Statehood for D.C.?

A very interesting take on the constitutionality of this topic from www.myheritage.org.


Statehood for the District of Columbia?
February 25, 2009 By David Talbot

Lawmakers seem determined to grant the District of Columbia representation in the House of Representatives — in spite of the oath they took to defend the Constitution.
Writing in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, legal expert Lee Casey explains that the Constitution is explicit: representation is limited to the states. And Heritage experts Joesph Postell and Nathaniel Ward take on activists for representation, explaining that "those who value the true interests of the District should defend the existing arrangement, which promotes the collective responsibility of Congress to preserve the welfare of the federal city."
As they make clear, D.C. is not exactly being neglected:
Lawmakers continue to spare little expense on the nation's capital. Congress today funds more than 20 percent of the city's operating budget and provides substantial funding for local amenities like the construction and operation of its subway system. In fact, in 2005, the city received more than $5.50 in federal spending for every dollar paid in federal taxes, more than double what any state receives. Even on the budgetary level, the District is given special treatment: The city receives federal funds under a separate appropriations bill instead of the general appropriations measure passed by Congress.
Meanwhile, Heritage blogger Rory Cooper weighs in on the prospects for a constitutional amendment to resolve this question, which involves fundamental American principles like consent of the governed.