Washington DC license plate - How is this possible?

[TruCelt]

@Schnitte

For those who are interested, here is a paper from a Department of Justice attorney (writing in his private capacity) arguing that the retrocession of the southern part of DC to Virginia in 1846 was unconstitutional . . .

I have agreed with this since I first learned of it as a child. At the time, the river was an enormous barrier, and the District did not want the financial responsibility of building/maintaining bridge access. This resulted in legislation to prohibit the erection of any Federal Government buildings on the Virginia side of the river. We’re talking 1791 here, this argument goes back a long way.

It was around 1800 that they finally stopped trying to return the Maryland side to the State, because there wasn’t a majority of support from either the (voting) DC citizens or the State Legislature in favor of the idea. (I think had you polled the then-enslaved residents, you’d have gotten a different answer.)

On the Virginia side, both the citizens and the State were in favor of retrocession. The State began creating economic pressure to force Congress to release the land. They did things like prevent the Fed from funding any infrastructure in that area, and refusing the designation of DC as a slave-free zone. Abolitionists were a key lobby in the final retro-cession. (They didn’t win Emancipation for DC until 1862, less than a year before the Emancipation Proclamation.)

@Wendell_Wagner

What does being or not being a city have to do with anything? Presumably the amount of representation depends on the number of people. Members of Congress represent people, not sidewalks or fields of wheat or mountains.

Agreed. IMHO the standard for deciding whether a Territory should be awarded Statehood should be whether it can “possibly be Justified.” If it’s been a Territory for at least ten years, there are enough people of voting age to equal the population of the smallest current State, and a majority of the citizens vote to become a State, they should not be denied Statehood.

The current test seems to be whether a majority of the Congress feels it would increase their party’s chances of winning the Presidency.

@Wendell_Wagner

DC’s population is 658,000, Vermont’s is 626,000, and Wyoming’s is 584,000. Vermont has one representative. Wyoming has one representative. They both have two Senators. Why would it make sense for D.C. to have two or three representatives and no Senators?

Precisely. It wouldn’t even be the smallest in terms of population. I don’t think size of territory can be justified as a test, given the extent of the disparity between Alaska, Texas, California vs Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire.

@TSBG

This is an excellent reason why Wyoming should cease to be a state. We in California could absorb it without a problem.

No, California would subsume Wyoming through sheer numbers, which is why the citizens of Wyoming would protest. That’s the same reason that the citizens of DC would protest being submersed into Maryland.

What I do think might work, would be to make the entire area a part of Northern Virginia, and then turn the whole thing into one separate State. You’d create a fairly good mix of demographics (no, I haven’t researched/run the numbers, just a guesstimate) and after a good deal of yammering, we’d find that Southern Virginia would be more than happy to give up the money in order to have their Senators all to themselves.

But I do still believe this requires an Amendment to the Constitution to be enacted legally.

[Schnitte]

@Diceman

My position is that we don’t need to admit an American version of San Marino or Liechtenstein.

I think the analogy between San Marino or Liechtenstein in Europe and statehood for DC in the US fails on two grounds. Firstly, DC is considerably bigger in terms of population than San Marino (pop. 31,000) or Liechtenstein (pop. 37,000). Secondly, and more importantly, the business model of DC as an economy would likely be different. San Marino and Liechtenstein essentially capitalise on their national sovereignty by selling products or services that they can sell only because they are sovereign countries: Liechtenstein is an offshore banking and financial hub; and San Marino’s main source of public revenue are the sale of postal stamps and a compensation paid by Italy in exchange for the fact that San Marino does not establish its own customs area. Both are, on top, tax havens, much to the annoyance of other European countries. Both business models would not, or only to a very limited extent, be available to DC as a state, since federal regulatory, tax, and other laws would still apply to it.

