Statehood and the District of Columbia

[A18]

There is some disagreement about this.

Is the District of Columbia just like a territory, or does it have a special constitutional status? If the seat of the United States has a special constitutional status, could it be shifted to some other area by cession of particular states?

Could Congress even recede the land to Maryland? In the 1840s, Virginia's portion of the district was returned to the state, but the Supreme Court has never ruled on the validity of that action. They actually dismissed a suit in the 1870s for lack of standing.

[Emsworth]

Can Congress retrocede the District of Columbia to Maryland? My answer would be yes.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 provides, "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of ... the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." The power to dispose of territory would, of course, include the power to cede such territory to a state.

The question is, can the District of Columbia be considered part of the "Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"? I believe that the answer is in the affirmative. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 provides that Congress has the power "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." The fact that particular states (to paraphrase the Constitution) "ceded" land to the federal government implies that this land became the territory of the United States.

Congress may, furthermore, move the seat of government elsewhere. It can be argued that clause 17 speaks of states ceding, and Congress accepting, a particular district only once. Yet such an interpretation strikes me as unreasonably narrow. If, by some misfortune, the District of Columbia were lost to foreign invaders, would this implication prevent Congress from re-establishing the seat of government elsewhere? I would think not.

If the District of Columbia is (as I noted above) just like any other territory, then it may be admitted as a state. However, once it becomes a state, it can no longer continue to be the seat of the federal government.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 clearly suggests that the district constituting the seat of government must be ceded by particular states. The implication of the Twenty-Third Amendment is equally clear: the seat of government cannot be part of a state.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So the United States didn't have a capital until 1800?  There's nothing in the Constitution that would prevent D.C. being admitted as a State, but once it were admitted, Congress would have no authority over the district, which is why it'll never happen.

[Emsworth]

There's nothing in the Constitution that would prevent D.C. being admitted as a State, but once it were admitted, Congress would have no authority over the district, which is why it'll never happen.

Well, as long as D.C. continues to be the seat of government, it still cannot be admitted as a state. If the "state of Columbia" were formed, the capital would have to be moved elsewhere, or a part of D.C. would have to remain separate from the state.