Talk:District of Columbia retrocession

message: If it does, then such a move would require, as a technicality, the repeal of the 23rd Amendment due to there being no citizens of such a District I'm not sure I understand why a repeal would be necessary.  Wouldn't it merely be a moot point, like the 3/5 compromise? Nik42 21:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the District was retroceded without the 23rd Amendment being repealed, then whoever resided in the National Capital Service Area (what would remain of D.C.) would be entitled to 3 Electoral Votes.  Each party would probably try to manipulate the situation to its advantage.  To prevent that, the 23rd Amendment would have to be repealed. --Repeal 16-17 (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats not quite correct Repeal 16-17, because under Article 2, Section 1, a person holding a possibility of "trust or profit" under the US cannot serve as an Elector. Thus, if the residents of a 'National Capital Service Area (NCSA) were only the president, vice president, and any of their family members resident with them in the NCSA, and all (somehow) registered to vote as NCSA residents, then the only ones that could serve as Electors would be the family members. Their voter registration could be blocked by act of congress; or a statute could be enacted to deny all the status of NCSA residents. So the opportunity for abuse is small. Still, the opportunity for creating a rotten borough exists; thus repealing the 23rd Amendment would be an issue for DC retrocession. 141.166.226.105 (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does the Constitution say that the electors have to be residents of the state or District they vote from, and couldn't Congress just appoint those electors directly? 74.170.70.193 (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does there need to be a remaining National Capital Service Area or federal enclave anyway?  The constitution doesn't seem to require one--it just says that if one is established Congress would exercise exclusive jurisdiction over it.  There are thousands of federal buildings scattered throughout the United States.  Why can't there be a cluster of federal buildings within the City of New Columbia, MD?  If the "District" were eliminated, then there is no need to repeal the 23rd Amendment, because it becomes moot.  Athoughtforyou (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeal of 23rd Amendment

message: I just changed this in the article and I went through the history and noticed that, recently, it had gone back and forth several times.  Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that the national district should be "not more than 10 miles square".  The site chosen by Washington was 10 times larger than that, or 100 sq miles.  I'm not sure how something so blatantly unconstitutional has survived for so long, and, indeed, I would see this as an argument for Maryland retrocession, keeping just the 10 miles around the Capitol as the District.  Anyway, could this please not be changed any more?  69.253.193.234 19:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The plain meaning of "ten miles square" is (10 miles) * (10 miles), which is 100 square miles.  If you disagree, please give a legal citation showing that the language should be construed in some other way.  Otherwise, it's just your say-so against both the plain meaning and the construction given to the words throughout the Constitution's history.  Doctor Whom 22:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed (I was a math major).  "10 miles square" means a square who's sides are 10 miles each -- Sholom 16:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having been both a math major and an English major, this could just be a case of the 18th century construction of the adjective following the noun it modifies, ie: "Qualifications requisite" (Art 1, Sec 2), etc.  I'm just going to change it to the language found in the Constitution, in quotes, and that should satisfy.  69.253.193.234 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 10 sq mile vs 100 sq miles

message: The article states "Currently, there is little support for retrocession..." This may be true but I think it should be backed up by a citation, perhaps to an opinion poll. 141.166.226.105 (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation given for "the state of Maryland does not want to take the District back" is an article in the Washington Post in 1998 that interviews one Virginia congressman. This is a mighty thin citation. A newer and stronger citation should be provided, or the assertion should be removed. Anomalocaris (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Virginia Congressman was not only citing his own opinion, but that of the state and the Attorney General. However, I will add an additional citation to drive the point home. Best, epicAdam(talk) 06:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Popularity?

message: Also, I'd be curious to know how many Washingtonians are actually aware of the possibility of retrocession since the debate on DC's status tends to focus on status quo v. statehood. Does anyone have any data on how familiar Washingtonians actually are about this possibility? 141.166.226.105 (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Knowledge

message: In what year did the retrocession happen????  That information should be in the first or second sentence of the article.  Instead, it's not in the article at all. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  When??? 

message: With the conflict between Arlington County and the Va govt heightening, there has been talk in some blogs of Arlington returning to DC.  Is this the place to discuss that, if and when I find a reliable source?
Ricardianman (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In a word, yes. If you can source it, this would be the place. Best, epicAdam(talk) 05:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  UnRetrocession? 

message: Some recent edits to both this page and the main Washington, D.C. page seemed to purport the idea that the cities of Alexandria and Washington were situated within their neighboring counties. That is not the case as the Organic Act of 1801 makes it very clear that the territory of each county was outside the then-independent cities of Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria. Therefore when discussing the retrocession, it is important to note that all of Alexandria (not just the county) was returned to Virginia. This point is especially important because the citizens in Alexandria County actually voted against retrocession (while the citizens in Alexandria City voted overwhelmingly in favor) and there was a great deal of debate as to whether Virginia could legally accept the return of the county without the landowners' consent (which the General Assembly ultimately did). I just wanted to bring this up on the talk page in case there was a question about those edits. Thanks! -epicAdam(talk) 13:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexandria and Washington Counties and Cities 

message: The section currently begins by saying "Neither residents of Maryland nor of DC support retrocession". I find this way too simplifying. I am aware that this article is about retrocession only, but it does the reader a disservice by not even mentioning the broader issue; that of the lack of representation/control in DC. We must be able to give a much less uncontroversial view of popular opinion than "Neither residents of Maryland nor of DC support retrocession" as if that was the only issue at the table or the only solution to the problems that led to discussing retrocession in the first place. Other parts of the article does mention alternative ways to gain voting representation and/or local control, so why not the crucial section on political support? CapnZapp (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political support 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on District of Columbia retrocession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100918042009/http://www.historydc.org/aboutdc.aspx to http://www.historydc.org/aboutdc.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19990224051356/http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/levey/bob0303b.htm to http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/levey/bob0303b.htm
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20081129034542/https%3A//www.dcvote.org/pdfs/drohrabacher062304.pdf to http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/drohrabacher062304.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There appears to have been a change in attitude about when Alexandria was formally retroceeded. In 1846, after the President certified the vote on September 7th, people and newspapers began to use language indicative that Alexandria had already been retroceeded, which would be in keeping with the law passed by Congress which set the certification as the end of the process. In fact in early March, Congress members were arguing that Virginia should have to pay for part of the Potomac Bridge because it ended on their territory. It would seem that legally, the land was a part of Virginia at that time and the people were citizens of Virginia, but that Virginia had not taken jurisdictional control until March 13, 1847. This is similar, but opposite, to the Alexandria waterfront out to the pier line, where the District retains ownership of the land (actually it's water), but Virginia has jurisdictional control of it. One could reasonably argue that retrocession happened on September 7, 1846 or on March 13, 1847. However in Phillips v. Payne the Supreme Court uses 1847 as the date when Virginia "resumed possession" and that has become the more accepted and used date since. For that reason I've used 1847 as the date of retrocession. 
Volcycle (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: 1846 or 1847