As you might expect, I am in complete agreement with my occasional co-bloggers James Joyner and Steven Taylor that while in principle the residents of the District of Columbia ought to have the right to vote for representatives (and, for that matter, s...

With so much government property and employment which is non-taxable, with so much income/assets that could be relocated across state lines, I wonder if D.C. would be a solvent enterprise or if it assumes wealth transfers from the federal government which would be IMO far less likely in any change.

1. The federal government needs plenary power and control over its own security; it should not be dependent upon state government. See Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention. See Maryland during the Civil War.

2. Failing to set aside a district in which federal offices will be built and maintained will set off the jealousies of the various states. Each will want their fair share of federal offices, potentially reducing the efficiency of federal government.

Maybe circumstances have changed, but I think both of these considerations tend to favor a larger rump left for the Seat of Government.

However, I do suspect some blue states are going to lose seats after the 2010 census. It is pretty much known that a lot of blue states are bleeding citizens. I don't think this means anything all that exciting for red states if those citizens fled to them though. NH has pretty much learned that people fleeing Mass into NH don't change their voting patterns and just end up trying to turn their new state into a blue state.

I am not convinced it would be as difficult as some claim-but I don't live in the area. Is it impossible? Is this just an argument against retrocession because others either want representation in the house or statehood?

Then you would still force representatives in the federal government to reside under the laws of member states that are not their own.

Most of them live in Northern Virginia or Maryland as it is.

Every retrocession plan I've seen calls for leaving a non-residential rump consisting of the area around the Mall and including the White House, Capitol Hill, and the Supreme Court.

Then you would still force representatives in the federal government to reside under the laws of member states that are not their own.

The Territory of Columbia was an entity entire unto itself, if I read that correctly

The territory was created on lands that originally belonged to Maryland and Virginia in 1790.

That quote is just saying that the federal "territory" of Columbia, and the "city" of Washington within it were merged into a single entity in 1871.

The Territory of Columbia was an entity entire unto itself, if I read that correctly.

It was created from land ceded by Maryland and Virginia for the purpose of creating the Federal District. Virginia took its half back a few years later.

Partial retro-cession, to shrink the size of the district, wouldn't create this dilemma, and would be my preference.

Every retrocession plan I've seen calls for leaving a non-residential rump consisting of the area around the Mall and including the White House, Capitol Hill, and the Supreme Court.

What's the argument against retrocession?

It may be unconstitutional. Art. I, Sec. 8, Para 17 gives Congress exclusive authority over that which is designated the Seat of Government.

In a number of disputes between Congress and the local home rule government, the SCOTUS has made clear that the Congress can delegate its power, but it always maintains the right to reclaim it. For example, Congress might delegate to the city council the authority to enact gun laws, but it can always take that back. Similarly, if Congress authorized retrocession, could the next Congress take it back?

Advocates of statehood or retrocession avoid this issue by reducing the size of the Seat of Government.

What's the argument against retrocession?

Do you really want to put the seat of the Federal Government under the legal jurisdiction of only one of it's member states?

Partial retro-cession, to shrink the size of the district, wouldn't create this dilemma, and would be my preference.

Washington, D.C. (pronounced /ˈwɒʃɪŋtən ˌdiːˈsiː/), formally the District of Columbia and commonly referred to as Washington, the District, or simply D.C., is the capital of the United States, founded on July 16, 1790. The City of Washington was originally a separate municipality within the Territory of Columbia until an act of Congress in 1871 effectively merged the City and the Territory into a single entity called the District of Columbia. It is for this reason that the city, while legally named the District of Columbia, is known as Washington, D.C.

The Territory of Columbia was an entity entire unto itself, if I read that correctly.

Why Utah and not some normal conservative state?

After the last census, Utah narrowly lost out on being given another congressional seat. It instead went to North Carolina.