Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
The national government re-asserting control over the District of Columbia is nothing more than re-establishing the original structural setup of the United States Constitution.
It is not an indication of interest by the national government in taking control over any other metropolitan area.
It is not "unprecedented."
Objectors have no basis on which to express outrage:
United States Constitution
Article I
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
. . .
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 Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; – And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The District of Columbia, as the “seat of government of the United States,” was specifically designated to be outside the rough and tumble of the normal Congressional squabbles and competition among the states. Congress, as a body, was to administer the “seat of government,” the District of Columbia, for the whole of these United States, for all the states. The “seat of government of the United States” was not to compete among the states for resources, for status, or for privileges.
Residents of the various states of the United States are entitled to know that they are not in competition with the seat of the national government for the attention and resources of that national government. When residents of the various states go to the seat of national government, they should feel they are in a place governed for the whole of the country, a place of neutrality among the factions and alliances of states.
For the District of Columbia to be a “state,” or any functional equivalent thereof, is utter nonsense. It is contrary to the basic structure of government established by the Founders.
So, the national government has the absolute right to control the management of the area of the “seat of government of the United States” (the District of Columbia). Completely apart from any controversies about the details of crime statistics in 2025, any ability of the District of Columbia to govern itself is at the discretion of the national government. Local control is not an inherent right for the seat of government.
I’m sure there are legal nuances about how much of such control the Article II executive (the President) can assume over such governance specified in Article I, including the effects of the Congressional statutory delegation of authority in the “Home Rule Act.”
But as a matter of basic structure or governance, the residents of the District of Columbia have no basis on which to complain about control of the district by the national government. That the District of the "seat of government" does not have the same status, rights, and privileges as the various states is part of the design. It's not "shortchanging" the District.
Discussion (6)
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Thank you. I thought I was imagining studying this in middle school.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Exactly.
But they don’t do that anymore.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The size of the District seems excessive. It was originally a 10-mile by 10-mile square (Arlington was given back to Virginia a decade before the Civil War.) Maybe they envisioned some grand functions or military grounds for all that land.
The area in DC north of the Potomac was not densely populated. The city commissioners made a contract with the nuns at what is now Providence Hospital to provide medical care for residents and travelers passing through the wilds of rural Northeast DC (it was challenged as a violation of the Establishment Clause but SCOTUS made the common sense ruling that there was no doctrinal component, just a clearly defined service (Bradfield v. Roberts (1899)) so no violation.)
I think that Congress likes having a little fiefdom of its own. Numerous stupid rules apply that would never have been tolerated in state or federal legislation. Did you know it was a federal crime to fly a kite on the Mall until the 1970s?
Congressmen famously drove drunk even after Wilbur Mills' infamous escapades when his abused, drunk, stripper girlfriend jumped into the Tidal Basin when Park Police stopped the speeding, swerving car. Mills was then re-elected to the Arkansas 2nd with 59% of the vote in 1974. Naturally. It was not until he was repeatedly drunk and misbehaving in the Silver Slipper strip club that he was pressured to resign. Mendel Rivers reportedly wrecked more that one vehicle by entering his personal underground parking space at high speeds while sloshed. Both men were hugely powerful.
When Ms. Pelosi expressly declined additional security for Jan 6, I suspect the decision was driven in part by the ingrained Congressional mindset about only police and others under their immediate control on their grounds--National Guard, FBI etc cannot be trusted because they work for that other branch.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Especially in the DC schools.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Well there are feelings to talk about and pronouns to be clarified.
You're seeing five of six comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.