As America turns 250, Trump should restore Washington DC's original borders

Virginia Democrats just proposed an electoral map that would potentially give Democrats 10 of the state’s 11 representatives in the House. In a state that voted 46% for Trump, it is outlandish to only give Republican voters roughly 9% of the state’s representation. Virginia should be careful though. The only reason it has that much representation is because of its racist past. Perhaps President Trump should rectify that historical wrong with a long overdue fix.

You see, 179 years ago, Arlington, once part of the District of Columbia, was given to Virginia for the express purpose of continuing slavery in Northern Virginia. Now, Arlington, once part of the District of Columbia, is home to nearly 200,000 Virginians, a great many of whom are D.C. bureaucrats, who now enjoy the benefits of living in the states while also exerting disproportionate influence over the federal government. They receive essentially double representation. If Arlington residents want to influence Washington, they should be in Washington, just as the founders intended.

Some history: In 1790, the District of Columbia was created. Its location was seated directly in between Maryland and Virginia, with both states ceding five miles of their land. But in 1847, after the District pressed for abolition of slavery, Alexandria, now Arlington County, was officially retroceded after President James K. Polk issued a proclamation and the Virginia legislature accepted.

Like the Civil War that followed, while there were financial, strategic, and voting interests at stake at the time, it is hard to argue that slavery was not the primary motivator. Virginians were afraid that "slaves" would simply walk across the boundary into the District and become free. With the physical barrier of the Potomac River parting Virginia from the District, slaves would be unable to gain their freedom. And indeed, as a result of retrocession, slavery expanded in Virginia even after the District abolished it.

VIRGINIA JUDGE VOIDS REDISTRICTING PUSH, RULES LAWMAKERS OVERSTEPPED AUTHORITY

The Supreme Court never weighed in as to whether this maneuver was constitutional. It did acknowledge the transfer, but in a tax dispute. The D.C. Circuit issued a ruling that presumed constitutionality, but in an estates case.

As a result, legitimate constitutional questions have been left to linger for 179 years. The Contract Clause of Article I of the Constitution states that "No state shall enter into any … law impairing the obligation of Contracts." In Virginia’s agreement with the United States, it "forever ceded and relinquished … in full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction …." The land was given for the "permanent seat" of government. If the agreement was "permanent" and "forever," how then could a state initiate a law that impairs that contractual agreement?

There are additional constitutional concerns. Numerous agencies are housed in Arlington County. Yet, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution that describes the "seat of government" as a tract of land that had been "by cession of particular states." In other words, the Constitution contemplated the seat of government to be independent of any state.

BATTLE FOR THE HOUSE RUNS THROUGH VIRGINIA AS COURT OKS HIGH-STAKES REDISTRICTING VOTE

This makes sense. By placing a substantial portion of the federal government in a single state, that state, by logical extension, gains more power than the rest. That is precisely why separate land was so important to the founders. Everything was about balance and separating power and influence.

An attempt to restore the District would not be unique to President Trump. Subsequent presidents, like Abraham Lincoln, called for undoing retrocession. President William Taft, who said it was not even constitutional, called for restoring the land back to the District. An article at the time noted that the entire effort for retrocession was "to prevent fugitive slaves escaping from Virginia."

In a time of efforts to undo historical injustices around race, it is hard to understand how this has not been revisited. But not for racist motives, the land would have remained a part of the District "permanently" and "forever," just as both the states and President George Washington intended. Thus practically, legally, and from a historical injustice perspective, it makes sense that "recession" (i.e. restoring the original cession) be revisited.

President Trump should consider issuing an Executive Order directing the DOJ (or other agencies) to explore the constitutionality of the 1847 retrocession and, potentially, actions that could be taken to restore the District to its original intended boundaries and purposes. As we prepare to celebrate America’s 250th birthday, it would be a fitting moment for him to return Arlington residents to their constitutionally-approved residence. Virginians could also sleep better knowing they had righted a centuries’ old wrong.