What DC wants is a constitutional amendment to grant one congressional vote and the one delegate in the electoral college that would grant. Why is it taken as a serious argument against it that it is not currently constitutional? Shouldn't a real argument be put forward as to why it shouldn't be constitutional if one opposes it? If there is a good one, I haven't seen it. On the other hand the argument for enfranchising the citizens of DC for the sake of their not being disenfranchised is compelling.

If you haven't read Baseball Crank's The Libby Verdict; you must. If you haven't read Just One Minute's Anniversaries ; you must. Remember Joe Wilson. He's celebrating the 4th anniversary of his day in the sun. Just One Minute reminds us that he w...

First if you consider Wyoming to have slightly fewer residents than DC, then DC has only slightly fewer residents than Vermont, Alaska and North Dakota yet they continue to enjoy disproportionate representation.

The Framers came up with the compromise that created the Senate because they entered into the Convention as 13 sovereign entities. Further, the entire national population was something like 4 million. Vermont was one of the original 13.

Wyoming and ND were part of the Northwest Territory. Knowing what we know now, we'd not have admitted all those states individually. Alaska is a rather special case because it's non-contiguous. It doesn't make sense to compound old errors with new ones, though.

Some agencies that lace a specific geographic basis for focus--State, Defense, CIA, FBI, DHS--could stay in DC if necessary. Others could keep a cadre of <1,000 to support the Cabinet officer who arguably needs to be near the White House and Congress.

Couple a decentralization of the federal government with a waiver of federal taxes for DC residents and you'd have a city there'd be lines forming to apply for residency. Oh, and probably a lot of newly defined 'illegal aliens'.

Also, while 50 or 100 years ago having the majority of an agencies offices centrally located was probably more of a neccessity-now with the internet, phone systems (cell, landline and satellite), and the ability to visually teleconference-you can't really convince me that all aspects of an agency have to be housed in one building and all within an easy commute to the capitol.

Would a Dept. of Agriculture be more or less properly placed in a state that derives the bulk of its economy from agriculture? Why not put the Dept. of Labor in St. Louis or Denver? HHE could work as well out of Rhode Island as Oklahoma.

Sure, each would need a headquarters building in DC, but that could be staffed by the executive floor of each of the agencies and departments, not their entire domains.

Even departments--like State--that have no job-specific constituency, have important satellite offices around the country, from payroll, handled out of SC, to passport offices here and there.

One of WV Byrd's power grabs was to move one of CIA's functions to offices in Wheeling. CIA headquarters said, 'It'll never work. Our people will refuse to go.' Turns out that they had to turn down applications to relocate because so many were more than willing to accept lower locality pay for safer cities, better schools, and a lower cost of living.

And just what with this new state do to generate income for the state?

I don't see any advantage at all to the US to admit the district as the 51st state.

At least Montana and Rhode Island have something other than the government as a natural recourse and industry to produce income for the state.

Also, not so sure having one teeny tiny state that's main source of income is the presence of the government having that kind of influence.

I figure if the residents of DC don't like the situation, then annexation is the best option. I am not sure why DC needs the residential area anyway as part of the district.

The districts resident would be best off if they were annexed by a New York or California sized state than by tiny Maryland. They would gain the advantage of being represented by the largest delegations in congress and this would almost guarantee tons of federal money being spent there for various infrastructure improvements.

But as a practical matter this will not happen any more than will Maryland be allowed to annex the district. Annexation is a dead issue. It will never happen. No, the only solution that is fair and politically viable is to create a new state.

Beside growing the nation by adding a new state would appeal to our national pride and be more consistent with our values.

I'm not sure one could draw any sort of line to separate 'federal DC' from 'residential DC'.

A fair point, although we could get what most think of as "DC proper" lined off pretty easily. Presumably, the various government annexes could either be consolidated elsewhere or simply treated as federal enclaves a'la military reservations.

Agreed, too, on the advantages of moving much of the day-to-day ops out of DC. Not only would it be cheaper, ease commuting times, and so forth but it would have the advantage of being an excellent security measure. Having all one's eggs within one basket is just poor counterterrorism practice.

I actually think it makes sense for either the District in its entirety to go back to the states that originally donated the land for the capital, or for Maryland to annex the main residential portions into the state.

I like the idea of the Capital building, the SCOTUS, White House and mall-bassically that immediate area remaining a District-without annexation, but at this point-I am not so sure that is all that important they remain seperate and distinct from state government.

I also very much like the idea proposed by John that many of the government offices be dispersed among the 50 states. With communications being what they are now, it seems to me it might be a good idea to have some of the offices set up in other cities and states.

The best solution is to sidestep the controversy and make Washington DC a separate state, the fifty first. It could be called Columbia State, or Captital State or something else.

The problem with that, aside from the partisan political considerations, is that D.C. is tiny and getting smaller in terms of population. It would be simply ridiculous to create a new state with 581,530 residents and give it two Senators and a Representative.

Yes, Wyoming has slightly fewer people. But we added it to the union in 1890 under radically different circumstances. And Wyoming is at least a state-sized entity, ranking 10th among states whereas D.C. is a mere 68.25 square miles. Rhode Island, currently the smallest, is 1,545 square miles.

And removing federal taxation within the District would simultaneously defuse the taxation without representation trope and introduce incentives for businesses to open up in the District, providing jobs and economic growth.

But we have grown up now and I think we can be persuaded to overcome the jealousy that justified the district in the first place.

That said, the question is which state gets to host our nations capital? There is no requirement that a state be contiguous so we have fifty states in contention to annex the district and host the capital city.

The best solution is to sidestep the controversy and make Washington DC a separate state, the fifty first. It could be called Columbia State, or Captital State or something else.

This solves the problem for all the existing states as no one gains an advantage over any other and it gives the residents their rights to fully participate in our nations political process. A win win for all involved.