Download - UDC Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

16 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRlcr OF COLUMBIA LAW REVIEWC. Resizing the DistrictBy the 1830s, Congress was fullfiling its promise of economic benefit to muchof the District. This was not so for those along the southern banks of the Potomac.117 The former Virginia parcel had yet to recieve any benefit whatsoever. 118This void was viewed as making those residents, "subject to all the evils, withoutany of the benefits of being citizens of this District," while further being, "deniedmany valuable privileges enjoyed by the citizens of the States. ,,119 As one mightexpect, those subject to this arguable breach of the compact sought some remedy.The remedy they sought was to be retroceeded. When the County of Alexandriafinally decided to put the idea of retrocession up for a vote on January 24, 1832, itwas soundly defeated by a margin of 57% to 42%.120 However, the growingdisatisfaction was quite clear, and by 1835 Alexandria began to lobby Congress tobe transferred back to its former jurisdition. 121 At the same time, in spite ofMaryland's willingness to reaccept Georgetown, those citizens soundly rejectedretrocession by a margin of four-to-one. 122 By 1840, a retrocession vote in Alexandriawon solid support, with the yes votes coming in at 537 to 155. 123 Alexandriarelied on the slave trade as a principal source of revenue. 124 It feared thatthe slave trade would soon be abolished,125 and with it, destruction of the localeconomy.126 Congress recognized the need for remedy by passage of the Bill thatretroceeded Alexandria County.127Retrocession enjoyed support from abolitionist and slave states. However,this support was not without challenges. In Phillips v. Payne, Alexandria residentPhillips was unhappy at paying higher taxes and filed a claim based on the fact117 Richards, supra note 89, at 60.118 Neither the Pentagon or the CIA or any federal facilities for that matter, had been constructedin Virginia at that time. See generally DAVID ALEXANDER, THE BUILDING: A BIOGRAPHYOF THE PENTAGON 6 (2008) (the plans for the Pentagon originated between the end of World War Iand U.S. entry into World War II); Central Intelligence Agency, The CIA Campus: The Story ofOriginal Headquarters Building, https:llwww.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2008-featured-story-archive/original-headquarters-building.html (In 1955, President Eisenhower signed legislationfor a new CIA headquarters building in Langley, VA); Federal Bureau of Investigation, Ttmelineof FBI History, http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historiclhistory/historicdates.htm (On May 8, 1972, theFBI opened its new training facility in Quantico, VA).119 Cobb, supra note 68, at 532 (citing Recession of Alexandria, DAILY NAT'L INTELLIGENCERMar. 6, 1846 at 1).120 Richards, supra note 89, at 61.121 [d.122 [d. at 62.123 Id. at 67.124 Id. at 68.125 Richards, supra note 89, at 68.126 [d. at 68. The strongest evidence to suggest that some oppossed retrocession was a petitionsigned by over 300 individuals, however, it was specifically against, "retrocession without relief:"127 An Act to Retrocede the County of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia, to the State ofVirginia,9 Stat. 35 (1846).
TOWARDS EQUAL FOOTING 17that he had not subscribed to the retrocession and was entitled to bereparated. 128 The Court, without ruling on the constitutionality declared:Virigina is de facto in possession of the territory. She has been in possession,and her title and possession have been undisputed, since she resumed possession,in 1847, pursuant to the act of Congress ... More than a quarter of acentury has since elapsed. During all that time, she has exercised jurisdictionover the territory in all respects ... She does not complain of the retrocession. . .her government. . .[has] asserted her title; and her judicialdepartment has expressly affirmed it. No murmur of discontent has beenheard ... the transfer is a settled and valid fact. 129Both the Constitution and the Organic Act of 1801 limited the size of the Districtto no greater than ten miles square, however, neither prescribed a minimumsize.13o While there is an explicit ceiling, there is no explicit floor. Consequently,the wording of the decision in Phillips gives credence to the belief that the Courtwas not going to recognize a constitutional challenge to retrocession. 131 Moreimportantly, the ruling indicates that there is no barrier to reducing the size of theDistrict from its maximum limit of "ten miles square" to a substantially smallersize. 132 D. Impact of the SelectionAfter Phillips was decided, attempts at removing the capital slowed, thoughnever vanishing entirely.133 As the twentieth century progressed, technologicaladvances had a major impact on Congress' near-perfect committment to the compact.134 Plausible expansion within the District reached critical mass, spurred by128 Phillips v. Payne, 92 U.S. 130, 131 (1875).129 Id. at 133.130 U.S. CaNsT. art. I, § 8, cl. 17. An Act For Establishing the Temporary and Permanent Seatof the Government of the United States, 1 Stat. 130 (1790). See also Retrocession of Alexandria toVirginia, House Committee on the District of Columbia, H.R. Rep. No. 29-325, at 3-4(1846).131 Phillips, 92 U.S. at 133.132 See id. at 132. According to Peter Raven-Hansen, a Constitutional <strong>Law</strong> Professor atGeorge Washington University <strong>Law</strong> School, "The true construction of this clause, U.S. CaNST. art. I,§ 8, cI. 17, would seem to be that Congress may retain and exercise exclusive jurisdiction over adistrict not exceeding ten miles square; and whether those limits may enlarge or diminish that district,or change the site ... the end is to attain what is desirable in relation to the seat of government."Peter Raven-Hansen, The Conslitlllionalily of Slale/wud, 60 GEO.WASH. L. REV. 160, 169 (1991). If itwere unconstitutional, it must follow that the Court would have required the County of Alexandria tocede the land back to the District. Thus. the example of Phillips is instructive in terms of the perceivedimpediments to statehood in two regards. First, it shows Congress has the authority, by statute, toreduce the size of the District to that which is less than the "to Miles square" ceiling. Second, itconfirms the existence and scope of the Compact between the Congress and the District.133 Cobb, supra note 68, at 575-586.134 ld. at 584.
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 18 and 19: 12 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICI' OF C
Page 24 and 25: 18 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF CO
Page 28 and 29: 22 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRlcr 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 72 and 73:
66 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF CO
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?