[yabob]

@Schnitte

I think the analogy between San Marino or Liechtenstein in Europe and statehood for DC in the US fails on two grounds. Firstly, DC is considerably bigger in terms of population than San Marino (pop. 31,000) or Liechtenstein (pop. 37,000). Secondly, and more importantly, the business model of DC as an economy would likely be different. San Marino and Liechtenstein essentially capitalise on their national sovereignty by selling products or services that they can sell only because they are sovereign countries: Liechtenstein is an offshore banking and financial hub; and San Marino’s main source of public revenue are the sale of postal stamps and a compensation paid by Italy in exchange for the fact that San Marino does not establish its own customs area. Both are, on top, tax havens, much to the annoyance of other European countries. Both business models would not, or only to a very limited extent, be available to DC as a state, since federal regulatory, tax, and other laws would still apply to it.

We do have state-level corporate tax havens, such as Delaware. Which is also a center for major banks because of favorable banking laws.

[Schnitte]

@yabob

We do have state-level corporate tax havens, such as Delaware. Which is also a center for major banks because of favorable banking laws.

The former is true, but still you can’t avoid federal taxes, whereas in Europe there is no supranational European tax which applies even to corporations in San Marino or Liechtenstein. The benefits from relocating business to Delaware from another state in the U.S. are therefore smaller than the benefits from relocating business from a European country to a tax haven in Europe.

The latter is nowadays true only to a small extent. Even state-chartered banks in the U.S. are nowadays, in almost all cases, supervised by federal agencies, either the Federal Reserve Bank in whose district it is located or the FDIC. On top of that, there is indeed state-level supervision by state agencies, but that doesn’t release banks from their obligation to comply with federal regulation.

[SpyOne]

@Diceman

It doesn’t. It also doesn’t make sense to give a medium-sized city 2 senators. Which is why they should just give it back to Maryland, and provide for a representative.

That isn’t how the House of Representatives works, either.

I mean, one of the problems Puerto Rico faces in becoming a state is that we wouldn’t just add 4 or 5 Representatives, they’d take 4 or 5 away from other states.
The total number of Representatives has been 435 since 1911, except for 1959 to 1963, where they added representatives for Alaska and Hawaii temporarily until they could reapportion the 435 seats based on the census.

The exact method used is somewhat arcane, but it seems quite likely that the most populous states would be the most likely to lose a Representative. And of course, their Representatives would likely vote against that happening. And f course they have a lot of Representatives. In fact, the 3 largest states (California, Texas, and New York) have more than 1/4 of the seats in the House.

[SpyOne]

@TruCelt

What I do think might work, would be to make the entire area a part of Northern Virginia, and then turn the whole thing into one separate State. You’d create a fairly good mix of demographics (no, I haven’t researched/run the numbers, just a guesstimate) and after a good deal of yammering, we’d find that Southern Virginia would be more than happy to give up the money in order to have their Senators all to themselves.

Speaking from Southeast Virginia, you can keep the Senators if you’ll just get us free of the State Legislature.
See, there are a handful of lukewarm state-level secession movements around the US; parts of states that feel they’d be better off on their own (or wedded to some neighbors across a state line). Like how Long Island realized they pay more in state taxes than they receive in services (they want their capitol to be Brooklyn). Or the proposed state of Jefferson, on the back burner since 1941.

Well, in Southeast Virginia we’ve needed some infrastructure upgrades for quite a while, and for a long time we were told to wait our turn, that Northern Virginia needed the work more. So our tax dollars went to upgrade roads around DC.
When it finally came our turn to get roads, … the Legislature decides that we need to have a special Regional Tax to pay for them, and/or that the new bridges and tunnels should have tolls.
There were some strong suggestions that we’d be better off keeping our tax dollars and doing for ourselves the things the State of Virginia does for us.

But I do still believe this requires an Amendment to the Constitution to be enacted legally.

I don’t know about the legality of giving parts of DC to one or more states, but carving up existing states is already covered: If a new state includes territory that is part of an existing state, Congress must get permission from that State’s legislature. That’s how we got West Virginia.
Honestly, I think ALL of our state borders could use a good re-thinking, and I have thought so for decades. But it is never going to happen.

[Ravenman]

@SpyOne

That isn’t how the House of Representatives works, either.

I mean, one of the problems Puerto Rico faces in becoming a state is that we wouldn’t just add 4 or 5 Representatives, they’d take 4 or 5 away from other states.
The total number of Representatives has been 435 since 1911, except for 1959 to 1963, where they added representatives for Alaska and Hawaii temporarily until they could reapportion the 435 seats based on the census.

