????? How's this gonna work out?

I'm thinking it never gets off the launch pad.

But it's kind of interesting. I'll admit I had no idea of the history behind it.

It's a republican effort, and not a very serious one at that.

The intent is to get northern Virginia out of Virginia, and make it a red state again.

Will never see the light of day

Would be awesome (take back the part given to Virginia in 1846) but not gonna happen...I mean that part of Virginia is 100% blue now ((and DC is already 99% blue)) so would really help the rest of the state of Virginia to still have a representative voice

DC is carved out of Maryland, not Va. Va is across the river.

Anyway, the political solution is to define DC as the main federal area (Mall, Congress, Monuments, White House, SCOTUS) and any federal buildings, but no citizens / residents. The citizens / residents should be defined as citizens / residents of the the State of Maryland.

Name the city Columbia, Maryland, separate and distinct from DC, though overlapping. Still need a mayor, City Council, PD, etc.

This would be no different than the Park Cities in Dallas or Bellaire in Houston being seperate cities in the middle of a larger metro area.

The intent of the Constitution carving outa federal district and giving the federal government control over it never envisioned it as a fully functioning city with residents and registered voters.

DC has electoral college representation, but no Senate or House reps, they should be included in Maryland for that.

The stated reason for the retrocession to Virginia in 1847 was to preserve the proportion of slave states. Since that was done pre-Civil War, even if it were unconstitutional from the get go, changing it now would be an uphill climb. Federal government already took Arlington. They could have reclaimed the res of the five square miles back then.

Nor do I think a Presidential EO, although drawing a challenge, would get to the constitutional question.

But here's a thought question. DC has municipal powers. Does that include annexation? Helluva juicy tax base if it could.

Jarrin Jay said:

---

DC is carved out of Maryland, not Va. Va is across the river.

---

Yes we know that. But at one time, part of Virginia was carved out, and was part of the District of Columbia.

It was given back to Virginia in 1847

aggiehawg said:

---

The stated reason for the retrocession to Virginia in 1847 was to preserve the proportion of slave states. Since that was done pre-Civil War, even if it were unconstitutional from the get go, changing it now would be an uphill climb. Federal government already took Arlington. They could have reclaimed the res of the five square miles back then.

Nor do I think a Presidential EO, although drawing a challenge, would get to the constitutional question.

But here's a thought question. DC has municipal powers. Does that include annexation? Helluva juicy tax base if it could.

---

The 23rd amendment allows Congress to appropriate a "number" (I think the word is) of representatives for DC. That number could be zero with legislation (not an EO). I'm not sure how that would relate to what you're talking about here -- i.e. the land question.

I would think if Congress took DC from 3, I think it is, to 0 in terms of representatives, they'd almost have to move all non-governmental land/areas to Maryland.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

The stated reason for the retrocession to Virginia in 1847 was to preserve the proportion of slave states. Since that was done pre-Civil War, even if it were unconstitutional from the get go, changing it now would be an uphill climb. Federal government already took Arlington. They could have reclaimed the res of the five square miles back then.

Nor do I think a Presidential EO, although drawing a challenge, would get to the constitutional question.

But here's a thought question. DC has municipal powers. Does that include annexation? Helluva juicy tax base if it could.

---

The 23rd amendment allows Congress to appropriate a "number" (I think the word is) of representatives for DC. That number could be zero with legislation (not an EO). I'm not sure how that would relate to what you're talking about here -- i.e. the land question.

I would think if Congress took DC from 3, I think it is, to 0 in terms of representatives, they'd almost have to move all non-governmental land/areas to Maryland.

---

Hmm. Hadn't considered that approach. Don't think it would pass muster if Congress were to do that.

I have also since learned that DC's municipal powers are very limited. Is is not like a Bellaire, city within a larger city, it is in a federal district, thus alone they could not annex Northern VA.

aggiehawg said:

---

The stated reason for the retrocession to Virginia in 1847 was to preserve the proportion of slave states. Since that was done pre-Civil War, even if it were unconstitutional from the get go, changing it now would be an uphill climb. Federal government already took Arlington. They could have reclaimed the res of the five square miles back then.

