The bills in Congress to expand the size of the U.S. House of Representatives from 435 members to 437, which had seemed likely to pass, no longer seem likely to pass. The Senate had passed S160 last week with an amendment voiding the District of Columbia ban on semi-automatic weapons. All Democrats in the Senate had voted for the bill, even though some want to keep the semi-automatic gun ban. These Senators felt that the House would remove the gun amendment. However, it now appears that the House bill, HR 157, will also keep the gun amendment. As a consequence, some Democratic members of Congress who are more interested in retaining the semi-automatic gun bill than in providing a voting representative for D.C. will not support the final bill. See this story from Congressional Quarterly.
I guess some of them can’t vote for a bill unless everything in it IS unconstitutional.
Why doesn’t the House simply pass S 160, unchanged?
I’m disappointed by this news, but am not surprised. This was about DC getting representation and giving them the freedom to choose it’s destiny. Let the courts deal with the gun-ban issue Sen. Ensign.
BTW, during the Senate debate about the bill, Sen. Murkowski announced she would introduce a statehood constitutional amendment as an alternative. Any news on the progress/status of this?
There seems to be a little more support on the Republican side on this proposal than most of the legislation coming through the chamber.
That pesky Constitution. Didn’t the drafters of the Constitution know that people would be living in the District? How are they supposed to be represented? By the entire Congress of the US? How unenlightened they were!
…Didn’t the drafters of the Constitution know that people would be living in the District?
Perhaps they did, but they never expected the massive size of the Feral government that would require these employees. If the federal government were held to the chains of it’s Constitutional bounds, 99% of these people would be living in other states performing non-governmental work and WOULD have representation.
“Didn’t the drafters of the Constitution know that people would be living in the District?”
I doubt they suspected many people would, as the Constituion states “District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may…become the Seat of the Government of the United States”
DC is currently 68.3 sqare miles, nearly 7 times larger than Constitutionally authorized. Simple answer would be to retrocede the vast majority of DC (including all residential areas) to Maryland
I heartily agree with Mr. Perry! That solves the “problem” without raising constitutional questions.
I think the writers of the Constitution meant that D.C. should be 10 miles on each of its four sides, which would mean 100 square miles. And DC was once 100 square miles, but the part that had been taken from Virginia was given back to Virginia in the 1840’s.
Voters living on the Maryland side of the Potomac River, who lived in D.C., were permitted to vote in Maryland Congressional elections during the 1790’s.
Congress delegated the task of defining the boundaries of the district to George Washington; and actually amended the original legislation to permit the district to extend east of the Anacostia River. Its boundaries are defined by its southern tip, which is on the Virginia shoreline, and then 10 mile sides to the NW, NE, SE, and SW back to the origin.
There have been 3 retrocessions to Virgina. The boundary between Maryland and Virginia is on the south bank of the Potomac River (as per Maryland’s Royal Charter), so the Potomac within the district is part of Maryland’s cession.
There was a bay on the Virginia side that was landfilled, but would have remained part of the district had it not been retroceded. And there was a later an area that is part of (then) National Airport that was retroceded. I think it may be part of runways or similar areas that were built into the river.
During the senate debate on S 160, there was an amendment that would have retroceded most of the district outside the area of the Mall and Capitol to Maryland, but it was defeated. Any retrocession would be contingent on acceptance by Maryland – but this was true of the 3 retrocessions to Virginia as well. For the first retrocession, there was also a plebiscate in the area. At the time most of the population was in Alexandria.
“During the senate debate on S 160, there was an amendment that would have retroceded most of the district outside the area of the Mall and Capitol to Maryland …”
This is the best solution.
Give the remainder of DC, outside the monuments and official offices, back to Maryland.
No to Statehood.
No to quasi-statehood through the back door.
I wouldn’t vote for it. You can’t forcibly take a way D.C.’s right to have a law to protect itself.