FAQ

Background:

Columbia became part of the Union in 1788 as part of Maryland
Columbia was created by Act of Maryland in 1791 and an identical State Constitution
The District of Columbia is not a State for the purpose of representation in Congress; that right remains with the people and the State of Columbia

Question 1

Does Columbia have the right to representation in Congress?

Yes, yes, yes and yes

1. Yes, it is decided. Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2000), affirmed by the Supreme Court, stated: "The people of the District of Columbia today are the political "posterity" of the People in the District who had, and exercised, a constitutional right to vote in congressional elections from 1790 through 1800. Under established constitutional principles, neither the then-People of the District nor their Posterity forfeited that constitutional right when the District became the Seat of Government, and neither Maryland, nor the United States or its officers, had the constitutional authority to forfeit that right for them."

Note: While the above quote is from the minority opinion in the case, it is not contradicted by the majority. The majority opinion ruled only on the theory of District of Columbia as a State which it decided was "untenable". Also, the "District of Columbia" did not exist in the period 1790 - 1800 so the opinion means just "Columbia".

2. Yes. Columbia is part of the Union.

O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933):

“It is important to bear in mind that the District was made up of portions of two of the original states, and was not taken out of the Union by the cession.”

Here, the "cession" is Columbia's partitioning from Maryland that was effective 1801. Again, the District did not exist before the cession of Columbia so the decision means just "Columbia".

3. Yes, Columbia's reserved state rights are protected by the 10th Amendment of 1791.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

and the District is not a State, see Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2000):

“In sum, we conclude that constitutional text, history, and judicial precedent bar us from accepting plaintiffs' contention that the District of Columbia may be considered a state for purposes of congressional representation under Article I.”

furthermore, it is impossible for Columbia's right to Congressional representation to have been delegated to Congress (it cannot vote for representation in itself), that right is reserved to

the people of Columbia and their State.

4. Yes, Columbia has a State Constitution which guarantees the right to a State Legislature (Section 1) and the right to elect delegates to Congress (section 27). Our State Constitution remains in full force and effect for reserved rights. not delegated to Congress.

Question 2

Doesn't Congress have absolute control of Columbia?

No, it controls the District of Columbia through the U.S. Constitution Art. I, § 8, cl. 17 (the District Clause) which provides for Congress:

“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..”

However, since the District is not a State for the purposes of participation in Congress, Congress does not control those reserved State rights.

Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2000) :

“As originally provided under Article I, section 3, the Senate was to be "composed of two Senators from each State," chosen not "by the People of the several States," as in the case of the House, but rather "by the Legislature thereof." U.S. CONST. art. I, § 3, cl. 1. The impossibility of treating Congress as the [State] legislature under that clause is manifest.."

Question 3

Has Congress acknowledged Columbia's State Constitition?

Yes. It did this explicitly in its 1801 Organic Act which implemented the cession of Columbia from Maryland:

An Act Concerning the District of Columbia, 2 Stat. 103 (1801) (the “1801 Organic Act”) at section 1:

“..the laws of the state of Maryland, as they now exist, shall be and continue in force in that part of the said district, which was ceded by that state to the United States, and by them accepted as aforesaid.”

Secondly, the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to make part of a state (Columbia) not a state. This means that any act to the contrary effectively dissolves the Union because

Amendment X two way indissoluble

What about the DC Statehood Bills in Congress?

The bills shrink DC and make the rest of Columbia into a new state. Needs art IV consent of Columbia and are therefore legally dependent on Columbia State Legislature (which has been done).

DC Statehood is a a misnomer and is not necessary for us to exercise our existing right to representation (see question 1).

Question 4

So what's the problem?

Simply this: The President of the United States put "District of Columbia" instead of "State of Columbia" on the decennial census returns.

Those census returns are used by Congress to admit voting delegates to the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

The State of Columbia's population reached the size needed to qualify for (apportionment of) State representation in 1860. However, because of the President's mistake, Congress won't admit or representatives.

All that's needed is for the President to send an Executive Order amending the decennial census returns from "District" to "State". He is obligated by his oath of office to do this.

A One Word Change