The objective of the DC Statehood Amendment is to attain statehood for the District of Columbia. Statehood would provide the DC Government with the political power and independence afforded to states. The land for the District of Columbia was donated by Maryland and Virginia to serve as a separate geographical entity containing the headquarters of the Federal Government. DC is governed by the U. S. Congress, but the city has its own city government structure. With an increased population, the District of Columbia community is much different from that existing two hundred years ago. Nevertheless, its unique status continues to be to support the Federal Government, including the associated tourist trade.
The District remains quite dependent on Congress' oversight and support. As a city, it does not enjoy the support of either a county or a state government. As a state, it would have no county and city governments to which it could delegate local responsibilities. Thus, DC will never truly be like the other states. It was never intended to be a separate state, nor was it intended to be a state-like governmental entity. Nevertheless, we now have a separate DC government, organized as an independently functioning city but under the control of the Federal Government.
The Federal Government oversight system mostly reacts to DC's problems, many of which have become severe. DC has also become known for its inability to function effectively as a self-regulated city. Thus, the desire of some to make DC a state falls on polite but deaf ears of the majority of Congress.
In the process of establishing a Federal Government, the U. S. Constitution did not address what to do with the District of Columbia land it did not need. The excess land is now a nonfunctional appendage as far as the Federal Government is concerned, but it must be managed like other cities since it includes a large population. Thus, DC is a poorly defined, inadequately managed, and generally inefficient urban system.
From a systems perspective, the Federal Government needs only to cede back jurisdiction over private properties to the respective states. It is not very logical to have a local government interacting directly with the Federal Government in the first place. If the non-government functions of DC were returned to the respective counties in Maryland and Virginia, at least those well established and capable county and state governmental systems would be involved in their management. These mutually supporting systems would provide increased system reliability through additional management oversight, increased flexibility of resources, and more consistent funding.
Technidigm-2000 analysis provides insights regarding the validity of the proposed amendment, and it provides a framework within which to make the improvements needed to produce upgrades. While it is possible that Washington, DC will eventually become a state, this proposed constitutional amendment is weak in terms of common sense at this time. Increasing power to a jurisdiction where power is already being poorly managed is not likely to happen.
Yet, with the proper management upgrades, the Washington, DC system could eventually achieve sufficient credibility to become a state. The associated principles and objectives are just not clear at this time. Also, there is the question as to whether many of the current DC leaders are on-the-level. Corruption of the DC government through the granting of favors to friends in exchange for political support is a classic case study in what Thomas Paine and other colonial leaders feared most about government and politics.
End of draft statements.
The Technidigm-2000 Version
Also, there is the question as to whether many of the current DC leaders are on-the-level. Corruption of the DC government through the granting of favors to friends in exchange for political support is a classic case study in what Thomas Paine and other colonial leaders feared most about government and politics.
Statements of those political leaders who would gain (or lose) power or prestige as a result of Washington, DC achieving (or not achieving) statehood status would have to be considered suspect. As for any issue, those who are directly impacted are not likely to raise any counter arguments and will likely offer non-substantive or emotional responses to substantive concerns and facts.
As is often the case, few or no principles are identified as part of a draft discussion. Without listing them, there is no hope that any decisions or solutions will be well founded. It is very difficult to separate principles from objectives, but we can often look at objectives and try to articulate related principles.
Principle 1: The primary role of the District of Columbia is to facilitate the creation and maintenance of an effective Federal Government as described in the Constitution of the United States.
Principle 2: The District of Columbia should not unduly cause the constitutional rights of any individuals to be reduced.
Principle 3: Government and government powers such as taxation are derived from the power and will of the people as reflected through elected representatives.
Principle 4: Without representation in the affairs of government, taxation is not appropriate.
Principle 5: Excessive layers of government should be avoided. Each layer should have clear responsibilities and authorities that are logically not properly performed by a more local government or citizens group.
The objective of the DC Amendment is to attain statehood for the District of Columbia. It is assumed that this objective, if achieved, will result in benefits for DC citizens as well as for the rest of the country.
Nevertheless, its unique status continues to be to support the Federal Government, including the associated tourist trade. Making DC a state may make some of its businesses or attractions less unique.
