Posted on 07/08/2025 11:25:38 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
WASHINGTON, July 8 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday his administration was considering taking over governance of Washington, DC, the city that serves as the seat of the federal government.
Trump, speaking during a cabinet meeting at the White House, said his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, was in close touch with the city's elected mayor, Muriel Bowser, a Democrat.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Congress is supposed to govern DC.
They are assigned to legislate for DC “in all cases whatsoever”.
That term had a specific meaning for the people who wrote the Constitution, and it didn’t include anything remotely resembling Muriel Bowser.
The governance of DC is not an Executive Branch function. At all.
About time.
Hope he dies it.
Current mayor is incompetent and totally corrupt.
I WONDER IF ANYONE IN CONGRESS KNOWS THIS?????
Congress are all about shirking their duties to the greatest extent possible.
PDJT is correct wanting to clean up the WashedUpDC cesspool.
However, it is a Congressional, not Executive Branch function.
Given that, I don't understand how the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973 has withstood any Constitutional challenges.
“Washington D.C. operates under a mayor-council form of government, established by the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973. This act granted residents the right to elect a mayor and a 13-member council. However, unlike states, the US Congress retains the power to review, amend, or even overturn local laws passed by the D.C. Council. Additionally, D.C. residents lack voting representation in Congress, meaning they have no voting members in the Senate and a non-voting delegate in the House.” - Congressional Research Service, 07/2025
__________________________________________________________
The DC Home Rule Act is a statutory law passed by Congress and signed into law by Nixon. It makes no mention of any remaining Article 1 Executive authority.
As with so many other issues, if we want DC governance changed, the existing law needs to be repealed and replaced by Congress.
__________________________________________________________
“I don’t understand how the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973 has withstood any Constitutional challenges.”
Not aware of any challenges. That said, that may well be the reason; no politician has had the moral fiber issue such a challenge.
Agreed, but the same Congress that has been charged with federal financial oversight... and yet DOGE showed the world what a joke and a scam that has been.
Another Nixon “gift”. He gave us so many that plague us still.
If Trump does this it will be one of the best things he does but will it last? The Speaker of the House should have a hand in it and it may last. It can’t be much worse.
actually, the only reference to the capital is that its dimension will be 10 square miles there is no reference to who actually will run the district other than congress being the group to establish laws for the district.
Sadly, the vast majority of Congress are spineless, controlled goobers.
Democrats and RINO Republicans alike are in thrall to the bloated, woke bureaucracy and intel deep-state.
Most of them have turned over their Constitutional powers to the unelected 4th branch of government / deep state, who guides them and tells them what to do.
He’s trolling again. This is a good one, ought to draw some interesting reactions.
The B@)!ch set me up.
I always considered DC to be a military district.
This clause grants Congress full legislative authority over the District.
Additionally, the 23rd Amendment, ratified in 1961, allows residents of the District to participate in presidential elections by granting them electoral votes equal to the number allocated to the least populous state, though still fewer than any state.
This amendment was intended to expand voting rights for D.C. residents but did not change the fundamental status of the District as a federal territory rather than a state.
There has been ongoing debate and legislative action regarding D.C. statehood. The Washington, D.C. Admission Act proposes turning most of the District into a new state called the "State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth," while retaining a small federal district for governmental functions.
Proponents argue that this approach is constitutional under the Admissions Clause, which allows Congress to admit new states with a simple majority vote.
Opponents, including some state attorneys general, claim that creating a new state from the current District would violate the original intent of the Constitution and could create an imbalance of power.
Critics also point out that the Founding Fathers explicitly set aside a federal district to serve as the seat of government, distinct from the states, to ensure its neutrality and independence.
Supporters of statehood counter that the Constitution does not prohibit reducing the size of the federal district to accommodate statehood and that Congress has previously altered the boundaries of the District, such as returning land to Virginia in 1848.
Ultimately, the Constitution provides the framework for D.C.'s unique status and leaves the question of its governance and potential statehood to the discretion of Congress, subject to constitutional interpretation and political debate.
Trump also alluded to not allowing a self avowed communist to be mayor of New York City or governor of New York.
He really knows how to yank their chains doesn’t he
!
Atta boy Donald.
/-)
Given that, I don’t understand how the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973 has withstood any Constitutional challenges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.