Talk:District of Columbia retrocession

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Reapeal of 23rd Amendment

If it does, then such a move would require, as a technicality, the repeal of the 23rd Amendment due to there being no citizens of such a District I'm not sure I understand why a repeal would be necessary. Wouldn't it merely be a moot point, like the 3/5 compromise? Nik42 21:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If the District was retroceded without the 23rd Amendment being repealed, then whoever resided in the National Capital Service Area (what would remain of D.C.) would be entitled to 3 Electoral Votes. Each party would probably try to manipulate the situation to its advantage. To prevent that, the 23rd Amendment would have to be repealed. --Repeal 16-17 (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats not quite correct Repeal 16-17, because under Article 2, Section 1, a person holding a possibility of "trust or profit" under the US cannot serve as an Elector. Thus, if the residents of a 'National Capital Service Area (NCSA) were only the president, vice president, and any of their family members resident with them in the NCSA, and all (somehow) registered to vote as NCSA residents, then the only ones that could serve as Electors would be the family members. Their voter registration could be blocked by act of congress; or a statute could be enacted to deny all the status of NCSA residents. So the opportunity for abuse is small. Still, the opportunity for creating a rotten borough exists; thus repealing the 23rd Amendment would be an issue for DC retrocession. 141.166.226.105 (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 10 sq mile vs 100 sq miles

I just changed this in the article and I went through the history and noticed that, recently, it had gone back and forth several times. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that the national district should be "not more than 10 miles square". The site chosen by Washington was 10 times larger than that, or 100 sq miles. I'm not sure how something so blatantly unconstitutional has survived for so long, and, indeed, I would see this as an argument for Maryland retrocession, keeping just the 10 miles around the Capitol as the District. Anyway, could this please not be changed any more? 69.253.193.234 19:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The plain meaning of "ten miles square" is (10 miles) * (10 miles), which is 100 square miles. If you disagree, please give a legal citation showing that the language should be construed in some other way. Otherwise, it's just your say-so against both the plain meaning and the construction given to the words throughout the Constitution's history. Doctor Whom 22:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed (I was a math major). "10 miles square" means a square who's sides are 10 miles each -- Sholom 16:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Having been both a math major and an English major, this could just be a case of the 18th century construction of the adjective following the noun it modifies, ie: "Qualifications requisite" (Art 1, Sec 2), etc. I'm just going to change it to the language found in the Constitution, in quotes, and that should satisfy. 69.253.193.234 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity?

The article states "Currently, there is little support for retrocession..." This may be true but I think it should be backed up by a citation, perhaps to an opinion poll. 141.166.226.105 (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knowledge

Also, I'd be curious to know how many Washingtonians are actually aware of the possibility of retrocession since the debate on DC's status tends to focus on status quo v. statehood. Does anyone have any data on how familiar Washingtonians actually are about this possibility? 141.166.226.105 (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)