The excess land is now a nonfunctional appendage as far as the Federal Government is concerned, but it must be managed like other cities since it includes a large population. Proper and adequate local government activities must be accomplished with minimal impacts on the Federal Government in terms of resources and in terms of distractions for the representatives of the people of the states.
Based on Principle 1 (above), the government structure of the District of Columbia must facilitate the creation and maintenance of an effective Federal Government as described in the Constitution of the United States.
Based on Principle 2, those persons classified as District of Columbia citizens must have (without decreasing the Federal Government effectiveness, as stated in Principle 1) at least all of the personal rights described in the Constitution of the United States.
Based on Principles 3 and 4, anyone classified as a District of Columbia citizen pays no tax to any government level for which that citizen has no equal representation as compared with other citizens governed by that level.
Based on Principle 3, anyone classified as a District of Columbia citizen bears no government derived burden of any kind from a government level for which that citizen has no equal representation as compared with other citizens governed by that level.
Based on Principle 5, no government burden (with or without representation) is imposed on any citizen except by the lowest appropriate level of government (most local) able to accomplish the governing of that burden efficiently and fairly, not adversely impacting other localities by its decisions.
Statehood would provide the DC Government with the political power and independence afforded to states. A state that is also the capital of the country can not easily be viewed as being equal to the other states. Due to proximity and related access realities, the State of DC would have advantages over the other states. The states of Maryland and Virginia have some advantages already in that they are able to attract businesses due to their proximity to DC. The current Washington, DC has similar advantages already.
As a city, it does not enjoy the support of either a county or a state government. As a state, it would have no county and city governments to which it could delegate local responsibilities. The State of DC would have less governmental depth than other states, but its physical extent and population is also much smaller. The full range of state offices and issues would need to be addressed, but their implementation would be less demanding. From a counter perspective, the State of DC might serve as a model for other states in that it might show how county and city governments are redundant and not necessary. Extrapolating that thought, we might also determine that state governments are not really required and that all governmental actions in the country could be simplified around a non-redundant, non-tiered model. This would make everything the same everywhere for everyone.
If the non-government functions of DC were returned to the respective counties in Maryland and Virginia, at least those well established and capable county and state governmental systems would be involved in their management. The standard state model of government hierarchy would put the current DC government organization into better perspective, making the one-step political careers of the current DC leadership seem less important in controlling the lives of the citizens.
With an increased population, the District of Columbia community is much different from that existing two hundred years ago. Indeed, looking ahead, the population and list of problems and issues are likely to increase. At the time DC was originally laid out, the population and the related governmental concerns were less numerous. Without timely and appropriate action, whatever real problems and issues currently exist are likely to increase and to become more of a distraction to the Federal government. Whether or not such distractions are acceptable needs to be determined.
(Having considered the Technidigm-2000 element extrapolations above, we can now expand a little on the opinions offered in the original draft essay. This is similar to brainstorming.)
It was never intended to be a separate state, nor was it intended to be a state-like governmental entity. It is difficult to believe that the Framers of the Constitution would have predicted that their 10 mile square Capital land set aside would someday want to become a separate state. It probably also was not believed to be a place where so many people would want to live their entire lives and become local citizens rather than citizens of one of the states.
The Federal Government oversight system mostly reacts to DC's problems, many of which have become severe. DC has also become known for its inability to function effectively as a self-regulated city. Thus, the desire of some to make DC a state falls on polite but deaf ears of the majority of Congress. It seems to be common sense that an government entity that is not able to function properly as a city would not likely be successful as a state. It is difficult to identify a city that has been self governed less effectively than has the District of Columbia.
Thus, DC is a poorly defined, inadequately managed, and generally inefficient urban system. This reputation seems to have been improving a little recently with new leadership, but there are too many ups and downs to establish a clear trend.
It is not very logical to have a local government interacting directly with the Federal Government in the first place. It is usually perceived by those in the Federal Government that they have superior authority to that of those officials who represent the more local government. The Constitution reserves for the States and local governments those powers where the general welfare of the people is more suitably managed by such local governments. Thus, taxes paid by the citizens should belong to the local government first to ensure such things as adequate roads, police and fire protection, education, and social services. For the District of Columbia, these local attributes should be superior or above average as compared with similar urban communities across the country. If the local government can not achieve this standard on its own due to incompetence or corruption, then the Federal Government must seek to achieve it on behalf of the local citizens as well as the rest of the country, for which the District of Columbia is a symbol.
