The Democratic-led House of Representative just voted 216-208, along party lines, to make Washington D.C. the 51st state in the Union. The bill now goes to the Senate. But there are two serious problems. The District of Columbia already has more House and Senate members living within it than any state in the Union and therefore is the most represented city in the nation, and the Constitution forbids making the capitol a state without 3/4th of the states' approval.
Democrats say that the District of Columbia is underrepresented but what they fail to mention is that D.C. is the only city in the nation governed by the whole House of Representatives. Moreover, few commute daily from their districts and, therefore, live in close proximity to the Capitol.
Technically they are D.C. residents, eating, working, socializing and sleeping in that city many times more than in their residences in Florida, Maine, California, Hawaii or Alaska. They regularly frequent the city's gyms, restaurants, clothing shops, beauty salons, and barbershops. They care about its streets and utilities because they use them. They socialize with other representatives about the needs and environment of the city as much or more than any city in their districts. Name another city as represented as it? No city gets more attention from people with power than Washington D.C.
Now to the Constitutional concerns. "The Congress shall have Power ... to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the government of the United States" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17). Again, Congress is specifically charged to govern the city, thus it is the most represented city in America and the only city with direct access to the federal budget.
One may need to be reminded of why the District of Columbia was created. The cities of Boston, Philadelphia and New York served their purpose very well in the birth of the Republic but they were cities within existing governments. What the Founders had to have was a place separate from and not subject to the influence of a host state. The two governments, the states and the new federal government created by the Constitution, that would run America must be independent of the other. This would be the home of the federal government, it would operate on its own property, not within another that could influence it or, in reverse, be dominated or favored by it.
This property must never be a state and must be too small to be thought possible that it should be; presently it is 1/20th the size of Rhode Island, America's smallest state. The perception of a small and limited federal government was important and carefully preserved by the wordage "not exceeding ten Miles square."
Another constitutional concern involves Virginia and Maryland, who donated the ten square mile block of land to the federal government for a specific purpose, a space for a federal government, that would not have been given for any other purpose -- definitely not to be made into another competing state. Certainly, Maryland's claim on it, if not used for the purpose given in the contract (Constitution), is much stronger than its claim to statehood. It could be argued that the only other "right" use of this land would be to return it to Maryland since Virginia's portion was ceded back in 1846 with dubious constitutional authority. Then, and today with Maryland, any change in the Constitution (contract) requires an amendment.
If not used as a part of the District of Columbia, it should be returned to Maryland, then a bid for statehood would violate Article IV, Section 3. "No new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State ... without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress."
If made into a state, then there is the necessity of repealing Amendment 23 of the Constitution, ratified in 1961, giving the District of Columbia three Electoral College votes because it wasn't a state and now can't have six. Repeal requires 3/4th of the states. In the present climate of no bipartisanship, this would require one side or the other to give up three Electoral College votes. Since Washington D.C. has been and will remain Democrat Party territory for decades, the new state, "Washington, Douglass Commonwealth," would get three Electoral College votes in perpetuity, thus Democrats logically should forgo the three Electoral College votes still given to D.C. in Amendment 23 in addition to that given as a state -- but will they?
Making the District of Columbia a city-state would make this city, already the most represented city in the nation and probably even more so than any state as well, even more powerful. It also is unconstitutional because D.C. was specifically designed to not be a state. This cannot be changed by statute. This bill damages or alters two articles and one amendment of the U.S. Constitution and thus could require two new amendments and one amendment repeal in the Constitution. Each demands the use of Article V which requires a proposing process of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress or the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of several states, followed by a ratification process of 3/4th of the several states.
Everyone knows the Democrat bid to make the District of Columbia a new state is equivalent to "packing the Senate" which would vanish if they, in doing so, were establishing two new Republican Senators in perpetuity. It's clearly a power grab akin to packing the Supreme Court and cannot be rewarded.
Harold W. Pease, Ph.D., is an expert on the United States Consitution and a syndicated columnist. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for more than 30 years. To read more of his weekly articles, visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.