Two-Thirds Of Americans Oppose DC Statehood

[SteveRogers]

This is the most important point. DC is the capital district of a massive, sprawling federal democracy, which must not belong to any single state. (you see a similar setup in other countries with strong federalism, such as Brazil and Australia)

I guess the issue is the residential areas. "DC" could just be the land with all the relevant federal buildings where there are almost no residents. The residential areas could potentially be a state or absorbed into other states.

A federal district has to encompass a functional city that can support the government's business in order to make sense. A rump district of government buildings resembling the Vatican is not suitable for that purpose, as it would still be subject to all of the same issues of the capital being in one state, just without the capital legally being in the state.

While DC getting voting representation is fine, the status quo is not that bad either. Residence in DC is completely voluntary, and they enjoy some privileges like lower taxes, particularly at the lower end, and better infrastructure, thanks to direct federal government funding and the economic behemoth that is the US federal government.

What exactly are the issues of the federal capital being located within one state?

[SteveRogers]

This is the most important point. DC is the capital district of a massive, sprawling federal democracy, which must not belong to any single state. (you see a similar setup in other countries with strong federalism, such as Brazil and Australia)

I guess the issue is the residential areas. "DC" could just be the land with all the relevant federal buildings where there are almost no residents. The residential areas could potentially be a state or absorbed into other states.

A federal district has to encompass a functional city that can support the government's business in order to make sense. A rump district of government buildings resembling the Vatican is not suitable for that purpose, as it would still be subject to all of the same issues of the capital being in one state, just without the capital legally being in the state.

While DC getting voting representation is fine, the status quo is not that bad either. Residence in DC is completely voluntary, and they enjoy some privileges like lower taxes, particularly at the lower end, and better infrastructure, thanks to direct federal government funding and the economic behemoth that is the US federal government.

What exactly are the issues of the federal capital being located within one state?

Yeah. Most other federal countries either have the federal capital be a state by itself (Germany and Land Berlin; Australia and the ACT; etc) or they have the federal capital inside one state (a great example being Ottawa in Canada, which even if it sits right at the border is still firmly in Ontario)

Canada is a much less federal country than Australia or the US, so it's not that contentious. (provinces instead of states) Again, there is no problem with having representation for DC residents, the problem is statehood itself, what statehood means, why a federal district was created in the first place, and why it is needed today.

I have already explained in my previous posts the main reasons.

You haven’t explained any reasons though

[SteveRogers]

You haven’t explained any reasons though

You should learn to read, then.

Can you give a concrete example of how such a state would exert “undue influence” over the federal government?

[SteveRogers]

What precisely are you claiming? Like what things would the DC state government have control over that would mean it would have undue influence over the federal government? I'm not tracking what the argument is here.

I've already explained - the law, infrastructure, city planning, to start. If this were not a serious issue that logical people had already considered before, why have countries around the world even bothered with capital districts?

But like, how? Can you give one concrete example?

[SteveRogers]

What precisely are you claiming? Like what things would the DC state government have control over that would mean it would have undue influence over the federal government? I'm not tracking what the argument is here.

I've already explained - the law, infrastructure, city planning, to start. If this were not a serious issue that logical people had already considered before, why have countries around the world even bothered with capital districts?

But like, how? Can you give one concrete example?

The law

It doesn't take any imagination to figure that one out.

What law? Federal law trumps any state law.

[SteveRogers]

What precisely are you claiming? Like what things would the DC state government have control over that would mean it would have undue influence over the federal government? I'm not tracking what the argument is here.

I've already explained - the law, infrastructure, city planning, to start. If this were not a serious issue that logical people had already considered before, why have countries around the world even bothered with capital districts?

But like, how? Can you give one concrete example?

The law

It doesn't take any imagination to figure that one out.

But what does this mean? Do you mean that DC will be able to make laws that will what, become federal laws? Impact federal laws? Impact the federal government's ability to make laws? All I'm asking for is one concrete example of what you mean.

I don't understand how this is so difficult to figure out. Congress maintains authority over DC, even after Home Rule was instituted, so that the laws of the city will not be against the interests of running the business of the 50 United States. The interests of the residents are heard, but must ultimately be balanced against the interests of the rest of the nation.

Obviously, this means DC statehood is open to political blackmail, but even ignoring that, the federal government would be powerless to stop the DC government from creating new taxes, set zoning regulations, or set infrastructure priorities that would hinder the operation of the government. Things as "simple" in other cities such as closing/moving a road/bridge (I don't mean Bridgegate, I mean regular infrastructure), permitting tall buildings to be built downtown, and commuter taxes, would directly affect the operations of the federal government, and by extension the residents of the 50 states, which is unacceptable. These are just examples of very innocent, politics-free decisions that would hinder the federal government. With any degree of political animus, the powers of a state government are vast.

A "cute" solution to the taxation without representation issue would be to exempt DC residents from federal income tax and perhaps even repeal the city government's taxation authority and fund DC directly from the federal government.

None of the laws you mention could be applied against the federal government. States can’t tax the federal government. States can’t tell the federal government how high to build buildings on federal land. So what exactly is the scenario you fear?

[SteveRogers]

The federal government has facilities all over the place. In all kinds of states. Most concentrated in DC, obviously, but why would these same concerns not manifest about Pennsylvania or Massachusetts or Georgia?

Yeah, the Pentagon is in Virginia for crying out loud!