The associated principles and objectives are just not clear at this time. After considering them more directly, we are able to develop the principles and objectives a little better in this level one development process. More facts and research are required (levels 2 and 3), and a sustained solution process needs to be developed and implemented over several years.
The land for the District of Columbia was donated by Maryland and Virginia to serve as a separate geographical entity containing the headquarters of the Federal Government. The donated land did not imply the donation of citizens to fill that land. Indeed, there would be no reason for the District of Columbia to have citizenship if Maryland and Virginia retained local government management of all of the non-Federal aspects of the donated land. That is, if the Federal Government does not need the domain inhabited by district residents, it is free to rent office space or purchase land outside the District, which it does anyway.
DC is governed by the U. S. Congress, but the city has its own city government structure.
Nevertheless, we now have a separate DC government, organized as an independently functioning city but under the control of the Federal Government.
Other urban areas are subject to county and state government, complex roles for Federal entities to mimic or replace. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that these roles would be fulfilled more effectively somehow if the District of Columbia were to become a state and be afforded all the voting rights of a state.
It is the nature of level one draft opinions not to have much in the way of research. In this case, it would be useful to look at what is done in other countries. Little has been said to date about how other countries manage to have national governments with capital cities that are managed and maintained better than the District of Columbia. Is there even one that is governed less effectively? How does the District of Columbia compare with other capital cities around the world? Even more appropriately, it is logical to explore how each state treats its capital city in the range of public service and citizenship categories that relate to the District of Columbia.
Additional research models come to mind. For example, if the objective is really to have representation (with taxation), then it would be appropriate for all District residents to simply retain their state voting privileges, including the respective Maryland and Virginia state relationships for those District citizens who happened to be born in the District. The research would be relative to how the rights of those citizens would work out if each Member of Congress had a local constituency in the District of Columbia to consider.
This approach could easily result in the District having more representation than other urban areas. Indeed, DC residents might vote in local elections as well as in state elections, all 50 of them. This might make Congress more receptive to solving problems more enthusiastically and efficiently, eliminating many of the issues that currently are stalled in debate. Such a model would need to be considered in terms of citizen reactions, 50 state reactions, and the reactions of Members of Congress. While not all would agree to such, it would seem prudent to undertake a "Truman" approach for those states willing to try it. It would be interesting to see which states and which politicians would object.
From a systems perspective, the Federal Government needs only to cede back jurisdiction over private properties to the respective states. The Federal Government is free to buy back or rent any property that it deems necessary to constitute its resources. The Constitution simply allowed for an initial investment of centrally located domain. Thus, a solution program would simply start returning a few neighborhoods at a time to Maryland and Virginia, keeping tack of the problems and making necessary adjustments.
Technidigm-2000 analysis provides insights regarding the validity
of the proposed amendment, and it provides a framework within which to
make the improvements needed to produce upgrades. While it is possible
that Washington, DC will eventually become a state, this proposed constitutional
amendment is weak in terms of common sense at this time. Increasing
power to a jurisdiction where power is already being poorly managed is
not likely to happen. Based on the above discussions,
the concept of making the District of Columbia into a state seems now to
be a bad idea, at least until some more logical methods are considered.
It might be that making DC a state will make things worse rather than better.
At least, it is not very clear how statehood would deal with incompetence,
corruption, crime, roads, education, and other urban social issues in a
manner more effective than exists today.
As for many issues, the components are generally assumed and not stated. Components in a solution system must work together to achieve the desired results without violating the basic principles. The District of Columbia, its Control Board, responsible elements of the Congress, the DC city officials, the DC service departments, and the DC citizens seem to be the only current players in the process at this time. The rest of the states, including Maryland and Virginia, are just observers. All of these elements need to be considered together under the various solutions noted above as well as any other solutions that may be developed in the future. In using this approach, we may be able to identify additional components and better solutions. We might also decide to leave it alone and change nothing.
