In a recent press release honoring D.C. Veterans, House Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) introduced a resolution honoring D.C. Veterans for their honorable sacrifices, even though they don't have voting rights, because D.C. isn't a state. She then called for a vote to change that.
The question, then, is should D.C. be made a state?
I think it is necessary to ask the question, why isn't D.C. a state already? The answer lies in the founding of D.C. itself, which resulted from an agreement by the North and the South due to the nature of politics in that day. According to a Time article, "the founders worried that if the capital were to be a state, the members of the government would be unduly beholden to it. Madison envisioned that voting members of a D.C. state would be able to ‘insult’ or ‘interrupt’ the proceedings of government to get their way, simply by virtue of physical proximity to the halls of power."
Now the question is should D.C. citizens have better access to governmental proceedings, therefore being able to influence government due to the fact that they are so close to the Capital? Is it really a good idea to have D.C. become a state?
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution reads,
“The Congress shall have Power 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.”