[mmichaels1970]

Pretty cool article here.

the Founding Fathers decided that the new nation should have a permanent capital. But they were reluctant to give that much power to one single state. So they wrote in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that “[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive Legislation…over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may…become the Seat of the Government of the United States.” The article also stated that this 100-mile district would come from land ceded by the states so that the new seat of government would be independent of any state.

So I would think that statehood would be blatantly unconstitutional. The libs would have to pack the court first.

One question I have is that DC is much larger than 10 square miles. If anything, I'd think it would be more constitutional to SHRINK DC and give back any lands outside of 10 square miles to Maryland and Virginia (which ceded it to the feds in the first place).

Interested in the thoughts of others. Especially regarding the fact that DC, according to Google, is 68.34 square miles. Maybe I'm missing some nuance or later revision/interpretation or something.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Make New England 1 state. That’s 10 fewer senators.

[WhoisAlanGreenspan?]

Maybe I’m mistaken but a 10 mile square would be 100 square miles so DC is actually smaller than originally designed. Isn’t it?

[hanamizu]

10 miles square ≠ 10 square miles.

[Haiku Guy]

Not 10 square miles. 10 miles square, which is to say, 10 miles on a side, making 100 square miles.

The original district went about 4 miles into Virginia. That ended during the Civil War, I would imagine.

If you look at the southern and western borders of Arlinton, VA, they complete the square.