In the process of establishing a Federal Government, the U. S. Constitution did not address what to do with the District of Columbia land it did not need. While the responsibility for providing necessary additional funding is implied, raising Federal taxes directly from within the District might not be a necessary part of providing resources. DC citizens would be taxed by their home states, including Maryland and Virginia, and the states would be obliged by Federal law to provide funds for the maintenance of the District proportionately.
These mutually supporting systems would provide increased system reliability through additional management oversight, increased flexibility of resources, and more consistent funding. Returning unused Federal property and residential and commercial neighborhoods to Maryland and Virginia would increase the resources of the respective states and would make available more directly the greater resources of those states to the District. For example, the task of providing snow plows in a timely manner during winter storms would become less of a problem. Teachers could be rotated more efficiently to where they are needed. Libraries would be able to share resources in a more timely manner, not to mention the police and fire departments.
The District remains quite dependent on Congress' oversight and support. The feedback from the status quo seems to be negative. Something needs to be done to make a permanent improvement to the way the District is governed. The solution systems for this are currently not clear, although there seems to be a lot of debate and bitterness in the feedback loop.
Yet, with the proper management upgrades, the Washington, DC system
could eventually achieve sufficient credibility to become a state.
By
undertaking some of the possible solutions mentioned above, dramatic as
they may seem at this point, we would at least be able to observe the consequences
of these approaches and adjust them as needed. In the worst case,
they would simply have to be canceled. It is difficult to identify
exactly the nature of the feedback that would cause us to cancel such a
program, but we can not assume that we know everything about any solution
system that we might undertake. Negative feedback from any dis-empowered
politician would have to be ignored or be viewed as a positive result.
Indeed, any politician or entity perceived to be losing control or power
over anything needs to be considered off-the-level. We reserve the
word "statesman" for those political leaders who are self-sacrificing rather
than self-serving.
At this point it is clear that the development of solutions to social issues requires not only good intentions but also a certain amount of systematic thinking and effort. Even then the process remains only an aid that gets us a little closer to our objectives. If this is your first time to go through this process, it would be helpful to you to reflect a little on what you have just read in this example. To facilitate this review, we provide a few simple questions below. Formal classes on Technidigm-2000 should require completion of questions selected from this list as homework, with the questions dependent on the ages and experience of the students.
1. How many of the 12 elements were impacted by the draft statements?
2. Collect additional level 2 facts from any available school reference materials, experienced people whom you know, or by looking information up in the local library.
3. Describe a specific DC Government issue as it relates to the Constitution and the intentions of the Founding Fathers. This should be an issue that requires research to collect or develop additional information. Explain how you would approach this level three research or how an experienced researcher might do so.
4. Pick a constitutional issue related to DC Statehood that might be decided upon by the Supreme Court in connection with the proposed Constitutional Amendment, assuming that the amendment actually were passed and implemented as part of the Constitution of the United States. For example, would the State of DC have a "right" to impose the death penalty for certain crimes? Would the State of DC be able to tax commuters from Virginia and Maryland?
5. If we consider the Supreme Court Judges to represent level four experts on the Constitution, what personal experience or other characteristics would be appropriate for them to have that would make them "good judges" regarding issues of DC Statehood?
6. How is DC Statehood impacted today by off-the-level politics? Is there likely to be improvement in the near future?
7. How does the DC Statehood issue relate to DC and Federal Government officials and how they do their jobs? Is there likely to be compromise relative to the interests of the people due to political issues or interests?
8. If you could predict the future, how do you think the DC Statehood issue might change over the next 100 years? Next 1,000 years? Are the decisions that might be made now reversible in the future?
9. What flexibility regarding DC Statehood or "home rule" is already allowed by the Constitution? Would an amendment be appropriate to facilitate what you believe would be the "will of the people"?
10. Based on your Technidigm-2000 analysis, how do you thing this issue should be treated by our political leaders, assuming that they are "on-the-level" and their political interests are secondary to the public interest? What is the first step toward getting something done?
11. What similar issues or topics are there that would also fit well in your answers to these questions? For example, what should DC Government or the Federal Government do regarding paying for the services provided for the many commuters who live in the surrounding communities?
Return to Technidigm Home Page