I see I had it pegged perfectly.
That was the position of the Department of Justice during the Trump administration. (I don’t remember if they explicitly said it or not, but that rationale would also rule out Republicans’ favorite counter-proposal of retrocession.)
I don’t see why it would be any different from college students, who have a well-established right to see themselves as residents and register to vote from their college addresses. Like, if Jill Biden wanted to become a DC resident, I doubt there would be hurdles put up in front of her by the agencies responsible for elections or driver’s licensing just because she put down 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW as her address.
Assuming no residents. Can Congress constitutionally make a law banning a citizen from moving to the Federal District?
If they have reduced it to essentially an Office Park/National Monument/Military Reservation of nothing but federal-property buildings, parks and parking lots, don’t see how they would not be able to, under the property and territory clause.
BTW being discussed in the name-of-the-new-state thread:
OK, now, as for this…
The membership of Congress is uniquely NONrepresentative of the interests of the people of the District, and that’s by design. The whole point is that the Federal bodies NOT be beholden or dependent to the local political interests of the city and state they are sited at.
Part of what caused the proposal to create an autonomous Federal District was that while sited at Philadelphia, at least once the authorities of the city and of the commonwealth refused to provide aid to the Congress, and Pennsylvania being a separate sovereign could not be commanded to.
For the local DC political establishment i.e. the Mayor and Council, the real issue is not only the representation. It’s becoming independent from Congress in order to legislate and make fiscal policy according to the wants and needs of their voters: to take away from Congress veto power over, for instance, a decision to establish a “commuter” income tax for people who work within the limits but live outside.
Really, saying that Congress “represents” the residents of DC is like saying that a council of the top executives of Wall Street firms should be the ones telling the mayor of New York City how to run the place because they represent better what’s good for the city than what the residents of Queens and the Bronx want and like.
Or like saying that the slaves were represented by the congressmen elected by their owners.
The interests of those congressmen are often at odds with the interests of the citizens if DC. And anyway, what about Arlington, Virginia? I bet a bunch of the congressional reps live there, too.
Thanks, Max_S and others, as to working around the 23rd Amendment.
There had also been several incidents of severe urban unrest before 1787, IIRC, in which the municipal governments of London and Paris had been less than helpful to the members of the national parliaments meeting in those cities.
I note this puts the Vice President’s residence in the new state. Mind you, it’d be a helluva weird district map if it had to extend an arm up to Observatory Circle.
Of course, the reason that DC wasn’t made a state in the first place is that it already has much more representation than any state does, and there’s no reason to make that imbalance even greater. I’ve never heard any of the proponents of statehood for DC offer a fix for that.
You’ve made this claim many times before, and I still don’t understand how you define “representation” such that someone commuting past your house “represents” you despite you having no say in their election.
I’m also curious in what way the citizens of DC have any representation that you and i don’t have. Can you give more details?
As for a “fix,” well, I never see that utterly bizarre claim made about Arlington (which has portions that are closer to the Capitol than much of the District is), so evidently state boundaries are very powerful at preventing proximity-based psychic representation, so the recent legislation would completely cure that problem by placing a state boundary between the Capitol and the people.
This was never the reason that DC wasn’t made a state, and there’s no way you can demonstrate that DC residents’ votes count for more than anyone else’s. This opinion is so prima facie wrong that I don’t understand how it could be held in sincerity.
If there’s any issue that’s important to residents of DC, then it’ll also be important to all 535 members of Congress, because all of them are residents of DC (yes, yes, they’re officially residents of their individual states, but how much time do they spend there vs. in Washington?). They’re not elected by the residents of DC, but they do represent them.
Unelected representation by an out-of-state part-timer? Wow, that sounds grand. Would you like to be represented in a similar way? Why or why not?
Ted Cruz and Matt Gaetz represent the citizens of D.C. In what alternate universe?
The thing about representation is that if the citizens you represent are unhappy with the job you’re doing of representing them, they can vote you out of office. The residents of D.C. can’t vote out a single one of the 535 voting Congresspersons, no matter how poorly a job they do of representing the interests of D.C.
My comment on that particular line of discussion over on the Statehood for DC Thread.
OTOH they could do what IBM and ATT did, and just declare that the letters no longer stand for anything but are a trademark in and of themselves? 
They do not represent me. I did not vote for them. They routinely act against the wishes and interests of DC residents. This post is not just wrong, it’s offensive.
But they don’t, that’s just untrue. The represent their home states. If they represented DC, then why do no Republicans support DC statehood? Logically, that is the biggest win DC could have. Any equivalent win is one any state representative would desperately fight for. But Republicans in Congress don’t, because they don’t give a shit about DC, because they don’t represent it. And let’s be honest, the Democrats aren’t angling for DC statehood because they care about it, either.