05-18-2021, 07:08 AM
This is actually why I'm not a proponent of the federal enclave, route, actually. The amount of autonomy I advocate for DC is actually a small amount, not more than what it has now, to be honest. The only part I advocate for is that the residents of DC have representation in Congress. Now, for the sake of this particular article, I could formulate an argument in favor of carving out this enclave.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 lays out the authority of Congress over DC. However, DC is limited to ten square miles. Herein lies the problem with arguments that making DC a state is unconstitutional according to this clause. The current DC, which is smaller than it was at its creation because Virginia demanded their part back, is 68.34 square miles. So, really, constitutionally, Congress should not have the authority it has over 58.34 square miles of the district. I could argue that not only would a federal enclave be prudent, it would be absolutely essential given the unconstitutional nature of the current governance of the district.
Now, we could argue over whether the remaining 58.34 square miles be given back to Maryland, but we need to determine which parts. In addition, that still doesn't solve the problem of any citizens with a residence inside that ten square miles lacking representation. Good grief, in thinking about this article, I am realizing that the application of the 23rd Amendment is, itself, constitutionally contrary with nothing having been done to reconcile it. Technically speaking, only the people within the ten square miles are really entitled to vote for electors. This whole situation goes beyond just a statehood discussion.
It's too early for this, I need coffee.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 lays out the authority of Congress over DC. However, DC is limited to ten square miles. Herein lies the problem with arguments that making DC a state is unconstitutional according to this clause. The current DC, which is smaller than it was at its creation because Virginia demanded their part back, is 68.34 square miles. So, really, constitutionally, Congress should not have the authority it has over 58.34 square miles of the district. I could argue that not only would a federal enclave be prudent, it would be absolutely essential given the unconstitutional nature of the current governance of the district.
Now, we could argue over whether the remaining 58.34 square miles be given back to Maryland, but we need to determine which parts. In addition, that still doesn't solve the problem of any citizens with a residence inside that ten square miles lacking representation. Good grief, in thinking about this article, I am realizing that the application of the 23rd Amendment is, itself, constitutionally contrary with nothing having been done to reconcile it. Technically speaking, only the people within the ten square miles are really entitled to vote for electors. This whole situation goes beyond just a statehood discussion.
It's too early for this, I need coffee.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
