Below is my column in The Hill on the restoration of voting rights for D.C. residents without the need for a constitutional amendment. That path has always been open and has been used before. It is called retrocession. The problem is that Democrats have long opposed the change because it would deny them two additional Senate seats, even though it would give them at least one new House seat.
Here is the column:
The deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. has led to a media and political meltdown. In the New York Times, a column lamented that the military had not revolted against the civilian president.
Even, so, commentators declared a “coup” because the federal government reasserted its constitutional power over the federal district. A Justice Department employee went so far as to scream profanities at federal officers on the street and assault one of them with a submarine sandwich. He was declared a “freedom fighter” against “the Gestapo.”
The utter lunacy of the left was again triggered by Trump with an almost Pavlovian predictability. Trump rang the bell, and suddenly thousands of Democratic leaders began to salivate. In addition to denying a very real crime crisis in the district, Democrats immediately pivoted on the issue to renew unpopular demands for D.C. statehood.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, insisted that this was only happening because “American citizens lack the protections of statehood.”
Ankit Jain echoed that view. Jain occupies a farcical position as “D.C. shadow senator,” an unpaid position in which he pretends to be a member of the U.S. Senate. Jain wrote that “it’s entirely possible that people will die as a result” of the deployment. He insisted that this would not occur in states where democracy governs: “We may not have it in Washington, but if you live in any of the other 50 states, you do.”
Over the years, I have testified five times in the House and Senate to argue for the restoration of full representation for residents in Washington, D.C. Residents could have a governor, two real U.S. senators, a voting representative in the House, a state legislature, and every other trapping of statehood. It needs only to go back whence it came.
D.C. needs to return to Maryland through “retrocession.”
In academic writings, I have advocated for what I called “modified retrocession” where Maryland would take back the land given initially to create what was called “the federal city.”
The Framers did not want the capital under the control of any state, so they created the federal enclave to be under the control of Congress as a whole. Originally, the outlines of the federal city were laid out by none other than George Washington as the surveyor. It was a diamond shape, with territory ceded by both Virginia and Maryland. Within a few decades, Virginians in what is now Arlington County and Alexandria came to regret not having direct representatives and were allowed to retrocede back to their state.
That left the triangle of territory from Maryland. However, Marylanders did not agree with their Virginian counterparts. They liked living in the federal enclave and decided to remain without direct representation.
Congress previously allowed retrocession and could do so again. Under my prior proposal, the federal enclave would be reduced to the small sliver of land upon which our Capitol, Supreme Court, and the White House rest.
It would finally give every Washington resident full representation. Also, in a city notoriously mismanaged for years, D.C. residents would be part of a state that excels in areas like education that could materially improve their positions.
So if the lack of representation is so intolerable, why wouldn’t Washington return to Maryland? It would give every Washington resident a voting representative in the U.S. House, two senators, a governor in a sovereign state, and a state legislature.
The reason is politics at its most cynical and hypocritical.
Democrats only want two senators representing D.C. if it boosts their numbers. It’s not good enough to give them Maryland’s senators. What’s more, Maryland Democrats will not suffer a shift in the center of their state’s political gravity from Baltimore to Washington. Finally, D.C. Democratic leaders are not eager to share power with Maryland Democrats, as they might gain all the trappings of a state.
This is why, for decades, Democrats have settled to leave D.C. voters without direct representation in Congress. They decided it is better to lament the lack of representation on license plates than to give residents such representation through retrocession of the residential sections of D.C. to Maryland.
Polling shows that most Americans still oppose statehood for this one city — a Vatican-like city-state. That is why Democrats are not keen on attempting a new constitutional amendment to change the status of the city. They would rather bewail the lack of direct representation while, ironically, trying to achieve effective statehood without a direct vote of citizens on a constitutional amendment.
The fact is, Trump has every right to deploy the National Guard in Washington and to take over the D.C. police. Those are entirely lawful and constitutional orders. Yet the New York Times appears to have changed its position on the danger of insurrection.
The Times recently ran a bizarre column by former Obama officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson, “We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong.” They complain that “it now seems clear to us that the military will not rescue Americans from Mr. Trump’s misuse of the nation’s military capabilities.”
The “rescue” would have meant military personnel disobeying a direct order from the commander-in-chief because they disagreed with the need for the deployment. In fairness to the New York Times, that is not exactly an insurrection — it is more of a mutiny.
What is striking about this debate is how entirely untethered it is from anything that touches upon reality.