Nor do I think a Presidential EO, although drawing a challenge, would get to the constitutional question.

But here's a thought question. DC has municipal powers. Does that include annexation? Helluva juicy tax base if it could.

---

I think the goal of it would be to hold up the certification of the new map for Virginia. Get the injunctions and then just wait for it to move through the courts. At least try to prevent them from taking on the new seats in this midterm.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

The stated reason for the retrocession to Virginia in 1847 was to preserve the proportion of slave states. Since that was done pre-Civil War, even if it were unconstitutional from the get go, changing it now would be an uphill climb. Federal government already took Arlington. They could have reclaimed the res of the five square miles back then.

Nor do I think a Presidential EO, although drawing a challenge, would get to the constitutional question.

But here's a thought question. DC has municipal powers. Does that include annexation? Helluva juicy tax base if it could.

---

The 23rd amendment allows Congress to appropriate a "number" (I think the word is) of representatives for DC. That number could be zero with legislation (not an EO). I'm not sure how that would relate to what you're talking about here -- i.e. the land question.

I would think if Congress took DC from 3, I think it is, to 0 in terms of representatives, they'd almost have to move all non-governmental land/areas to Maryland.

---

The 23rd grants DC electors in the EC. It does not grant them representation in Congress.

In any event, you are going to have to pry the "delegate" position for DC from Eleanor Holmes Norton's cold dead hand. She's never giving that free job up.

As I see it, the constitution's "ten miles square" (100 square miles) restriction on DC's size is a relic of its time. The authors expected that Federal workers would live close to their jobs. They didn't forsee trains, automobiles, or sprawling suburbs, whose residents would then exert undue influence on the politics of Maryland or Virginia.

If it were up to me, I'd expand the District to 40-50 miles wide, to make the urban area self-contained. Include about 6 million people (versus 700k) for the current District.

Of course, a greater population means a greater demand for Congressional representation, but this expanded DC would have a greater area than Rhode Island and a population close to that of Colorado. So it might feel more like a "real" state and not just a Democrat power grab to get two more Senators.

And yeah, it would be a blue state, but the change could make Virginia a red state again.

What do y'all think?

91AggieLawyer said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

The stated reason for the retrocession to Virginia in 1847 was to preserve the proportion of slave states. Since that was done pre-Civil War, even if it were unconstitutional from the get go, changing it now would be an uphill climb. Federal government already took Arlington. They could have reclaimed the res of the five square miles back then.

Nor do I think a Presidential EO, although drawing a challenge, would get to the constitutional question.

But here's a thought question. DC has municipal powers. Does that include annexation? Helluva juicy tax base if it could.

---

The 23rd amendment allows Congress to appropriate a "number" (I think the word is) of representatives for DC. That number could be zero with legislation (not an EO). I'm not sure how that would relate to what you're talking about here -- i.e. the land question.

I would think if Congress took DC from 3, I think it is, to 0 in terms of representatives, they'd almost have to move all non-governmental land/areas to Maryland.

---

Electors, not representatives. And no more than the least populated state.

Jarrin Jay said:

---

DC is carved out of Maryland, not Va. Va is across the river.

Anyway, the political solution is to define DC as the main federal area (Mall, Congress, Monuments, White House, SCOTUS) and any federal buildings, but no citizens / residents. The citizens / residents should be defined as citizens / residents of the the State of Maryland.

Name the city Columbia, Maryland, separate and distinct from DC, though overlapping. Still need a mayor, City Council, PD, etc.

This would be no different than the Park Cities in Dallas or Bellaire in Houston being seperate cities in the middle of a larger metro area.

The intent of the Constitution carving outa federal district and giving the federal government control over it never envisioned it as a fully functioning city with residents and registered voters.

