government buildings, monuments, and museums; and most importantly (with the exception of one family) no one lives there. That would constitute the area over which Congress exercises “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever”; such a mini-federal district would obviously not exceed “ten Miles square” and so would be compatible with the Constitution (the District of Columbia already having been reduced from a full “ten Miles square”–that is, 100 square miles–to its current area of 68 and a bit square miles back in 1834).
Somewhat paradoxically, the issue would be the 23rd Amendment, which allows the “District constituting the seat of Government of the United States” to select three electors in presidential elections. Unless we want to give every incumbent POTUS the right to appoint three of his or her own electors (in addition to the 538 selected by the now-51 states) we’d need a constitutional amendment to repeal the 23rd Amendment. Which should be pretty straightforward to pass, you would think, if Congress has admitted the rest of D.C. as a new state, but in this Age of Gridlock, who the hell knows? Probably best to first pass the 28th(?) Amendment as a conditional amendment along the lines of “Upon the admission by the Congress as a state of any part of the district which currently constitutes the seat of Government of the United States, the twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall be thereby repealed”.
I was under the impression that people had already settled on “New Columbia”, but apparently there is now a move to call it “Douglass Commonwealth”. Whatever the people of the new state want, I would say–just hold a referendum. (Maybe with two or three choices; let people submit names, but nothing automatically gets put on the final selection ballot, to avoid “CapitalCityMcCapitalFace” type high jinks.)
I vote for “Area 51”
This is what it’s called in J.D. Robb’s In Death novels, set in the period of 2059-2062 A.D.
The current statehood bill provides for expedited consideration of a repeal amendment, but in the meantime, after statehood, it prohibits anyone from having voting rights in the rump district by assigning them to their most recent residence before the district, and also prohibits the rump district from appointing presidential electors; the district chooses its electors “in such manner as the Congress may direct,” so Congress would just direct that the manner be nothing.
The city was, but that was in 1852 which was before the city had expanded to encompass the entire district. I visited there 20-odd years ago and noticed that most people refered to the place as DC, not as Washington.
As for why it’s very unlikely to get statehood, the two senators and congressperson they elect will most likely be Democrats. More or less the same reason why the State of Jefferson is a non-starter except the other party. Well, OK, Jefferson would have significant problems (the country doesn’t really need an instant western equivalent of Mississippi), but DC as a state would have a few problems as well.
East Washington is the only one that makes logical sense. It would be better if the current Washington were renamed West Washington, but they had it as a state name first, so you can’t ask them to change it.
The city of Washington used to be only a relatively small part of the District. The other cities were Georgetown and Anacostia, and outside them was Washington County. But eventually the city of Washington annexed all of that and became coterminous with the District, and Washington County became extinct.
Now there are two names where only one is really needed, but neither can be deleted, because of tradition and history. Being coterminous makes it a puzzler whichever way you take it.
My sentiment would be to revert all the way back to the original Indian name: Anacostia.
nm
Why not Washington City? Even if it’s made a state, that name would identify it well and unambiguously.