Statehood remains easily attainable for Washington, if Democrats would only stop opposing retrocession. Meanwhile, the deployment is clearly constitutional, regardless of how many columns or submarine sandwiches you throw about in another furious fit.
The only thing that is clear is that Washington residents are again being played. They remain political props left stateless because returning them to full representation is not politically advantageous. They are given make-believe “shadow senators” and protest license plates rather than restoring their prior status. As with the debate over crime, few want to discuss how to solve this problem.
Given the opposition of the Democrats, Trump should take the lead and order federal officials to develop a blueprint for retrocession. He should use his office to fully inform the American people, and particularly D.C. residents, of the benefits of returning to Maryland.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
If I may be so bold to make a suggestion to the proprietors of this blog, can you make commenters pass a basic questionnaire before they are allowed to comment on a topic? Half of the comments here are from folks who obviously lack any knowledge on this topic, and they are just polluting the comments with their ignorance.
“Half of the comments here are from folks who obviously lack any knowledge on this topic, and they are just polluting the comments with their ignorance.”
More than half, like 95%. But if Turley is a MAGA and it is his right to run a MAGA blog, even if the commentators are fascist morons.
“More than half, like 95%. But if Turley is a MAGA and it is his right to run a MAGA blog, even if the commentators are fascist morons.”
Gigi, did you call President Harris yet and ask her about how useful the MAGA MAGA MAGA rhetoric was last year? 202-456-1414 is the number. We’ll wait here for your report.
Half of the comments on this blog are from you! Get a life .
“Half of the comments on this blog are from you! Get a life .”
Sad to say, this is Gigi’s life.
Or they could also require posters to adopt an online handle so we don’t have multiple Anonymous posters.
I would settle for age verification. That might prevent the adolescents from posting crap like this: “Trump’s performance at the summit with Putin definitely puts him on the shortlist for the TACObel Peace Prize.”
“I would settle for age verification. That might prevent the adolescents from posting crap like this: “Trump’s performance at the summit with Putin definitely puts him on the shortlist for the TACObel Peace Prize.””
I don’t think you understand. That is from the adults on the left.
New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell was indicted Friday in what prosecutors called a yearslong scheme to hide a romantic relationship with her bodyguard, who is accused of being paid as if he was working even when they met alone in apartments and traveled to vineyards for wine tasting.
Trump’s Justice Department is apparently taking the position that the criminal justice system should punish people for creating false financial records and other documentation to cover up a sexual relationship.
I seem to recall something like this happened a year or two ago in NY, but I can’t remember the details of who was involved.
Does anyone here recall someone in NY being prosecuted for falsifying financial records to cover up a sexual relationship ????
Yeah, I remember something like that.
I think he was a failed real estate guy with multiple bankruptcies.
I can’t quite remember his name.
You are right.
I think his CFO and attorney actually went to prison.
I wish I could remember who it was.
He was a real shady character if I remember correctly.
Something about sexual involvement with underage girls.
I just wish I could remember his name.
I think he went into politics if you can believe that.
And he was elected president three times. What a country, right Gigi?
Really???
What sort of loser would vote for a sleaze bag like that???
I just wish I could remember his name.
Gigi, nobody cares. The voters saw through your sham trials and kangaroo courts. We re-elected Trump for a third time.
Why don’t you provide a link to the actual indictment?
“Why don’t you provide a link to the actual indictment?”
Why doesn’t she provide a link to the actual sentence? Here, I’ll enumerate the harsh sentence imposed for these very serious and multiple felonies:
1.
Trump’s performance at the summit with Putin definitely puts him on the shortlist for the TACObel Peace Prize.
I second that. Trump looked so deflated and confused by the time he realized he got nothing out of it. The “air show” he put on for Putin was a useless waste of money.
Trump promised he wouldn’t leave the summit until Putin committed to a cease fire. Putin walked all over Trump and promptly showed the world TACO is a well earned nickname.
“I second that. Trump looked so deflated and confused by the time he realized he got nothing out of it. The “air show” he put on for Putin was a useless waste of money.
Trump promised he wouldn’t leave the summit until Putin committed to a cease fire. Putin walked all over Trump and promptly showed the world TACO is a well earned nickname.”
Hey, I was trying to call your Iranian mullah allies about this TACO thing, but I just keep getting a busy signal at the Fordow phone number.
Maybe it’s becuse Trump is too chicken to answer the phone. I’d be embarrassed to pick up too.
“Maybe it’s becuse Trump is too chicken to answer the phone. I’d be embarrassed to pick up too.”