DC has electoral college representation, but no Senate or House reps, they should be included in Maryland for that.

---

I believe DC has a US Representative that can vote in committee but not on the House Floor.

doubledog said:

---

I am in favor of shrinking DC to just the mall and surrounding area and returning the rest to Maryland. Take DC statehood off the table once and for all.

---

This is the answer.

IIIHorn said:

---

Jarrin Jay said:

---

DC is carved out of Maryland, not Va. Va is across the river.

Anyway, the political solution is to define DC as the main federal area (Mall, Congress, Monuments, White House, SCOTUS) and any federal buildings, but no citizens / residents. The citizens / residents should be defined as citizens / residents of the the State of Maryland.

Name the city Columbia, Maryland, separate and distinct from DC, though overlapping. Still need a mayor, City Council, PD, etc.

This would be no different than the Park Cities in Dallas or Bellaire in Houston being seperate cities in the middle of a larger metro area.

The intent of the Constitution carving outa federal district and giving the federal government control over it never envisioned it as a fully functioning city with residents and registered voters.

DC has electoral college representation, but no Senate or House reps, they should be included in Maryland for that.

---

I believe DC has a US Representative that can vote in committee but not on the House Floor.

---

As does Puerto Rico and a few other island territories.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

The stated reason for the retrocession to Virginia in 1847 was to preserve the proportion of slave states. Since that was done pre-Civil War, even if it were unconstitutional from the get go, changing it now would be an uphill climb. Federal government already took Arlington. They could have reclaimed the res of the five square miles back then.

Nor do I think a Presidential EO, although drawing a challenge, would get to the constitutional question.

But here's a thought question. DC has municipal powers. Does that include annexation? Helluva juicy tax base if it could.

---

The 23rd amendment allows Congress to appropriate a "number" (I think the word is) of representatives for DC. That number could be zero with legislation (not an EO). I'm not sure how that would relate to what you're talking about here -- i.e. the land question.

I would think if Congress took DC from 3, I think it is, to 0 in terms of representatives, they'd almost have to move all non-governmental land/areas to Maryland.

---

No, Congress can't do that. The exact wording is:

Quote:

---

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State;

---

Because states get 2 Senators and 1 Representative regardless of how low their population is, DC can't have any fewer than 3 Electors. But it also can't get any more than 3 electors, because the least populous state (Wyoming) has 3.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

doubledog said:

---

I am in favor of shrinking DC to just the mall and surrounding area and returning the rest to Maryland. Take DC statehood off the table once and for all.

---

This is the answer.

---

Dims want to do something similar but instead of returning the rest to Maryland they want to make the rest of it a state.

Jarrin Jay said:

---

DC is carved out of Maryland, not Va. Va is across the river.

Anyway, the political solution is to define DC as the main federal area (Mall, Congress, Monuments, White House, SCOTUS) and any federal buildings, but no citizens / residents. The citizens / residents should be defined as citizens / residents of the the State of Maryland.

Name the city Columbia, Maryland, separate and distinct from DC, though overlapping. Still need a mayor, City Council, PD, etc.

This would be no different than the Park Cities in Dallas or Bellaire in Houston being seperate cities in the middle of a larger metro area.

The intent of the Constitution carving outa federal district and giving the federal government control over it never envisioned it as a fully functioning city with residents and registered voters.

DC has electoral college representation, but no Senate or House reps, they should be included in Maryland for that.

---

One little problem with your solution, and that is there is already a Columbia, Md between Baltimore and DC.

Jarrin Jay said:

---

DC is carved out of Maryland, not Va. Va is across the river.

Anyway, the political solution is to define DC as the main federal area (Mall, Congress, Monuments, White House, SCOTUS) and any federal buildings, but no citizens / residents. The citizens / residents should be defined as citizens / residents of the the State of Maryland.

Name the city Columbia, Maryland, separate and distinct from DC, though overlapping. Still need a mayor, City Council, PD, etc.

