I have to disagree with Jon. It was not accepted doctrine up to the 1950s that persons (such as those in DC) who were not represented could not be taxed. As my article points out, one of the arguments for quickly readmitting members of Congress from the
southern states after the Civil War was that their people were being taxed without reprentation. That was met in congressional debate with the argument (among others) that taxation did not always have to go with representation, and the District was given as
an example of a place whose people were taxed without representation. (Of course, the argument also was made that the District was in a sense represented by all members of Congress.)
On 12/24/2010 12:38 PM, Mortimer Sellers wrote:
Some years ago Governor William Donald Schaefer of Maryland expressed his support for retrocession, which would (further) glorify the great state of Maryland.
The founders, however, (who were continentalists) feared the jurisdiction of the states, remembering how the Pennsylvania Executive Council had refused to protect Congress during the mutiny of 1783.
I suppose the Federal government could retain jurisdiction for certain purposes, even after retrocession.
Yes. Congress would retain legislative jurisdiction, to enact laws for the residents, just not remove their Maryland citizenship, which entails the rights to vote and hold office in Maryland. The Maryland Legislature would not have jurisdiction to enact coercive
legislation for residents of DC, other than for voting. Laws for DC residents on crime, police protection, tort, probate, family, contract, traffic, or whatever, would still be under the legislative jurisdiction of Congress or the DC government it establishes.
Another point on this is that, without being represented in Congress, it should be deemed unconstitutional to require residents of DC to pay federal taxes. The DC government could impose local taxes, but they should be exempt from national taxes. That was once
the accepted legal doctrine on the matter, up until the 1950s. If DC residents had their Maryland citizenship restored by personal retrocession, they could not rightfully protest "No taxation without representation!"
The amazing thing is not much confusion there is on this topic. The legal principles involved are very simple. That so many don't get it is a cause for alarm about the state of legal education in this country.
-- Jon
----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 Austin, TX 78757
512/299-5001 jon.roland@constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------