4 ms·

That’s not a reasonable argument for any position. Just because few hundred years ago something was designed differently isn’t a reason not to change it.

SllX 5y ago
Well the parent proposed something perfectly reasonable: retrocession back into Maryland. This would wholly resolve their lack of Congressional representation and Maryland would gain a House seat, or maybe two if they were already on the threshold for another.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  DC can’t force MD to take them back, and neither can the federal govt. And MD doesn’t want them. Reasonable or not, it’s a no-go.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    It's absolutely a no-go. The constitution says that the seat of the US government will not be a US state to prevent favoritism for said state. There are some pitches for greatly reducing "Washington DC" down to the smallest possible constitutionally allowed area, but I don't see that happening. Republicans will not allow another Democratic state into the union anytime soon.
  - SllX 5y ago
    DC also can’t force us or the other States to accept it in as a State. So, who blinks first? From where I sit, retrocession is already a massive compromise where Maryland gets its land back, 1 to 2 House seats and a bigger tax base; and the residents of DC get the right to vote for not just Congressional representation but also for a State government.
flavius29663 5y ago
my argument was not that it was done 200 years ago, hence it should stay. My argument was the initial reasoning was to have a neutral ground, which is as valid today as it was 200 years ago. As a counter-example, the European Parliament is being moved EVERY MONTH between Bruxelles and Strassbourg, because France wanted to have the capitol on their ground at least partially. A neutral city built from scratch at the border would have made more sense in the 1990s just like 200 years ago.

SllX 5y ago

Well the parent proposed something perfectly reasonable: retrocession back into Maryland. This would wholly resolve their lack of Congressional representation and Maryland would gain a House seat, or maybe two if they were already on the threshold for another.

snowwrestler 5y ago
DC can’t force MD to take them back, and neither can the federal govt. And MD doesn’t want them. Reasonable or not, it’s a no-go.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  It's absolutely a no-go. The constitution says that the seat of the US government will not be a US state to prevent favoritism for said state. There are some pitches for greatly reducing "Washington DC" down to the smallest possible constitutionally allowed area, but I don't see that happening. Republicans will not allow another Democratic state into the union anytime soon.
- SllX 5y ago
  DC also can’t force us or the other States to accept it in as a State. So, who blinks first? From where I sit, retrocession is already a massive compromise where Maryland gets its land back, 1 to 2 House seats and a bigger tax base; and the residents of DC get the right to vote for not just Congressional representation but also for a State government.

flavius29663 5y ago

my argument was not that it was done 200 years ago, hence it should stay. My argument was the initial reasoning was to have a neutral ground, which is as valid today as it was 200 years ago. As a counter-example, the European Parliament is being moved EVERY MONTH between Bruxelles and Strassbourg, because France wanted to have the capitol on their ground at least partially. A neutral city built from scratch at the border would have made more sense in the 1990s just like 200 years ago.