Download - UDC Law Review

28 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LAW REVIEWthe authority must be less than exclusive - an interpretation which runsagainst the plain meaning of the "exclusive" power clause. 228On the question of whether it is necessary to repeal Article I, Section 8, Clause17 of the Constitution prior to going forward with a D.C. Statehood bill, ChairmanRodino was unequivocal again.229 Referring to the 1846 act of retrocession,the Chairman concluded, "[t]he authority for admitting new states into the unionis vested solely in the Congress of the United States by Section 3 of Article IV ofthe Constitution .... "230 Peter Raven-Hansen, Professor of Constitutional Law atGeorge Washington University Law Center, agrees. 231 While opponents point toa view by former Attorney General Robert Kennedy,232 proponents can point toa view of the power of Congress by Professor Viet Dinh, a political conservativeand principal author of the Patriot Act. 233 While scholars differ, the weight ofauthority favors the proponents of D.C. Statehood. Rather than constrainingCongress, the District Clause offers the broadest powers in the Constitution.On the question of whether the federal government or the new state wouldowe any obligation to the state of Maryland, which ceded the land to create theDistrict of Columbia, Professor Raven-Hansen found that the original act of cessionwas unconditional, and the act of Maryland ratifying the cession unequivocallyacknowledged the land "to be forever ceded and relinquished to theCongress and government of the United States in full and absolute right, andexclusive jurisdiction .... ,,234 Congress would continue to have authority over theSeat of Government when the size changes. 235 Indeed, the presence of a ceiling228 See If You Favor Freedom, supra note 3, at 21.229 BlII see REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, supra note 193, at 18 n.72, 19, in which theargument is made that when Congress accepted the land from Maryland and Virginia, the boundarieswere declared "finally fixed." Id. This argument is addressed in Raven-Hansen, supra, note 212, aswell as by a parade of scholars with a different view. The position discussed there was that of theJustice Department under a single u.s. President and would not likely be the view under the currentadministration. Both President Obama and Attorney General Holder have expressed support forD.C. Statehood.230 Id. at 22.231 Raven-Hansen, supra, note 212, at 189.232 Letter and Memorandum from Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney General, to Rep. Basil L.Whitener (1963). reprinted in REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, supra note 193. at 128.233 District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2009: Before the Comm. of the Judiciary, Subcomm.On the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the H.R. at 3 (Jan. 2009) (statement ofViet D. Dinh. Professor. Georgetown University Law Center).234 Raven-Hansen, supra, note 212 at 179.235 Id. at 172-73.