Download - UDC Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

12 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICI' OF COLUMBIA LAW REVIEWor New York City,74 because these cities had the greatest claim to time as thecapital. 7s These members felt that urbanization and its related commerce oughtto be the hallmarks embodied in the capital as they would be "central toAmerica's growth.,,76 The war debts question was at issue and the future of slaverywas thought to be at stake. 77 While the northern states wanted the capital,the southern states wanted it as well. 78 The South expressed the sentiment that aless urban site was closer to their ideals that cities were unhealthy, physically andmorally, a view amplified by their experiences during Philadelphia's reign as thenation's capital. 79 The notion of an agrarian-rooted capital, they felt, embodied abreaking away from the traditional European approach of placing the capital in alarge city.8o Nonetheless, there was consensus that Congress have jurisdictionover the permanent seat of government. 81Ultimately the agrarian position prevailed. This may have had more to dowith George Washington's influence. Washington not only wanted the capitalclose to his home at Mount Vernon, he also had significant land holdings in thearea. 82 On July 16, 1790, the Potomac site was selected and a "district of territory,not exceeding ten miles square ... accepted for the permanent seat of thegovernment of the United States.,,83 Philadelphia, as a compromise, because itwas not selected as the permanent seat, would be the temporary capital. 84 Inreturn for the north's acquiescence on a southern location, the south agreed tosupport the assumption of the Revolutionary War debts.8s President Washingtonwas authorized to survey the land for the capital. 8674 FORTENBAUGH, supra note 56, at 9.75 [d.76 Cobb, supra note 68, at 534-36.77 GREEN, supra note 41, at 11. See also 2 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF1787, at 127-28 (Max Farrand ed., 1911), cited in KENNETH D. MER IN, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCHSERVICE, STATEHOOD FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (1977);78 GREEN, supra note 41, at 11.79 PELATIAH WEBSTER, Essay on the Seat of the Federal Government and the Executive Jurisdictionof Congress over a Ten Miles District, in POLITICAL ESSAYS ON THE NATURE AND OPERATION OFMONEY, PUBLIC FINANCES AND OTHER SUBJECTS 376-402 (1789), quoted in BOWLING, supra note 56,at 131; Cobb, supra note 68, at 535.80 BOWLING, supra note 56, at 10-11.81 GREEN, supra note 41, at 8-9.82 Cobb, supra note 68, at 537. CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, THE CONSTITUTION OFTHE UNITED STATES: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS, S. Doc. No. 99-16, at 365 (1st Sess. 1987).83 An Act for Establishing the Temporary and Permanent Seat of the Government of theUnited States, 1 Stat. 130 (1790).84 [d.85 CHRISTOPHER SHORTELL, RIGHTS, REMEDIES AND THE IMPACT OF STATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY 28-31 (2008). It should be noted that the debts incurred by the Northern states were considerablyhigher than the debts incurred by those in the Southern states. [d.86 An Act for Establishing the Temporary and Permanent Seat of the Government of theUnited States, 1 Stat. 130 (1790).
TOWARDS EQUAL FOOTING 13On November 21, 1800, Congress convened for the first time in the District ofColumbia. 87 Interestingly, two weeks earlier, on November 11, 1800 the residentsof the District of Columbia cast ballots in congressional elections. 88 Afew days later, President Adams instructed Congress to immediately exercise theauthority granted to them by the District Clause. By the end of the followingFebruary, the Organic Act of 1801 was signed into law. 89 The implications of theOrganic Act would be significant, as it had the effect of robbing the residents ofthe sovereignty they enjoyed as citizens of Maryland and Virginia. It also affectedtheir ability to vote in both the U.S. House elections and state legislative elections,where U.S. senators were elected at the time. 90 Interestingly, at no place inthe Organic Act of 1801 does it expressly state that these rights were to bestripped. 91 In a view expressed by one member of Congress, "[they] have not onepolitical right defined and guaranteed to them by that instrument, while they continueunder the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. 