D.C. Statehood by Tom Reynolds
In order to gain political control of the United States, Democrats want to make Washington D.C. into a state. As currently proposed, the new state would consist of all of D.C. except tiny strips of territory remaining under federal control. It would be called “Washington, Douglas Commonwealth”—presumably meaning the City of Washington in the Commonwealth of Douglas.
As we shall see, giving D.C. statehood guarantees the Democrat Party two additional Democrat Senators and that is the Democrats real agenda. Since the Democrat Party leadership is rabidly against private gun ownership, D.C. statehood is very plainly another Democrat step to eliminating private gun ownership.
To understand the legal issues that should prevent this from happening, let’s take a quick look at the history of the creation of the Capital District.
· The states of Maryland and Virginia formally offered to cede to the federal government jurisdiction over land for a capital district. In 1791 Congress accepted Maryland’s and Virginia’s offers and the District of Columbia was eventually established. The federal government later returned Virginia’s portion to that state, so all of what is now the District of Columbia is former Maryland territory.
· D.C. residents do not have any voting Senators or Congresspersons but the 23rd Amendment permitted residents of the District of Columbia to have three presidential electors (giving it the equivalent representation of several states in presidential elections).
· In 1973, Congress passed the Home Rule Act, permitting local self-government for the District.
Why should D.C. not be allowed to become a state?
D.C. statehood would put the federal government at the mercy of local state officials. “Douglas Commonwealth” officials could refuse to restrain rioters threatening federal institutions. They could threaten or intimidate federal officials to obtain political ends. Who can doubt this possibility after observing the riots of the past year that were essentially approved by the governments of several states.
The terms of Maryland’s 1788 offer of cession also present objections to D.C. statehood; Maryland’s consent to cession, as well as Congress’s acceptance, was clearly based on the land being used as a national capital. The 1788 Maryland law provides that cession is to be of a “district in this State not exceeding ten miles square, which Congress may fix upon and accept for the seat of Government of the United States.” Maryland did not consent to the creation of another state out of its territory, which is required by that pesky Constitution. (The US Constitution keeps interfering with Democrat plans.) Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution states that “…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”. Maryland’s cession was effective for creating a federal district to be used as a national capital, but not effective for creating a new state. Turning all or part of D.C. into a state would require either a new agreement with Maryland, or a constitutional amendment.
Many participants in the Founding Fathers’ debate over the Constitution expressed concern that residents of the capital district, who would consist largely of government employees and their families, would reflect solely the interests of the government upon which they were dependent. They did not want dependents of the federal government unduly influencing state or national elections.
A similar objection arises from the results of the 23rd Amendment, which gave D.C. three presidential electors. Subsequent election results have fully vindicated the Founders’ concerns about allowing District residents to vote in federal elections. The District is a dependency of the federal government and its electorate invariably votes for the party that offers more government—the Democrats. D.C. residents have cast ballots in 15 presidential elections and they have voted the same way each time, and by huge margins: In 2020, Joe Biden took 92 percent of their vote.
Denying the vote to residents of the capital district does not leave them without influence. On the contrary, those residents have an outsize influence; partly by reason of their proximity to federal institutions and partly because many are or would be government officials or employees. Allowing them to participate in national elections would, unfairly, further magnify their power.
Democrats have no hesitancy on pushing any changes that are to their advantage, no matter how radical. That puts Republicans and conservatives forever on the defensive. It’s time to change that and put Democrats on the defensive. The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was repealed by the 21st Amendment. Election results since the passage of the 23rd Amendment have proven the Founding Fathers’ concerns to be correct. So, rather than admitting the District as a state, we should be discussing repeal of the 23rd Amendment.
While we’re at it, we might consider repealing the 16th Amendment which allowed the Federal income Tax.