Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · BILL · 117th Congress · S. 1361 (Introduced in Senate) — To reduce the size of the seat of the Government of the United States to the area composed of the principal Federal m... · Sec. 2

Sec. 2. Findings

497 words·~2 min read·/bill/117/s/1361/is/section-2·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

Congress finds the following: Article I, section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States states that the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States . The Founding Fathers did not consider the proposed district that would become Washington, DC, a State under the Constitution, as evidenced when Alexander Hamilton offered an amendment to the Constitution during the New York ratification to provide full congressional representation to Washington, DC, which was rejected by the convention on July 22, 1788.
The Supreme Court of the United States held in Hepburn v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 445 (1805), in an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Marshall, that the term states in article I, section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution does not include Washington, DC, for representation purposes. Seven Supreme Court Justices affirmed Chief Justice Marshall’s reasoning from Hepburn v. Ellzey in National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582 (1949). In 1978, a Congress controlled by Democrats attempted to amend the Constitution to provide Washington, DC, with full congressional representation.
The Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives reported the joint resolution and stated that granting congressional representation to the District of Columbia as it is presently constituted would require a constitutional amendment, because statutory action alone will not suffice . Amending the Constitution requires two-thirds approval by each house of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the States. In 1978, two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate voted for the constitutional amendment to provide Washington, DC, with full congressional representation, but the amendment was not ratified by three-fourths of the States.
An alternative to a potentially lengthy and difficult constitutional amendment process is ceding Washington, DC, back to Maryland, just as an area of 31 square miles that was originally ceded by Virginia was returned to that State by Federal legislation in 1847, thereby ensuring that the portion of Washington, DC, in Virginia would have representation in the Senate and the House of Representatives. In 1847, there was a desire to allow the District of Columbia land on the west side of the Potomac River that was not being used by the Federal Government to have its own proper representation in Congress.
Obtaining the desired representation for that portion of Washington, DC, would have required a constitutional amendment unless the land were given back to Virginia. Instead of trying to pass a constitutional amendment, in 1847, Congress legislatively ceded back to Virginia from the District of Columbia the non-Federal land composed of 31 square miles on the west side of the Potomac River. Accordingly, the District of Columbia would clearly and constitutionally have 2 Senators and a Representative with full voting rights by ceding the District of Columbia to Maryland after Maryland’s acceptance of such retrocession, while maintaining the exclusive legislative authority and control of Congress over the Federal District in the District of Columbia.
Connections2 off-index
2 references not yet in our index
  • 6 U.S. 445
  • 337 U.S. 582
Citation graph
cites case law
Cites 2Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.