Do you support DC statehood?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, clearly. You got hundreds of thousands of people living there with no representation in congress despite congress officially having authority over it. DC should not be given half representation because it wouldn't even be the least populous state, and because all Americans should have full participation in democracy, not just those who happen to be in one of the 50 states. I'm sure the founding fathers didn't expect DC to become the massive city that it is. And it isn't like having the right to vote has caused all the other capital cities throughout the world to collapse. Having reps in congress isn't going to set DC ablaze.

Representation in Congress and Statehood are two separate issues linked only by the fact that Statehood is one method by which representation could be achieved. I support DC having representation in Congress, but I don't support DC statehood.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm surprised Maryland wouldn't want it, seems like it'd be an absolute cash cow for tax and tourism revenue.

Change your avatar to blue if you really believe economics is all that matters.

Also, your economics are faulty. You're neglecting all the expenses an urban area requires. As it is Maryland has a good chunk of the D.C. suburbs which are net income generators as suburbs typically have less people needing services and more tax revenue per capita than urban areas.  That's without even considering all the extra expenses associated with hosting the Federal government.

Based purely on economics, if might make sense for Maryland to agree to a retrocession of the part of D.C. south of the Anacostia, but not all of D.C.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm surprised Maryland wouldn't want it, seems like it'd be an absolute cash cow for tax and tourism revenue.

Change your avatar to blue if you really believe economics is all that matters.

Also, your economics are faulty. You're neglecting all the expenses an urban area requires. As it is Maryland has a good chunk of the D.C. suburbs which are net income generators as suburbs typically have less people needing services and more tax revenue per capita than urban areas.  That's without even considering all the extra expenses associated with hosting the Federal government.

Based purely on economics, if might make sense for Maryland to agree to a retrocession of the part of D.C. south of the Anacostia, but not all of D.C.

Why south of the Anacostia? Isn't that the poorest part of D.C.?

It's not Georgetown, but it is gentrifying and more importantly, doesn't have much in the way of Federal facilities that would be an economic drain. Also, the boundaries would be simple to define compared to trying to absorb just the best bordering bits of D.C., so it's the only even semi-realistic partial retrocession worth considering.

In any case, any partial retrocession of D.C. is even more of a fantasy than a complete retrocession.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No. All of DC but the property of the Federal Government should be subject to Maryland. The Founders intended a neutral site for the federal government to do the work of the people.

I know I'm guilty of it to some extent as well, but the surest sign of malarkey concerning Constitutional interpretation is the phrase "the Founders intended ...".

That said, it's generally agreed that the primary reason for there to be provision for a Federal district in the Constitution is the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783 and the lessons drawn from it.  The primary lesson that was drawn was that the Federal government could not count upon the government of a State that hosted the national capital to do what the Federal government thought was needed to provide for the security of the Federal capital.  However, considering that the trouble was caused by a mutiny of Continental Army soldiers over lack of pay,  I'm doubtful that particular problem could have been solved by the existence of a Federal district alone.

Still, there's nothing in the historical record to indicate anyone was ever worried that having the national capital within a State would cause the national government to be unduly influenced to favor that State above the others, so the idea that it was felt a neutral site was needed is ludicrous.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Absolutely not, since it's an obvious power grab for the sole political benefit of the Democratic party.  And DC already has enough power and influence.


Although there is a legitimate argument to be made for P.R. statehood, but not for D.C. statehood.  it's too bad PR doesn't have the military strategic benefits of Hawaii/Alaska/Guam etc... in which case I'd support it fully.

Is refusing to give DC representation in congress because of their political leanings not a form of voter suppression? They are Americans living in America, who deserve the same political rights as all Americans. It doesn't matter how they lean.

Supporting retrocession to MD does exactly what you are claiming to want.

Literally everyone knows the ONLY reason anyone wants to push for DC statehood today is because it would guarantee more safe D seats. Claiming otherwise is just being dishonest.

LOL, the only reason anyone opposes it is because it will send Democrats to Congress.

That's the primary reason, but not the only reason, people oppose it. Personally, I favor the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment over Statehood.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

DC Statehood defeats the purpose of it being.....DC.

So why should the residents of DC have no representation in Congress?

Statehood is only the easiest, not the only way to give DC representation in Congress.  That said, I don't think it is a good idea to have a State whose only industry is politics.