• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Washington D.C. become a state?

Which of these is the most viable option

  • Washington D.C. should be granted statehood.

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Washington D.C. citizens should have the same voting rights as citizens of actual states.

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Voting rights in D.C. should remain the same.

    Votes: 12 52.2%
  • Other.

    Votes: 1 4.3%

  • Total voters
    23
That clause gives Congress the POWER to exercise exclusive legislation over a district. It doesn't specify where the district is located, nor does it mandate that Congress exercise this power at all.

But as that district has been created and it is currently under the authority of Congress, there is no territorial legislature to draft a Constitution for the territory to propose for statehood. I would like to see a judicial opinion on this, but I don't think it would fly. There is still some Constitutional controversy over the ceding of Alexandria county back to the state of Virginia.

DC is no longer part of Maryland; the original reason it was surrendered to the federal government is irrelevant. This clause doesn't matter because DC is not located "within the jurisdiction of any other state."

I disagree. The reason is very important. These two clauses combined make a legal argument for DC statehood without Constitutional amendment tenuous at best. Again, a Supreme Court opinion would be nice, but we aren't going to get one and there is no DC territorial legislature to push for it, either.
 
But as that district has been created and it is currently under the authority of Congress, there is no territorial legislature to draft a Constitution for the territory to propose for statehood.

We have an elected council and an elected mayor?

I would like to see a judicial opinion on this, but I don't think it would fly. There is still some Constitutional controversy over the ceding of Alexandria county back to the state of Virginia.

If there is, it's merely an academic point and no one seriously questions it. I've lived here for a few years and I've never heard anything about it.

I disagree. The reason is very important. These two clauses combined make a legal argument for DC statehood without Constitutional amendment tenuous at best.

The clause you cited says "no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State." So the first question to ask would be "is DC located within the jurisdiction of any other state?" Since the answer is no, I don't see how this can possibly be construed as relevant.

Again, a Supreme Court opinion would be nice, but we aren't going to get one and there is no DC territorial legislature to push for it, either.

DC has a legislature, just like every state or protostate has. The only things that are required for DC (or any other protostate) to become a state is for it to create a constitution with a republican form of government, to petition the federal government for statehood, and an act of Congress. The first two steps have already been done, we're just waiting on the federal government.
 
Last edited:
We have an elected council and an elected mayor?

I knew you guys had a mayor, not sure about the nature of your council as the Congress has the right to make laws for DC.

If there is, it's merely an academic point and no one seriously questions it. I've lived here for a few years and I've never heard anything about it.

Thanks... I only spent a couple of summers there as a page for one of NHs Senators, so I am not all that familiar with the local politics of DC.


DC has a legislature, just like every state or protostate has. The only things that are required for DC (or any other protostate) is for it to create a constitution with a republican form of government, petition the federal government for statehood, and an act of Congress.

I disagree. There needs to be a Constitutional Amendment. And as such, I would still oppose it. I see no need why the national capital of the country needs to be a part of any state. There are several other federal countries that have a similar arrangement. I see no reason why it needs to change.
 
The federal government could still retain control over the National Mall, and turn the rest of the District over to the people. Many of the federal agencies are in suburban Maryland or Virginia anyway, so federal funds are already going toward specific states to fund the operations of the federal government. And let's not even get into all the military bases that are located around the country, thus funding the economies of those various states.

Besides, the federal government is already sending a certain amount of money to this part of the country, regardless of whether you call it a "state" or a "district" or whatever else. So if it's a question of fairness it isn't like the other 50 states would suddenly be worse off.
DC receives far more. It isn't a self sufficient city by any means. Maryland didn't want it because of the cost. I think it's best staying as a territory of the federal government subject to Congress. It's the federal city home to congressional buildings, the capitol, and many other important federal agencies. It's better off being run and funded by the federal government and not turned into an independent state that now houses the branches of the federal government.
Maryland doesn't want DC back, which is why DC should become a state. It's ridiculous that we have no representation in Congress despite the fact that we have MORE at stake in congressional decisions than any state does, since Congress can and does veto the actions of our city council for their own political whims.
So how will DC be paid for as a state? As I said, the main reason is the sheer cost of the city. DC should not become a state. It's best for the country to have it remain as a federal territory under the jurisdiction of Congress. I think it's important that Congress keep ultimate power over DC and not have it turn into an independent state run by an independent state government. Maryland gave up its land to the federal government to create a federal district, not to create a new state.
 