I’m sure that everyone has been calling up Joe Biden lately for his deep foreign policy experience. The phone is ringing off the hook!!
That isn’t helping Trump’s embarrassment of how ineffective he was at the summit. His staffers openly admit he was F—ked by Putin, hard. Biden no longer matters. TACO Trump has a Putin problem he can’t solve and that’s after claiming he could end the Russia-Ukraine war on day one. How’s that working out?
“That isn’t helping Trump’s embarrassment of how ineffective he was at the summit. His staffers openly admit he was F—ked by Putin, hard. Biden no longer matters. TACO Trump has a Putin problem he can’t solve and that’s after claiming he could end the Russia-Ukraine war on day one. How’s that working out?”
I’m sure that Trump is working hard to end the stupid Russia-Ukraine war that Joe Biden invited with his weakness and stupidity. Not to mention that Biden actually invited Putin to invade, did you forget about that? This is your tar baby. Typical Democrat, blow up the place then snipe at the Republican cleanup crew.
Working hard? He barely understands what’s going on. Putin just bent him over while having his “Private talk” and let him know who is boss. His face said it all when they came out. Priceless.
“Working hard? He barely understands what’s going on. Putin just bent him over while having his “Private talk” and let him know who is boss. His face said it all when they came out. Priceless.”
You’re such a tool. And I bet that you really bought the joke that Biden was some foreign policy “expert”. Look what happened, the whole freaking planet blew up under his fake presidency. Give it a rest, nobody buys the idea that Putin has any leverage over Trump, because he doesn’t. This is not Trump’s war, this is all because of the disaster that was the last fake presidency. You should be bowing your head in shame for what you put this country and our entire world through during the Biden reign of error.
Putin made Trump look like an idiot. The look on his face said it all. Trump came away from that meeting with nothing after all his tough talk. Trump sat there and took in the a— like a chump.
“Putin made Trump look like an idiot. The look on his face said it all. Trump came away from that meeting with nothing after all his tough talk. Trump sat there and took in the a— like a chump.”
And you know what was discussed, how? Are you clairvoyant? Your dirty mouth doesn’t change that fact that you know nothing. As is typical.
“Working hard? He barely understands what’s going on. Putin just bent him over while having his “Private talk” and let him know who is boss. His face said it all when they came out. Priceless.”
So not only are you actively cheering on the continued unnecessary slaughter of Russians and Ukrainians, you’re now also some body language expert. Have you considered a gambling career? With your demonstrated expertise on body language, you should be able to clean up at the poker table. That, or you’re just full of crap as usual. You know, I’m just going to go with the second option.
Putin confirmed the war would have never happened if Trump was president at the time.
“Putin confirmed the war would have never happened if Trump was president at the time.”
Indeed. Let’s look at the list of recent US presidents and see if Putin was feeling frisky at the time:
Bush — Yes
Obama — Yes
Trump — No
Autopen — Yes
Huh, that’s odd. Why wouldn’t Putin take advantage of having Trump, his “asset”, in the White House to do some “special military operations”? I’m so confused, maybe our trolls here can spin some yarn to explain this discrepancy.
“Trump’s performance at the summit with Putin definitely puts him on the shortlist for the TACObel Peace Prize.”
Hey, I was looking up the list of Biden foreign policy accomplishments this morning. It took some time, but I finally found it:
1.
This is what real world internet trolls do, it’s pure deflection from the topic that the blog author posted, which happens to be voting rights for D.C. residents.
Nobody carew what you think. Stick to your own blog loser.
What’s a carew? Is that some new sort of nut?
Anonymous wrote, ”Nobody care[s] what you think. Stick to your own blog loser.”
That’s pure ad hominem and another great piece of evidence to support my claim that you’re an intellectually challenged, morally bankrupt, attack dog, internet troll.
Now that you’ve figuratively had your intellectual a$$ handed to you, it’s time for you head for the hills with your tail between your legs loudly whining about being slapped around by a big mean bully.
“That’s pure ad hominem and another great piece of evidence to support my claim that you’re an intellectually challenged, morally bankrupt, attack dog, internet troll.”
That’s our Gigi. It’s hard to be disappointed when you have no expectations of her.
Steve,
Well said!
Apparently you care enough to warrant a response to Steve’s comment, demwit. 🤦♂️
National security analyst Rebecca Grant said Trump got exactly what he wanted in Alaska. Also note all the EU leaders meeting with Trump today in DC.
