Talk:District of Columbia retrocession

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as High-importance).

Repeal 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)[reply]

If the District was retroceded without the 23rd Amendment being repealed, then whoever resided in the National Capital Service Area (what would remain of D.C.) would be entitled to 3 Electoral Votes.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 To prevent that, the 23rd Amendment would have to be repealed.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Where does the Constitution say that the electors have to be residents of the state or District they vote from, and couldn't Congress just appoint those electors directly? 74.170.70.193 (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does there need to be a remaining National Capital Service Area or federal enclave anyway? The constitution doesn't seem to require one--it just says that if one is established Congress would exercise exclusive jurisdiction over it. There are thousands of federal buildings scattered throughout the United States. Why can't there be a cluster of federal buildings within the City of New Columbia, MD? If the "District" were eliminated, then there is no need to repeal the 23rd Amendment, because it becomes moot. Athoughtforyou (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The citation given for "the state of Maryland does not want to take the District back" is an article in the Washington Post in 1998 that interviews one Virginia congressman. This is a mighty thin citation. A newer and stronger citation should be provided, or the assertion should be removed. Anomalocaris (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Virginia Congressman was not only citing his own opinion, but that of the state and the Attorney General. However, I will add an additional citation to drive the point home. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 06:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

They are aware that it is a possibility but they dismiss it. They want to have two Senators, which is ironic when they talk about how they should have a "fair" amount of representation in Congress. DC has about 600,000 people. An average state like Ohio has 12,000,000. If DC were granted two senators, then the average state would need to have twenty senators to have equal representation. They don't want you to know this. If DC wanted equal representation, they would be returned to Maryland, they would have their own congressional district and would have the opportunity to vote for the Maryland senators, who also represent fewer people than the average state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.98.109 (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was much more talked about in the 1990s when DC was in receivership. Now that the District is prospering, DC seems less interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talk • contribs) 01:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When???

In what year did the retrocession happen???? That information should be in the first or second sentence of the article. Instead, it's not in the article at all. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UnRetrocession?

With the conflict between Arlington County and the Va govt heightening, there has been talk in some blogs of Arlington returning to DC. Is this the place to discuss that, if and when I find a reliable source?

Ricardianman (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, yes. If you can source it, this would be the place. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 05:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy of satellite map heading this article

User "Postdif" has drawn DC boundaries on this image, but neglected to note the sentence later on in the article: "...the 29th Congress passed legislation on July 9, 1846, to return all the District's territory south of the Potomac River back to the Commonwealth of Virginia...." In other words, the boundaries of the District on the Potomac are coterminous with the 1846 shore of the Potomac. This is significant because a considerable amount of the Potomac has been filled since then on the "Virginia" side. For example, Boundary Channel, inland of the George Washington National Parkway, is the boundary between DC and Virginia. And part of the National Airport runways were built on landfill, so that some of the Airport lies in DC. Most would term this a distinction without a difference, because neither DC nor Virginia has any jurisdiction over these lands, which are all Federal. But accuracy of the diagram would be of some historical interest. C. Cerf (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C. Cerf. We'd need a source for that. As it is, I don't think any of the infill land in that area belongs to the District. The map on this page correctly identifies the small strip of land that is technically within the District of Columbia, albeit on the "Virginia" side of the River. If I remember correctly, I think this was all formally clarified when Congress legally defined the airport's location within the Commonwealth. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 18:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C. Cerf is correct. Columbia Island and Theodore Roosevelt Island are examples of islands in the Potomac River that are part of the District of Columbia. For a citation, see the District of Columbia's map for Ward 2 (here). You'll see that Columbia Island and Theodore Roosevelt Island are both clearly within its bounds. 18:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think that's what C. Cerf was getting it. We know that the islands are part of the District, but he's specifically talking about some of the infill area. He cites the 1846 retrocession law but Congress corrected this problem in 1945: "National Airport became a success, but a controversy over legal jurisdiction began to brew. Was the airport located in Virginia or the District of Columbia? The District "owned" the Potomac River to Virginia, claiming the boundary had been set in 1846 at the high water mark along the shoreline. But since the airport was built on a fill, a new eastern shoreline was created. The question arose as to whether the District's authority ended at the new shore or the original one.

The problem went unresolved until 1945 when Congress approved a bill that fixed the airport boundary at the mean high water mark, regardless of changes, which placed the airport in Virginia. However, the Congress established exclusive federal jurisdiction over National Airport." From: Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Best, epicAdam^(talk) 03:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria and Washington Counties and Cities

Some recent edits to both this page and the main Washington, D.C. page seemed to purport the idea that the cities of Alexandria and Washington were situated within their neighboring counties. That is not the case as the Organic Act of 1801 makes it very clear that the territory of each county was outside the then-independent cities of Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria. Therefore when discussing the retrocession, it is important to note that all of Alexandria (not just the county) was returned to Virginia. This point is especially important because the citizens in Alexandria County actually voted against retrocession (while the citizens in Alexandria City voted overwhelmingly in favor) and there was a great deal of debate as to whether Virginia could legally accept the return of the county without the landowners' consent (which the General Assembly ultimately did). I just wanted to bring this up on the talk page in case there was a question about those edits. Thanks! -epicAdam^(talk) 13:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Political support

The section currently begins by saying "Neither residents of Maryland nor of DC support retrocession". I find this way too simplifying. I am aware that this article is about retrocession only, but it does the reader a disservice by not even mentioning the broader issue; that of the lack of representation/control in DC. We must be able to give a much less uncontroversial view of popular opinion than "Neither residents of Maryland nor of DC support retrocession" as if that was the only issue at the table or the only solution to the problems that led to discussing retrocession in the first place. Other parts of the article does mention alternative ways to gain voting representation and/or local control, so why not the crucial section on political support? CapnZapp (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you note, the article is about DC Retrocession. It's right there in the title. There is a separate wikipedia article on District of Columbia voting rights. Perhaps that's a better place for the broader issues you want discussed. I don't see what could be controversial about saying that "Neither residents of Maryland nor of DC support retrocession" when it is a factual statement based on the polling data cited. Volcycle (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on District of Columbia retrocession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1846 or 1847

There appears to have been a change in attitude about when Alexandria was formally retroceeded. In 1846, after the President certified the vote on September 7th, people and newspapers began to use language indicative that Alexandria had already been retroceeded, which would be in keeping with the law passed by Congress which set the certification as the end of the process. In fact in early March, Congress members were arguing that Virginia should have to pay for part of the Potomac Bridge because it ended on their territory. It would seem that legally, the land was a part of Virginia at that time and the people were citizens of Virginia, but that Virginia had not taken jurisdictional control until March 13, 1847. This is similar, but opposite, to the Alexandria waterfront out to the pier line, where the District retains ownership of the land (actually it's water), but Virginia has jurisdictional control of it. One could reasonably argue that retrocession happened on September 7, 1846 or on March 13, 1847. However in Phillips v. Payne the Supreme Court uses 1847 as the date when Virginia "resumed possession" and that has become the more accepted and used date since. For that reason I've used 1847 as the date of retrocession. Volcycle (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]