The exact method used is somewhat arcane, but it seems quite likely that the most populous states would be the most likely to lose a Representative. And of course, their Representatives would likely vote against that happening. And f course they have a lot of Representatives. In fact, the 3 largest states (California, Texas, and New York) have more than 1/4 of the seats in the House.

But the number of representatives is set by law. There probably wouldn’t be a huge push to add 5 or 10 representatives, because it would dilute the power of all the existing representatives, but as far as DC is concerned, there’s nothing so magical about 435 that would prevent that number from being 436.

[DesertDog]

@Chronos

While reverting most of the current District to Maryland would be a good solution to the representation problem, it’s not viable right now, with the 23rd Amendment granting DC three electoral votes. You’d need to repeal that, or you’d end up with the First Family casting the entire vote behind those electoral votes (and presumably, being themselves the electors).

Rotten boroughs US style.

[madmonk28]

Since this topic has veered wildly away from DC’s license plates, I feel the need to point out that several constitutional scholars contend that Congress has the authority now to give DC voting rights in the house (not statehood, but congressional representation).

The American Bar Association supports this view (PDF): http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/poladv/letters/electionlaw/060914testimony_dcvoting.authcheckdam.pdf

As we have previously stated in a June 16, 2006 letter to House Judiciary Committee members, the American Bar Association concurs in the conclusion reached both by the House Government Reform Committee’s consultants, Professor Viet D. Dinh and his co-author Adam H. Charnes, and by the former Solicitor General of the United States, Kenneth W. Starr: that Congress has the constitutional authority to provide voting representation in the House of Representatives to
residents of the District of Columbia. Such authority is granted by the “District Clause” of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, which confers upon the Congress the power “To
exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District. . .

[Schnitte]

@madmonk28

Since this topic has veered wildly away from DC’s license plates, I feel the need to point out that several constitutional scholars contend that Congress has the authority now to give DC voting rights in the house (not statehood, but congressional representation).

The American Bar Association supports this view (PDF): http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/poladv/letters/electionlaw/060914testimony_dcvoting.authcheckdam.pdf

That opinion even sounds, in parts, like Congress is not only empowered but in fact obliged to provide voting rights to DC, since it claims that not doing so deprived DC residents of equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment.

[madmonk28]

I agree and so does that wild eyed liberal Kenneth Starr. I’ve never understood people who are opposed to voting rights for DC. I can understand not thinking statehood with two senators is appropriate, but there are people who outright oppose any representation in congress for DC. I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument why you would deny that representation to US citizens, I don’t see how it serves the interests of democracy.

One comment I often hear is “well they reelected Marion Barry.” When someone makes such a statement they seem to be saying that they only support democracy when the voter will make decisions they they themselves agree with and that’s not how democracy works.

Another comment I often hear is that Washingtonians can just move if they don’t like it. Again, I don’t understand how that approach serves the interests of American democracy. We could outlaw free speech in Chicago for example and tell Chicagoans to move if they don’t like it, but how would such an egregious denial of rights be in the interests of the people?

[Ravenman]

@madmonk28

Another comment I often hear is that Washingtonians can just move if they don’t like it. Again, I don’t understand how that approach serves the interests of American democracy. We could outlaw free speech in Chicago for example and tell Chicagoans to move if they don’t like it, but how would such an egregious denial of rights be in the interests of the people?

Noting that there have been a few high-profile lawsuits that challenged DC’s restrictive gun control laws, I have often wondered whether those who argued “DCers can move if they want a representative!” also believed that DCers could move if they wanted a gun.

[madmonk28]

@Ravenman

Noting that there have been a few high-profile lawsuits that challenged DC’s restrictive gun control laws, I have often wondered whether those who argued “DCers can move if they want a representative!” also believed that DCers could move if they wanted a gun.

No in fact. I made that exact point on these boards and the poster’s response was guns are a constitutional right, but voting isn’t for Washingtonians.

[Kimballkid]

@madmonk28

One comment I often hear is “well they reelected Marion Barry.”

This sort of ‘argument’ could go for most, if not all, states. For example: Minnesota elected Jesse Ventura, Al Franken and Michele Bachmann, we should take away their representatives.