DC receives far more. It isn't a self sufficient city by any means. Maryland didn't want it because of the cost. I think it's best staying as a territory of the federal government subject to Congress.

Why is the cost relevant? Federal money is coming into this city regardless of whether you call it a state or a district.

It's the federal city home to congressional buildings, the capitol, and many other important federal agencies. It's better off being run and funded by the federal government and not turned into an independent state that now houses the branches of the federal government.

I wouldn't be opposed to letting the federal government keep jurisdiction over the National Mall (e.g. the Capitol, White House, various monuments, some of the federal agencies), but the District of Columbia is a lot bigger than just the Mall. The people who live in the District should have control over their own government just like everyone else does.

As for housing the various arms of the federal government...well, there are plenty of federal agencies located in Maryland and Virginia too, yet that doesn't seem to be a problem regarding their statehood.

Maryland gave up its land to the federal government to create a federal district, not to create a new state.

The reasons that Maryland gave up land 200 years ago are not relevant to whether the people of DC should have a representative democracy today. Especially since Maryland doesn't want it back.
 
The federal government could still retain control over the National Mall, and turn the rest of the District over to the people. Many of the federal agencies are in suburban Maryland or Virginia anyway, so federal funds are already going toward specific states to fund the operations of the federal government. And let's not even get into all the military bases that are located around the country, thus funding the economies of those various states.

Besides, the federal government is already sending a certain amount of money to this part of the country, regardless of whether you call it a "state" or a "district" or whatever else. So if it's a question of fairness it isn't like the other 50 states would suddenly be worse off.



Maryland doesn't want DC back, which is why DC should become a state. It's ridiculous that we have no representation in Congress despite the fact that we have MORE at stake in congressional decisions than any state does, since Congress can and does veto the actions of our city council for their own political whims.

I would like to point out that the reason why Washington, D.C. became a federal district in the first place.

It happened because back when Pennsylvania was the capital of the U.S. Veterans of the Continental Army was protesting that Congress hadn't fulfilled their promises to provide them with pay, and so they marched on Congress in Philadelphia. Congress asked the Philadelphia Executive Council to use the city militia to protect Congress. The Council refused, and so Congress had to flee the city to Princeton, NJ, for their own protection from the protesting armed soldiers.

That caused Congress to see the need to make a capital in which the federal branches could see to their own security needs rather than a city or state government. This is why Washington, D.C. is a federal district - they don't have to worry about a city or state government undermining them.

But, then again, our understanding of federalism has changed since then. Now, for the most part, federal power supersedes state and city power. Also, the federal government has federal police agencies (FBI, Secret Service, Homeland Security, etc.) that can work with or independently of local agencies, which renders the original need for it to be specifically a federal district moot.

So nowadays I think that Washington, D.C. would be better served with statehood. The federal buildings can still be administrated by the federal government but the local government would have more control over local issues, which would thus depoliticize their local issues. It would also give the people of Washington, D.C., representation in the federal government.
 
The reasons that Maryland gave up land 200 years ago are not relevant to whether the people of DC should have a representative democracy today. Especially since Maryland doesn't want it back.

Actually, I believe it is quite relevant. Besides, no one is forcing people to live in Washington, D.C. If they want representation, they can move to Maryland or Virginia.
 
Actually, I believe it is quite relevant. Besides, no one is forcing people to live in Washington, D.C. If they want representation, they can move to Maryland or Virginia.

In a representative democracy we shouldn't NEED to move elsewhere to exercise our rights to representation.
 
I'd also like to point out that we have the best license plate motto in America. :mrgreen:

20071009_dc_license_plate.jpg
 
I'd also like to point out that we have the best license plate motto in America. :mrgreen:

20071009_dc_license_plate.jpg

I suspect lots of residents of DC aren't paying much in the way of federal taxes either
 
DC is property of the federal government. The land that is now Washington DC was given by Maryland to the federal government to create the capitol city. Washington DC also consumes an extreme amount of federal funds, making it a state and then having the feds fund it like it does simply because the state holds the capitol wouldn't be very fair to the other states. The only way I think DC should ever become a "state" would be to give it back to Maryland. The feds actually tried this and Maryland declined because DC would cost too much in state funds. I think it's best that DC remain a federal district and not a state.

