« AnteriorContinuar »
(B) not be construed to include any area situated
outside of the District of Columbia boundary as it ex
isted immediately prior to the date of the enactment of
this Act, nor be construed to include any portion of the
Anacostia Park situated east of the northern side of the
Eleventh Street Bridge, or any portion of the Rock
SECTION BY SECTION OUTLINE
H. R. 325
A Bill to provide for the admission of the State of
New Columbia into the Union
Short Title - "New Columbia Admission Act."
Columbia is a State of the United States and
(A) That New Columbia shall be admitted
into the Union.
(B) That the Boundaries as described in
this Act shall be the boundaries of
(C) That the provisions of this Act are
fully consented to by the people of
- Provides that the constitution of New Columbia
shall always be Republican in form and not
Establishes the boundaries of New Columbia
Service Area is described in Section 16).
right and title to lands not granted to the
SECTION BY SECTION OUTLINE / H.R. 325
Provides for the retention of all right and
Establishes the election procedures for all
SECTION BY SECTION OUTLINE / H.R. 325
Provides for the election of one member of
All laws of the District of Columbia will
Appellate rights, civil and criminal, are
Upon the admission of New Columbia into the
Mr. FAUNTROY. The Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs and Health will come to order.
We open, today, the third in a series of at least four hearings this subcommittee intends to conduct on the issue of statehood for the District of Columbia.
At our first hearing, we heard from Members of the House and Senate. Among those who presented testimony were Senators Kennedy, Specter, and Inouye, as well as Congressmen Udall, Gray, and Don Edwards.
That hearing, the record of which can be found in D.C. Committee Print 98–7, together with oral and written comments we had received from other Members of Congress, formed the basis for the work performed by an informal task force to perfect the proposed constitution which accompanied the District's request for state hood.
The results of this effort by the task force, after laboring for a full year, can be found in the D.C. Committee Print S-2.
The amendments proposed by the task force formed the basis for our second hearing.
The Mayor of the District, the council chairman, and the District's Statehood Party representative on the D.C. Council offered testimony.
We also heard from a panel of persons who served on the State hood Constitution Task Force, including Mr. Charles Cassell, the president of the D.C. Statehood Constitutional Convention; Ms. Jo sephine Butler, chairperson of the D.C. Statehood Commission; and attorney Joseph Sellers, a member of the Washington Council of Lawyers.
The record of that hearing can be found at D.C. Committee Print 99-3.
Today, we will hear from several distinguished members of the legal profession on the academic side, as well as on the practitioner side.
We have asked some of our witnesses to respond to several key legal and constitutional issues that have emerged in connection with D.C. statehood.
Others of our witnesses have been asked to comment on the proposed constitution.
At least one of our witnesses will comment on the legal and constitutional issues, as well as the proposed constitution.
Before we call our witnesses, I think it is useful to share an opinion expressed very early in this century by another professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, Prof. Frank Perry.
In a 1920 article written for the Georgetown Law Journal, Professor Perry stated, and I quote him:
From a study of the wording of the Constitution and of the original grants of this territory from the States of Maryland and Virginia; from an examination of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States; and from the action of the political branch of the government in retroceding a portion of this area to the State of Virginia; it must be conceded that the weight of precedent and authority is in favor of the proposition that Congress has authority, without a constitutional amendment, to erect out of the District of Columbia a sovereign state.
Professor Perry's observations, nearly 70 years ago, stand today as a statement of not only what is just and proper, but also as the