This would be no different than the Park Cities in Dallas or Bellaire in Houston being seperate cities in the middle of a larger metro area.

The intent of the Constitution carving outa federal district and giving the federal government control over it never envisioned it as a fully functioning city with residents and registered voters.

DC has electoral college representation, but no Senate or House reps, they should be included in Maryland for that.

---

THERE ALREADY IS A COLUMBIA, MARYLAND

The original retrocession of Alexandria/Arlington to Virginia was done to protect slavery in NoVa, when DC went anti-slavery. But, the vote as a county did not happen. Lincoln thought it was unconstitutional, as did President Taft later. Listen starting around 2:40 if interested in the history.

More here. If, in fact, we hear some trial balloons about this sort of EO I could see it happening if the GOP loses the fight at Virginia's state supreme court over their travesty of gerrymandering.

Personally, I would only see this as a 20 percent likely 'thing' he'd do, but we are talking about DJT here.

Will not change the Dem control in VA.

180,000 voted for Kamala in Arlington/Alexandria in 2024, out of a total of 2.3 million VA votes for her. Trump received 2 million votes statewide. Only around 40K in the two voted for Trump. So while I wouldn't say taking the two to DC would flip the state red, it would return to its natural purple color, imho.

Just one election, but gives an idea of how rabidly partisan for team blue the two are. (Of course, Trump was every bit the threat to the NGO/USAID graft sector largely housed there that they feared.)

doubledog said:

---

I am in favor of shrinking DC to just the mall and surrounding area and returning the rest to Maryland. Take DC statehood off the table once and for all.

---

Yep DC is nothing but a high crime leftist created hellhole. The entire DC government needs to be abolished and returned to surrounding states.

And as pointed out in the video, DC should/would be thrilled to have that very lucrative tax base. But at what point in population does representation become a huge issue? Both in the House but even more importantly in the Senate?

I don't think an EO can deny representation to those people living there in NOVA with the stroke of the pen. How many million would that affect?

Combined it's around a million adults. Of those, perhaps 500K-600K registered voters (many international/non-voting adults in DC especially, including embassies/staff etc). The answer, for those living there who seek representation/to get away (voting members) is as always to move outside of the federal district, something sane DC residents have done for centuries, at least back to George Washington, anyway.

But in truth as a policy/analytical reality (using a 'totality of circumstances' standard, if one will), their voices are quite strongly represented within the legislative branch, so I don't think it is quite the impact many leftists decry.

I'd again highlight how rich it is that this goes back to Democrats (illegally) excising Alexandria/Arlington to Virginia to protect slavery there, antebellum. Now, Democrats would be outraged to see them returned.

ETA: an EO cannot create a Senate/House seat, period.

Quote:

---

ETA: an EO cannot create a Senate/House seat, period.

---

Not my point. I was asking about the revocation of representation as a challenge to an EO that would have that effect. Which is one of the reasons I could see the courts (including SCOTUS) not even addressing the constitutionality of the 1847 retrocession. They could strike it down without reaching that question.

nortex97 said:

---

The original retrocession of Alexandria/Arlington to Virginia was done to protect slavery in NoVa, when DC went anti-slavery.

---

That was part of the reason. But the Alexandrians also had some justified resentment that the federal government had put all of the capital's important buildings on the Maryland side (the Pentagon not having been built yet) and economically neglected the Virginia side.

Ok, well, predicting what SCOTUS would do with a challenge to an appellate ruling (4th Circuit) in NoVa after a district court ruling after a lawsuit over an EO that has not been written yet, in response to a Virginia state supreme court ruling on oral arguments we haven't yet heard is a bit challenging to predict, imho.

I guess, theoretically, it could be argued SCOTUS would have original jurisdiction (quasi 'between the states' as VA could sue). It's just tough to predict, as there is no precedent set over the retrocession itself. One thing is for sure, it could/would be highly entertaining.

Personally, I'd have no issue constitutionally with agreeing to flip back 300K adults to DC via EO given the history.