Comments on: Is D.C. Constitutional?

By: A Second Hand Conjecture » An Unconstitutional Bill

A Second Hand Conjecture » An Unconstitutional Bill — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:06:29 +0000

[...] That last paragraph is false. Opponents have not “questioned” whether the bill is unconstitutional, they have asserted unequivocally that it is so; there is simply no question about it. We are a nation of federated States. The federal government was intended to form “a more perfect union” of those States, not to obliterate any political distinction between them altogether. The States are then bound together by a common purpose founded on a common rule of law. As Jonathan Turley puts it: One of the greatest burdens of being a nation committed to the rule of law is that how we do something is as important as what we do. The Davis proposal would subvert the intentions of the Founders by ignoring textual references to “states” in the Constitution as the sole voting members of the houses of Congress. It also would create a city of half-formed citizens who could vote in the House but not in the Senate. [...]

By: Kayle

Kayle — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:50:36 +0000

I’ve long thought that retrocession of almost all of Washington D.C. back to Maryland made the most sense and easiest constitutional method of giving (most) D.C. residents a real vote, but from articles about this over the years in the Washington Post, apparently its a non-starter with the Maryland state government–they don’t want the D.C. residents. So instead, we’ve got legislators proposing clearly unconstitutional bills.

By: George Allen

George Allen — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:27:52 +0000

Now, if you insist as your backup interpretation that the city should be a ten mile by ten mile square then I would resolve the conflict by invoking the Supremacy Clause and taking land from the adjoining States to make it so.

Excellent idea! Is it too late to make it retroactive?

By: The Unabrewer

The Unabrewer — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:16:43 +0000

This was a question in the original Trivial Pursuit: What’s the difference between two miles square and two square miles? Answer: two square miles.

If you want a mathematical representation, it’s not “10 miles squared” but “(10 miles) squared”.

By: nk

nk — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:52:08 +0000

Xrlq,

Geometry was always my weakest subject. But ten miles by ten miles, i.e. a hundred square miles, does not seem all that large to me for our country’s capital. LA is 498 square miles, NY is 321 square miles, Chicago is 230 square miles, and the former capital of the Confederacy is 62.5 square miles. Washington D.C., as you said, is now 68.3 square miles. I think it logical that the capital of the whole United States should be larger than the capital of the Confederacy. Now, if you insist as your backup interpretation that the city should be a ten mile by ten mile square then I would resolve the conflict by invoking the Supremacy Clause and taking land from the adjoining States to make it so.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:19:16 +0000

I did think of “ten miles squared,” but that makes my original point even stronger. As mathematical shorthand, “10 mi²” means 10 square miles, not a square that happens to be 10 miles long.

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:25:28 +0000

I read it as requiring that the city not exceed (fit inside) a square with ten-mile-long sides. Which it does.

If it’s helpful, think of it as “ten miles squared” wherein the intended meaning is more clear. Since the boundaries of the city were laid out beginning in 1791 it seems unlikely that the people surveying land and the people who wrote the Constitution (in some cases probably the same people) were unaware of each others’ work. In fact it’s quite a stretch to think that the plot wasn’t chosen with the “ten miles square” clause in mind.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:40:37 +0000

Indeed it would. However, if “ten miles square” is a measure of the area, as I think it is, then the city is simply too big. If it’s a requirement that the city be (1) no more than 10 miles long and (2) shaped as a square,” then its current borders violate (2).

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:50:17 +0000

The passage you quoted says “not exceeding” ten miles square, which I believe would allow for it to be smaller.

By: Outside The Beltway | OTB

Outside The Beltway | OTB — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:00:20 +0000

Fun With the Constitution…

Xlrq, a lawyer with a hard-to-pronounce name and too much time on his hands, examines the legal ramifications of parent-child labor relations vis-a-vis minimum wage laws, income tax withholding, and the 13th Amendment’s prohibition against involu…