A central location would save travel time and cost. Kansas City is within a three-hour flight to both coasts.
An added benefit would be to end the need for the District of Columbia, which will would allow residents to vote in Maryland elections for the first time since 1800.
The current location for the US Capital dates from the Residence Act of 1790, which moved the capital from New York to Washington. At that time the Mississippi River was the western boundary of the country, and travel over the Appalachian Mountains was difficult and expensive. The location at the head of navigation on the Potomac River made sense then; it makes little sense now.
Other countries have made similar moves. The Russia moved the capital to from Saint Petersburg to Moscow in 1918, and the Brazil moved theirs from Rio de Janeiro to Brasilia in the 1960s.
Sounds like a good way for the GOP to maintain their natural advantage in the Senate. The people of Washington DC deserve proper representation. African Americans account for about 13 percent of our population, but only have three US Senators. Give DC statehood.
There are 56 black Representatives out of 435, for 12.87% of the total, meaning blacks are fully demographically represented in the United States House of Representatives. The United States Senate does not, nor will it EVER demographically reflect ANYTHING, as that is not how its designed. Each State gets two Senators regardless. Now after the country goes majority Hispanic late in this century, the United States Senate will likely swing very quickly to majority Hispanic. But the black race is simply **** out of luck as far as the Senate goes. Just stating an immutable fact. DC Statehood would add two black Senators, but would change nothing else demographically.
The residents of D.C. would be better served by retrocession back to Maryland. D.C. residents have much in common with the population of Maryland outside D.C. boundaries. They would get a Congressman of their own, would get to vote for Maryland Senators and since Maryland has Constitutional provision for strong home rule, D.C. residents would have very strong home rule as an independent city/county within Maryland.
Their economy is not diversified enough to support statehood, but would serve them well enough as a city/county within Maryland.
Additionally, D.C. residents would be able to vote for the Maryland Governor and Legislature. They would have “taxation WITH representation” by retro-cession to Maryland, which is what they seek.
No. The Virginia half of the land ceded for the District of Columbia was never occupied by the Federal Government. Other than the Pentagon, Arlington Cemetery, and Lady Johnson Park, there is no land to be returned to Virginia.
Irrelevant, the Constitution does not define what a State must or must not be, other than preventing it from carving new States out of old States without the old States consent.
Congress had a great deal of leeway, when carving up the Northwest Territory, the Louisiana Purchase, the British Cession of the Oregon Country and the Mexican Cession/Gadsden Purchase.
Other than the admission of the Vermont Republic and Hawaii, both small by the nature of their acquisition, the Congress has seen fit that the incoming States be large in area. A large State would clearly be more viable than a tiny State. They never admitted any cities or other tiny units as States, because of the obvious impracticability of doing so.
The District of Columbia, once shorn of the Capitol Service Area (i.e. the National Mall, White House, The Capitol, Supreme Court Building and other government buildings, monuments and the naval base), is going to be even smaller in area. It cannot viably function as a State and the taxes needed to support it would be astronomical, given the lack of industry and business. On the other hand, as a municipality of Maryland, the District would be relieved of functions pertaining to a State and would receive services from Maryland and taxes and costs for District residents would be lower.
The territory originally ceded by Maryland and Virginia was ceded for one purpose only, to comprise a federal capitol district, not to later be erected as a new State. If the federal government cedes most of the district, it should rightfully be returned to Maryland, just as the Virginia side was returned to Virginia in 1846.
That Oklahoma/Texas argument fails as per the next paragraph. Apples and oranges.
I don’t think District residents, once fully appraised of the facts, would have any objections to joining Maryland. The culture of D.C. residents is very much similar to that of their Maryland counterparts just outside the District boundaries. A new City of Washington/Columbia County, Maryland, would have a very high degree of home rule as is spelled out in the Maryland Constitution. Besides “taxation with representation”, lack of home rule is the major complaint of those in the District. Joining with Maryland would completely solve this issue. It would also completely solve the “taxation with representation” issue. They would get to vote for the the Maryland Governor and Legislature, in the Maryland election of the President, for Maryland’s United States Senator and would essentially have their own Congressman.
The whole Statehood push by a few is based on the purely political desire to grab 2 new “free” perpetually Democratic United States Senators. That is NOT a sufficient basis to admit a State, particularly when every other argument works in favor of retro-cession to Maryland.
If people want to truly serve the interests of the residents of the District, they should pursue retro-cession to Maryland, which clearly is of greater benefit to the residents.
Economic viability has been a major criteria for approving Statehood for more than 150 years. What is the economy of the District of Columbia other than Federal Government? Take away the Government (which is the impetuous of the thread) and they have nothing on which to sustain themselves as a separate state.