Download - UDC Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

32 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF COLUMBIA LAW REVIEWpolitical standing and sovereignty.259 The only restriction is that Congress maynot create a district "exceeding ten miles square." The 1846 Congress rejected theFixed Form Argument. 2OO Congress could again reduce the District by statute. 261Immediately following the District Clause, it states, Congress shall "exerciselike Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of theState in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,Dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.,,262 This language inspires further dissentagainst the Fixed Form Argument. Congress commonly changes the form offorts, arsenals, etc., yet still retains plenary power over these federal places. IfCongress enjoys "like Authority" over the District, then it should be able tochange the form of it without relinquishing its power. 263A weaker, but perhaps more practical, variation of the Fixed Form Argumentis the "Fixed Function Argument. ,,264 When drafting the Constitution, the Framersintended the District to function as a permanent location for the seat of government265 and never meant for the District to become a state. The Framers'immediate concerns in the late eighteenth century were securing police authorityover the District and addressing the limitations of federal power. 266 In the earlytwenty-first century, however, the federal government possesses substantialpower over the armed forces 267 and the state militias. 268 Congress' inability toward off a band of mutinous soldiers in 1783 Philadelphia 269 is inconceivabletoday.parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as weD as of theCongress." Using this "exclusive" authority, Congress can reduce the size of the federal district toinclude only certain federal buildings and national monuments, the icons of democracy. At the sametime, Congress with the remaining government buildings, businesses and residential can admit thatterritory into the Union as the state of New Columbia. [d.259 See GOVERNMENTAL REORGANIZATION Aer, Pub. L. No. 93-198 § 102(A), 87 Stat. 774(1973). The District of Columbia currently has one non-voting delegate in the House.260 An Act to Retrocede the County of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia, to the State ofVirginia, ch. 35, 9 Stat. 35 (1846).261 Johnny Barnes, The Ones the Voting Rights Act Left Behind: Options for Restoring FullVoting Right in the District of Columbia (2006), 19-20 (on file with the author).262 U.S. CONST. art. 1 § 8 cl. 17.263 Raven-Hansen, supra note 212, at 168.264 [d. Proponents of the FlXed Function Argument concede that Congress may adjust the sizeof the District, but assert that any changes to the district cannot affect its function.265 Kennedy Letter, supra note 235.266 REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, supra note 193, at 25.267 U.S. CONST. art. 1, § 8, cl. 15.268 Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990).269 See Barnes, supra note 261, at 8. In 1783, Pennsylvania militiamen surrounded the buildingin Philadelphia where the Founders were meeting to discuss the new Constitution. [d. The militiamen,demanding payment, refused to let the Founders leave. [d. Congress called on Pennsylvania for help,but members of the Pennsylvania government sided with their militiamen. [d. Seeing no other optionfor escape, the Founders were forced to sneak out the back door of the building under the cover of
TOWARDS EQUAL FOOTING 33Like the National Capital Service Area, the District is an enclave inside astate. 270 Opponents to D.C. Statehood also cite the expected economic relianceof the National Capital Service Area on New Columbia as detrimental to the ideaof independence for the Seat of Government. 271 However, the District alreadyrelies on a regional metropolis, extending beyond its boundaries, especially itstransportation system?n Non-residents earn two-thirds of the income. 273 Surely,changing the size to the National Capital Service Area would not affect the existinginterdependence. 274Even in the unlikely event of encroachment, Congress still has the means toprotect the functioning of the Seat of Government. 275 According to Cohens v.Virginia,276 Congress retains the power to legislate against states impacting theindependent functioning of the District. 277 Since the District Clause explicitlyassigns Congress authority over the District, would the formation of New Columbiaresult in an abrogation of legislative power? If so, must the District Clausethen be repealed? As the Supreme Court recognized in Texas v. White, statehood,once granted, can never be revoked. 278 Thus, this Abrogation of Power Argumentproves weak under examination.2 79 The multitude of court cases concerningdarkness. Id. This seemingly minor incident convinced the Founders that the seat of the federal governmentneeded to be independent from state control. Id.270 Raven-Hansen, supra note 212. at 166.Proponents of D.C. statehood, however, do not propose to eliminate the district comprisingthe seat of government. Instead, they propose to shrink it to an enclave of federal buildingsand installations called the National Capital Service Area, and then to admit the balanceof what is now D.C. as the new state of New Columbia.Id.See also 40 U.S.c. § 8501(a)(l) (2009), which currently defines the National Capital Service Areaas: "The National Capital Service Area is in the District of Columbia and includes the principal federalmonuments, the White House, the Capitol Building, the United States Supreme Court Building,and the federal executive, legislative, and judicial office buildings located adjacent to the Mall and theCapitol Building, ..."271 An argument proposed and then refuted by Raven-Hansen. See generally Raven-Hansen,supra note 212.272 Raven-Hansen, supra note 212, at 170.273 If the District of Columbia Becomes a State: Fiscal Implications, Hearing Before Special D.C.Council Comm. on Statehood and Self Determination, 18th Council Period 2 (2009) (statement of Dr.Alice M. Rivlin, Special D.C. Council Comm. on Statehood and Self Determination).274 See Roy P. Franchino. The Constitutionality of Home Rule and National Representation forthe District of Columbia, Part 1/, 46 GEO. L. J., 387 (1958).275 Raven-Hansen, supra note 212. at 171-72.276 Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 347 (1821).277 Id. at 428. (stating that "the power vested in Congress as the legislature of the UnitedStates, to legislate exclusively within [the District], carries with it, as an incident, the right to make thepower effectual").278 Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868). overruled by Morgan v. United States, 113 U.S. 476, 496(1885).279 See PATE, supra note 194, at 4.
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 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 76 and 77: 70 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRIcr OF Co
Page 84 and 85: 78 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICI' OF C
Page 88 and 89:
82 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CO
Page 90 and 91:
84 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF CO
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?