92 Of course, theyagree, prompting many to proclaim, "We didn't land on Plymouth Rock. PlymouthRock landed on US!,,93B. Effects of the SelectionThere is little record reflecting analysis at the time the rights of those residingwithin the "permanent" Seat of Government were stripped away. It is clear thatas quickly as Congress stripped the rights, it looked to restore them. By 1803, amember introduced legislation to retrocede the land back to Maryland and Virginia.94 Those who enjoyed the rights of citizenship and lost it when moving fromthe states recognized the wrong in their disenfranchisement. 95 One member 9687 See GREEN, supra, note 41, at 23.88 [d.89 Mark David Richards, The Debates Over Retrocession, 1801-2004," WASH. HIST., Spring!Summer 2004, at 57.90 The District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act, Hearing on H.R. 5388Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Congo 3 (2006) (statement of the Am. Bar Ass'n.).91 The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 incorporated the District of Columbia andplaced it under the exclusive control of Congress. An Act of Feb. 27, 1801, ch. 15,2 Stat. 103 (concerningthe District of Columbia).92 Richards, supra note 89, at 58.93 Malcolm X, Speech on The Ballot or the Bullet (Mar. 29, 1964).94 [d. at 57.95 T.W. NOYES, OUR NATIONAL CAPITAL AND ITS UN-AMERICANIZED AMERICANS 60 (1951).Noyes, who was the publisher of the Washington Star newspaper, notes that in a pamphlet publishedin 1801, Augustus B. Woodard, a Virginia lawyer who moved to the District wrote, "This body ofpeople is as much entitled to the enjoyment of the rights of citizenship as any other part of the peopleof the United States. There can be no necessity for their disfranchisement ... they are entitled to aparticipation in the general codicils on the principles of equity and reciprocity." [d.96 Richards, supra note 89, at 57-58. (statement of Representative John Smilie (R-PA».
Page 2 and 3: University of the District of Colum
Page 8 and 9: 2 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF COL
Page 10 and 11: 4 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COL
Page 12 and 13: 6 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRIcr OF COL
Page 14 and 15: 8 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF COL
Page 16 and 17: 10 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CO
Page 22 and 23: 16 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRlcr OF CO
Page 24 and 25: 18 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF CO
Page 30 and 31: 24 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRIcr OF CO
Page 42 and 43: 36 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF CO
Page 46 and 47: 40 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF CO
Page 68 and 69:
62 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF CO
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
70 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRIcr OF Co
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
78 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICI' OF C
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
82 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CO
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
88 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRKi OF COL
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
92 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF CO
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
100 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF C
Page 108 and 109:
102 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF C
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
BRINGING HOME THE BACON: A TWO·PRO
Page 122 and 123:
BRINGING HOME THE BACON: A TWO-PRON
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
APPEALING TO THE LEGISLATURE: A COM
Page 144 and 145:
POST-CONVICfION DNA & PRESERVATION
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
POST-CONVICTION DNA & PRESERVATION
Page 150 and 151:
POST-CONVICflON DNA & PRESERVATION
Page 152 and 153:
POST-CONVICfION DNA & PRESERV A nON
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
POST-CONVICTION DNA & PRESERVATION
Page 160 and 161:
MISSING IN ACTION:PRISONERS OF WAR
Page 162 and 163:
MISSING IN ACfION 157provide humane
Page 164 and 165:
MISSING IN ACTION 159quantity, qual
Page 166 and 167:
MISSING IN ACfION 161tion of the ca
Page 168 and 169:
MISSING IN ACI10N 163rently in the
Page 170 and 171:
MISSING IN ACfION 165Rasul v. Bush.
Page 172 and 173:
MISSING IN ACTION 167missions. ,,91
Page 174 and 175:
MISSING IN ACfION 169The Supreme Co
Page 176 and 177:
MISSING IN ACfION 171constitute a c
Page 178 and 179:
MISSING IN ACTION 173Court has open
Page 180 and 181:
MISSING IN ACfION 175sel. But, the
Page 182:
MISSING IN ACTION 177posed, efforts
show all

Download - UDC Law Review

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?