Download - UDC Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

38 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF COLUMBIA LAW REVIEWAmendment succeeded, District residents would have political standing, butwould continue to lack sovereignty.318 Other proposals include retrocession ofmost, or all, of the District to Maryland. 319F. Full and Partial RetrocessionThere are many views about retrocession and how it will work. In one form,retrocession would give the non-federal portion of the District back to Maryland.Maryland is the logical choice, based on historical and geographical considerations,320As Maryland surrounds the District on three sides, absorption would notbe difficult. 321 The District and Maryland share many systems and are somewhatinterdependent regarding matters of infrastructure. 322 Maryland is the only statewith these connections; therefore, it is best for any proposed retrocession. 323 Atthe Davis Hearing, two retrocession proposals were presented. 324 H.R. 381, introducedby Congressman Regula, accords with the traditional retrocession conceptand would cede the non-federal land on which the District sits back to Maryland,with the exception of the "National Capital Service Area.,,325 H.R. 3709, introducedby Congressman Rohrabacher, calls for what in the past has been referredto as "partial retrocession," and would allow District citizens to vote in Marylandtion implies that amendments must be ratified, if at all, within some reasonable time after their proposal.[d. The Court also stated that Congress, in proposing an amendment, may fIx a reasonable timefor ratifIcation, and that the period of seven years, fIxed by Congress in the resolution proposing theEighteenth Amendment was reasonable. [d. at 375-376.318 The lesson learned is that, with proper packaging and presentation, both Democrats andRepUblicans in Congress can be persuaded to support equal footing for the people of the District ofColumbia.319 A plan then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy deemed impractical and unconstitutional.See supra note 235.320 See District of Columbia-Maryland Reunion Act, H.R. 381, 108th Congo § 3 (2003).321 Printable Maps - Reference, http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/reference.html#Maryland(last visited Dec. 1, 2009).322 COMMON SENSE, supra note 144, at 161 (statement of Ted Trabue, Reg. V.P. for Dist. ofColumbia Affairs, PEPCO; Greater Wash. Bd. of Trade). This hearing did not initially include anywitnesses opposing the Davis proposal. I fIrst presented a memorandum to Chairman Davis to raisesome of the concerns with the Davis Proposal and to present another side. Subsequently, I was invitedto testify as the only witness opposing the Davis Bill. Interestingly, while I was allowed to testifyand to submit testimony for the record, my testimony did not appear among the witnesses at theCommittee's website. AU of the testimony that appears is in support of the Davis proposal- a mostunfortunate practice by the Committee. I rely a great deal on first hand information in the constructionof my presentations on this issue because I was in the room when a great deal of the relevantactivity occurred. I was an eyewitness to much of this history.323 [d. at 12-14 (statement of Ralph Regula, Member, House of Representatives, State ofOhio).324 [d. at 3, 12 (statement of Dana Rohrbacher, Member, House of Representatives, State ofCalifornia; statement of Ralph Regula, Member, House of Representatives, State of Ohio).325 H.R. 381, 108th Cong. (2004).
TOWARDS EQUAL FOOTING 39federal elections. 326 Except for their sponsors who testified, neither of these proposalsreceived support during the Hearing. 327 Any retrocession legislation couldbe done by statute. 328 There is historical precedent based on the retrocession ofAlexandria and Arlington in 1846. 329 The same thing could be done for the District.33o Retrocession would also relieve the federal government of dealing withgoverning the city.331 Retrocession would also eliminate the duplication of manyservices. 332 Yet, there are difficulties with retrocession. It may require the approvalof the Maryland legislature and, quite possibly, a majority of the populationof Maryland. 333 In the past, Maryland politicians have not endorsed such aproposa1. 334 There is also concern that giving the District back to Marylandwould destroy the unique character of the city.335 The District is a source of distinction.336 Finally, there is the idea of treating the District as we treat otherfederal enclaves. 337 Residents of federal enclaves vote in the states from whichthe enclave was carved. 338 The Supreme Court has held that giving Congress exclusivejurisdiction over that land could not deprive those living on the land oftheir rights. 339 Residents of the District could be treated the same as those from astate because District land was once part of Maryland. 34o By legislative enactment,Congress could assert that, as a federal enclave carved from Maryland, theDistrict may vote in Maryland elections. 341 This method would arguably not re-326 H.R. 3709, 108th Congo (2004).327 See generally COMMON SENSE, supra note 144. No single proposal enjoyed overwhelmingsupport throughout the testimony by many representatives of groups with positions on the D.C. statehood/votingrights issue. Id. The Committee members, throughout the testimony, gave no indicationof support for anyone position. Id.328 See supra note 321.329 John Hammond Moore, Alexandria and Arlington "Come Home" - Retrocession, 1846,3 N.VA. HERITAGE 3, 3-9 (1981); Dean C. Allard, When Arlington Was Part of the District of Columbia, 6THE ARLINGTON HIST. MAG. 36, 36-45 (1978).330 Id. (statement of Linda Cropp, Chair, D.C. Council).331 COMMON SENSE, supra note 144, at 60.332 Id.333 DINH & CHARNES, supra note 193 at 2.334 See supra note 321, at 22.335 COMMON SENSE, supra note 144, at 16.336 Id. at 31 (statement of Anthony Williams, Mayor, Dist. of Columbia).337 U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 17. See also Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245 (1963) (a state maynot legislate with respect to a federal enclave unless it reserved the right to do so when it gave itsconsent to the purchase by the United States and only state law existing at time of acquisition remainsenforceable ).338 Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419 (1970).339 Id. at 426.340 An Act to Cede to Congress a District of Ten Miles Square in This State for the Seat of theGovernment of the United States, 1788 Md. Acts ch. 46, reprinted in D.C. Code, 2001 Ed. An ActAuthorizing Cession from MD. (West 2009).341 COMMON SENSE, supra note 144, at 65.
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 94 and 95:
88 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRKi OF COL
Page 96 and 97:
90 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CO
Page 98 and 99:
92 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF CO
Page 100 and 101:
94 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF CO
Page 102 and 103:
96 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF CO
Page 104 and 105:
98 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CO
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?