Do you agree that residents of DC should at least have a voting member of Congress instead of a non-voting member like Eleanor Holmes Norton?

Whether or not people agree that DC should become a state, I believe that they should AT LEAST have a voting member in Congress.
 
Last edited:
I suspect lots of residents of DC aren't paying much in the way of federal taxes either

Oh for ****'s sake, don't hijack yet another thread into a discussion of how wonderful and rich you are.
 
The residents of DC are able to vote for president like any state...we just don't have any representation in Congress (aside from a non-voting delegate).

Thanks for clearing that up. I was just at a misunderstanding.
 
I don't think the U.S. will ever add another state. Solely because it would mess up the balance of red states and blue states in the Senate.

I agree. I think in order to add one state they'd have to add two, unless said state had a balanced political view.
 
As I've seen by a few in this thread, I think D.C. should have reps in the House, but shouldn't have senators. That being said, D.C. shouldn't become a state.
 
Do you agree that residents of DC should at least have a voting member of Congress instead of a non-voting member like Eleanor Holmes Norton?

Whether or not people agree that DC should become a state, I believe that they should AT LEAST have a voting member in Congress.

I don't really have a major problem with them having a voting member in congress, but allowing that would open the door for other territories of the US like Puerto Rico and Guam having representation in Congress.
 
Seems to me that you don't have any right to representation. :shrug:

How about we abolish all the other states and make DC the sole state with a republican form of government. Then if any of YOU want to have input in the national government, you can pick up and move here. :mrgreen:
 
I don't really have a major problem with them having a voting member in congress, but allowing that would open the door for other territories of the US like Puerto Rico and Guam having representation in Congress.

Guam and Puerto Rico can vote to become states or independent at any time. DC, does not have this luxury.

Before I was a bit lukewarm on total statehood, but it would certainly prevent local issues there from becoming national ones.
 
Thinking about it, DC has a bigger population than Wyoming, so why not let it be a state?
 
Thinking about it, DC has a bigger population than Wyoming, so why not let it be a state?

Because it is district that was part of the State of Maryland specifically ceded to the federal government to be the national capital of the country. Wyoming was a territory carved out of the Louisiana Purchase which was acquired via Federal Treaty. Big difference...
 
Guam and Puerto Rico can vote to become states or independent at any time. DC, does not have this luxury.

Yes it does. The Constitution allows for the statehood of any "Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." DC does not need a constitutional amendment, because DC only exists by an act of Congress in the first place. While the Constitution allows for that, there is nothing in the Constitution that *mandates* that Congress maintain a federal district at all...and certainly nothing that specifies that it needs to be located where the District of Columbia is.
 
Because it is district that was part of the State of Maryland specifically ceded to the federal government to be the national capital of the country. Wyoming was a territory carved out of the Louisiana Purchase which was acquired via Federal Treaty. Big difference...

I'm having a hard time grasping how the reason that Maryland ceded DC to the federal government is remotely relevant to its current status. The fact is that we have 50 states, some territories, and a federal district...and they all acquired their current status through a complex history. DC no longer has any ties whatsoever to Maryland jurisdiction. So what exactly is the issue here?

Are you worried that the federal government would be reneging on its promise to Maryland if it allowed DC to have a representative democracy? This is a moot point, since Maryland doesn't want DC back and the federal government has no constitutional obligation to have a federal district located between Maryland and Virginia (or at all). As of now, DC is under federal jurisdiction, and the federal government has sole authority to do with it as it pleases, including make it into a state. Are you worried about those clauses in the Constitution you cited earlier? Not relevant, as DC doesn't lie within the jurisdiction of any state.

When Maryland gave up control of DC in 1790, it ceased to have any claim whatsoever to it. This was later demonstrated in 1871, when the federal government made DC into the "District" that it is today without so much as consulting the state of Maryland. And again in 1973 when the federal government reorganized the way that the District operates...again with no concern whatsoever for what Maryland thought about it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom