D.C.'s lack of autonomy

[Cochonette]

Congress acts as basically a second, but ultimate, local government for Washington, D.C., meaning that local residents have "limited home rule." Any law passed by local D.C. government can be directly overridden by Congress. Congress also has control over the local D.C. budget.

Among the GOP-dominated Congress's concerns right now are 1) banning gay marriage in D.C. and 2) banning abortion in D.C.

GOP’s latest stopgap bill includes D.C. abortion rider, $42 million in District cuts - D.C. Wire - The Washington Post

[justhopingandsearching]

Why should D.C. get autonomy when it's only a city?

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

Congress acts as basically a second, but ultimate, local government for Washington, D.C., meaning that local residents have "limited home rule." Any law passed by local D.C. government can be directly overridden by Congress. Congress also has control over the local D.C. budget.

Among the GOP-dominated Congress's concerns right now are 1) banning gay marriage in D.C. and 2) banning abortion in D.C.

GOP’s latest stopgap bill includes D.C. abortion rider, $42 million in District cuts - D.C. Wire - The Washington Post

I agree with the idea of spending cuts although I disagree with outlawing abortion. As for gay marriage I don't really have an opinion. I think it would probably be best for it to be legal but honestly I just don't care and would prefer politicians to spend their time debating more important things.

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by justhopingandsearching

Why should D.C. get autonomy when it's only a city?

D.C. is the only city in the U.S. that doesn't have municipal autonomy. And it's ignorance like the above that results in D.C.'s continuing lack of autonomy. That's why I started this thread, because people need to be educated about this if it's ever going to change.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Never really thought about this, but yes now that you mention it D.C. should have municipal autonomy and I am surprised to know that it didn't before. Do you know anything about why this is?

It doesn't seem to make much sense. Does Congress have to handle D.C.'s municipal issues or are there municipal legislatures but the only thing is their rulings can be overruled by Congress if Congress so chooses to do so?

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Never really thought about this, but yes now that you mention it D.C. should have municipal autonomy and I am surprised to know that it didn't before. Do you know anything about why this is?

It doesn't seem to make much sense. Does Congress have to handle D.C.'s municipal issues or are there municipal legislatures but the only thing is their rulings can be overruled by Congress if Congress so chooses to do so?

Well, okay. Good questions. There is a local government. But it can be overruled by Congress. It was around the time of the civil rights movement (early '70s) that D.C. actually got a local government. Before that, there really wasn't anything. And it's always been this way, since D.C. was the capital, because it was laid out in the Constitution that Congress has control over the city. That's why it's so hard to change it and would require a lot of education to garner sufficient support... because it's hard to change the Constitution. Even from the beginning, many members of Congress thought that D.C.'s lack of local autonomy was unjust, but no one ever got around to fully changing it. Indeed, the shape of D.C. was originally a diamond with four quadrants, but shortly after the area was created out of Maryland and Virginia land, pretty much the whole city petitioned to return to local autonomy.... the only one that was successful was Alexandria, VA, which took a cut out of D.C.'s diamond. That's why D.C. is shaped like a diamond that someone took a huge bite out of.



Basically, the founders of D.C. wanted a place where Congress would have control so that it could "belong to all of the states," instead of to one particular state that it would be located in. And indeed, it does belong to all of the states and not to itself because it doesn't have local autonomy. In the recent State of the District Address, the D.C. mayor made brief mention of D.C. becoming the 51st state, but I know that it's never going to become a state and that that's not really a practical way of trying to obtain municipal autonomy.

This is has been the D.C. license plate for a while now, but it doesn't seem to be making much difference:

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

Well, okay. Good questions. There is a local government. But it can be overruled by Congress. It was around the time of the civil rights movement (early '70s) that D.C. actually got a local government. Before that, there really wasn't anything. And it's always been this way, since D.C. was the capital, because it was laid out in the Constitution that Congress has control over the city. That's why it's so hard to change it and would require a lot of education to garner sufficient support... because it's hard to change the Constitution. Even from the beginning, many members of Congress thought that D.C.'s lack of local autonomy was unjust, but no one ever got around to fully changing it. Indeed, the shape of D.C. was originally a diamond with four quadrants, but shortly after the area was created out of Maryland and Virginia land, pretty much the whole city petitioned to return to local autonomy.... the only one that was successful was Alexandria, VA, which took a cut out of D.C.'s diamond. That's why D.C. is shaped like a diamond that someone took a huge bite out of.



Basically, the founders of D.C. wanted a place where Congress would have control so that it could "belong to all of the states," instead of to one particular state that it would be located in. And indeed, it does belong to all of the states and not to itself because it doesn't have local autonomy.

Interesting. Well, the reasons for it being a city that belongs to all the states would be to manifest a federally controlled, rather than state controlled parcel of land. This serves the function of the city being a staging ground for federal law to be seen in action. Or perhaps the founding fathers just wanted an area that every state member could see as a real part of their country and only added it in for solidarity and because it seemed like the right thing to do.

Why do you think it doesn't have local autonomy?

[Cochonette]

I found an article that actually explains it really well:

An accident of history

On June 20, 1783, nearly 400 Continental Army soldiers protested at Independence Hall, then the seat of Congress, over unpaid wages for service in the Revolutionary War. At the time, the national government had no standing army of its own under the Articles of Confederation. So when the mutineers arrived in Philadelphia, Congress had to beg the government of Pennsylvania for protection. The national legislature was forced to decamp to Princeton, New Jersey. After a shameful exile, Congress formed a committee to study the idea of creating a “federal town” to secure its own safety.

The committee recommended the creation of a district over which Congress would have exclusive jurisdiction. The proposal made its way into the U.S. Constitution as Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, also known as the District Clause. The measure, which comes near the end of a long list of delegated federal powers, calls for Congress “to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.”

James Madison defended the District Clause in Federalist No. 48 by cautioning that “a dependence … on the State comprehending the seat of Government for protection in this exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence.” He also addressed Pendleton’s worry that future citizens of the federal district would be disenfranchised by arguing that they would retain voting rights in the ceding states. In concluding, Madison promises, “a municipal Legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.”

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

I found an article that actually explains it really well:

An accident of history

Interesting. So with that in mind (I can see the justification for making the town's municipal authority overruled by Congressional authority) What are the biggest problems that D.C. citizens are facing as a result of not being an independent municipality? The plates for example, is that just an argument on principal or are there serious issues arising because of this?

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Interesting. So with that in mind (I can see the justification for making the town's municipal authority overruled by Congressional authority) What are the biggest problems that D.C. citizens are facing as a result of not being an independent municipality? The plates for example, is that just an argument on principal or are there serious issues arising because of this?

Well, think about it. Why do we even have local governments in the first place? This is important for anyone to know. Do you ever participate in your local government?

And why is it you don't think that taxation without representation isn't a serious issue? It reminds me of when it was argued that it wasn't important for women to vote because their demographic couldn't be particularly different from that of men and would merely be equivalent. D.C.'s voter base would definitely be something else... it votes 85% Democrat in presidential elections. That's another obstacle to gaining autonomy, because Republicans are gonna be reluctant.

One issue? Until just 3 or so years ago, there was actually a law related to taxi pricing zones that was designed to make it so that Congress members could pay less for taxis, while charging people living in the rest of the city more to make up for it. I may be a little off on the details of that, but it was something like that.

Basically, there are laws that according to our Constitution are supposed to be delegated to local governments. The federal government has a role and it's not to meddle in local affairs.

You say you "can see the justification for making the town's municipal authority overruled by Congressional authority." I don't get it. Yes, there was a justification back in the day that doesn't apply anymore. And yes, there is a justification for it not belonging to one particular state. But that's not the same as giving Congress the right to overrule any local law. It would be more understandable if there were a very limited number of local laws that Congress had a say in, but no, Congress has a say in anything it wants to have a say in, and often it's just to cater to the wishes of Congress members' home states.

[Cochonette]

Because it's written in the Constitution, D.C. would need support from the states to gain autonomy. But that's difficult because people are even more ignorant about local government than they are about federal government. I think that when people think of D.C., they don't think "city" - they only think "capital," "Congress," "White House." That's the overriding image of D.C. outside of D.C., so of course people's first logic is that Congress should override local government.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

Well, think about it. Why do we even have local governments in the first place? This is important for anyone to know. Do you ever participate in your local government?

And why is it you don't think that taxation without representation isn't a serious issue? It reminds me of when it was argued that it wasn't important for women to vote because their demographic couldn't be particularly different from that of men and would merely be equivalent.

One issue? Until just 3 or so years ago, there was actually a law related to taxi pricing zones that was designed to make it so that Congress members could pay less for taxis, while charging people living in the rest of the city more to make up for it. I may be a little off on the details of that, but it was something like that.

Basically, there are laws that according to our Constitution are supposed to be delegated to local governments. The federal government has a role and it's not to meddle in local affairs.

You say you "can see the justification for making the town's municipal authority overruled by Congressional authority." I don't get it. Yes, there was a justification back in the day that doesn't apply anymore. And yes, there is a justification for it not belonging to one particular state. But that's not the same as giving Congress the right to overrule any local law. It would be more understandable if there were a very limited number of local laws that Congress had a say in, but no, Congress has a say in anything it wants to have a say in, and often it's just to cater to the wishes of Congress members' home states.

Okay, good points. Yes I do participate in my local government and if I understand correctly D.C. does have a local municipality, the problem is just that Congress overrules the local authority. But how often does this actually happen? How often is Congress involved in running local D.C.?

Seeing as how many important offices to the U.S. government are located in D.C. though, I still think that it is justified to put the control of D.C.'s laws in Federal hands since much of what goes on locally in D.C. impacts the entire country.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

Because it's written in the Constitution, D.C. would need support from the states to gain autonomy. But that's difficult because people are even more ignorant about local government than they are about federal government. I think that when people think of D.C., they don't think "city" - they only think "capital," "Congress," "White House." That's the overriding image of D.C. outside of D.C., so of course people's first logic is that Congress should override local government.

It's the overriding image because those locations are important to the entire country in a very real way. Yes many citizens may not understand that D.C.'s local issues need their support otherwise they are at the power of the Feds so that check and balance is pretty much out of play, yet despite this D.C. still is the city where the President, Congress and the Supreme Court spend most of their time. There is no other city in the U.S. that has such a large concentration of political mechanisms in play 24/7. Thus its law is and definitely should be different than the laws of most other local municipalities.

This is still disadvantageous to D.C.'s citizens who are not getting proper representation, but the solution to the problem isn't as simple as "give local municipalities power over D.C."

[Brutha]

Never really thought about this, but yes now that you mention it D.C. should have municipal autonomy and I am surprised to know that it didn't before. Do you know anything about why this is?

The idea is that you want to prevent the city government from interfering in the actions of congress.
In cases of civil war police forces of the city could be used to imprison members of congress.

There also the issue of having material to bargain with. If members of congress wants to have a certain taxi pricing scheme the city of D.C. could ask for some political favor in return for giving them their taxi pricing scheme.

[SnerpGoodWord]

As long as DC keeps electing known crack addicts to local government, everyone else is going to keep thinking they're too irresponsible to govern themselves.

It's unquestionably unfair since we don't apply the same standard to other incompetent local governments, but that's just the way it is because of DC's high profile.

[James81]

Interesting bit of history in this thread. Very interesting.

Funnily enough, my thoughts upon reading this thread was that DC needs to move to become more centrally located (if, in fact, it belongs to all of the states). Right now, it's position in our country is outdated based on the way our country was shaped when it was formed.

Now:



DC would be more suitably located somewhere around Kansas.

Maybe we should petition congress to strap chains to the white house and fly that puppy out to Kansas where it belongs.

Plus, putting congressmen out in (or at least near) the desert sounds like a super idea to me. Put 'em out to pasture.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by James81

Maybe we should petition congress to strap chains to the white house and fly that puppy out to Kansas where it belongs.

I would fully support my tax dollars being used for this.

[Cochonette]

The D.C. mayor and several council members were arrested today in a protest for autonomy:

Mayor Gray, Councilmembers Arrested During Autonomy Protest: DCist

[NDN Scholar]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

The D.C. mayor and several council members were arrested today in a protest for autonomy:

Mayor Gray, Councilmembers Arrested During Autonomy Protest: DCist

Huh. I didn't expect this.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

The D.C. mayor and several council members were arrested today in a protest for autonomy:

Mayor Gray, Councilmembers Arrested During Autonomy Protest: DCist

Well, looks like **** just got real. I am now totally convinced of your position Cochonette, what can we of the forums do to help?

[justhopingandsearching]

Please, Mayor Gray and the rest of them were just doing this so that people would forget about their corruption allegations they had like two seconds ago. And by the way where was Eleanor Holmes when all of this was going down? As much as I don't quite believe Mayor Gray's sincerity at least he was out there.