“National security analyst Rebecca Grant said Trump got exactly what he wanted in Alaska. Also note all the EU leaders meeting with Trump today in DC.”
Stop, you’re harshing the narrative the trolls have been ordered to push.
Retrocession? How dare you, Dr. Turley? Only a right-wing stooge would try to rob Democrats of two precious Senate seats. Don’t you realize chaos itself depends on those seats? Without them, how could boys keep marching into the girls’ bathrooms or dominate girls’ sports? Don’t bother us with “rights” or “governance.” We Democrats only care about padding the Senate. Retrocession won’t get us that! And that’s the only thing that matters.
You know Republicans control Congress, right? They wouldn’t let Maryland do what Professor Turley suggests.
“You know Republicans control Congress, right? They wouldn’t let Maryland do what Professor Turley suggests.”
Care to explain why? Assume that we “must” do something about DC. If one alternative is DC statehood with two more leftist senators and a full house member, versus making already deep blue Maryland slightly more blue, why would Republicans not choose retrocession?
You don’t know what the Republicans would vote for, but we do know Democrats are playing politics, not looking out for the people. Try thinking more rather than the typical left’s knee-jerk reaction.
*. There are many other privileges aka roadblocks to anti-lunacy that would function other than 2 senators and a rep. Abandon DC as a federal monument and retro the Maryland portion to Maryland before I’d see that.
DC is set in the Constitution of the United States. Simply clean it out from border to border leaving no stone unturned. Make it a shining example of freedom.
I’m pleased to know that we have been on the same side of this issue for years. Even though I don’t have as large a following, I have also recognized that this is a problem of politics, where we are always faced with one side that wants change, but complains when change is forced upon them in a different way.
“The deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. has led to a media and political meltdown.” (JT)
The Left’s newest bogeyman, repeated everywhere like a mantra: There is no exit strategy.
Notice what the Left is *not* concerned about: An “exit strategy” for the criminals terrorizing the innocent, and for the “homeless” polluting DC.
And the Left’s newest scare tactic: NG leave now! Or DC might turn into another Ferguson or Minneapolis.
Can someone please explain how “we will riot” is a good argument for law enforcement to stand down?
Democrats do so love their criminals. The innocent victims of the crime, not so much.
There is no emergency. President Trump didn’t like the look of the homeless encampments and he unilaterally decided to deploy federal troops and federalized the metro police to remove the eyesores he though were tarnishing his visioin of a beautiful and clean Washington D.C. Because Congress only concerned itself with what happens within the inner loop where the wealthy lobbyists and upscale manicured neighborhoods. Congress always has the power to deal with the homeless situation and the crime. They control funding and rule making and yet they spend as little as possible and create more red tape and rules to make things harder, not easier. They love the deep state as long as it serves them.
“There is no emergency. President Trump didn’t like the look of the homeless encampments and he unilaterally decided to deploy federal troops and federalized the metro police to remove the eyesores he though were tarnishing his visioin of a beautiful and clean Washington D.C. Because Congress only concerned itself with what happens within the inner loop where the wealthy lobbyists and upscale manicured neighborhoods. Congress always has the power to deal with the homeless situation and the crime. They control funding and rule making and yet they spend as little as possible and create more red tape and rules to make things harder, not easier. They love the deep state as long as it serves them.”
I see that you persist in not learning anything about the American federal system of government, or how the district functions. At least your consistent in being uninformed. The president gets to declare an emergency whether you like it or not. And do try a spellchecker once in a while, please.
“The president gets to declare an emergency whether you like it or not. And do try a spellchecker once in a while, please.”
Great. You agree with me. But we both know the president cannot just declare an emergency without cause. There must be a real emergency for him to justify deploying troops to quell crime or violence. So far he has not provided any proof other than his unsubstantiated claims. That’s a problem.
“Great. You agree with me. But we both know the president cannot just declare an emergency without cause. There must be a real emergency for him to justify deploying troops to quell crime or violence. So far he has not provided any proof other than his unsubstantiated claims. That’s a problem.”
You make one statement and then immediately counteract it. I’m starting to think that you’re just stupid and cannot actually reason or argue. The only problem here is between your ears.
No, it seems you cannot follow a conversation and/or have reading problems.
You keep saying I’m wrong without proving it. Maybe you should offer something more substantial than because-I-say-so.
“No, it seems you cannot follow a conversation and/or have reading problems.
You keep saying I’m wrong without proving it. Maybe you should offer something more substantial than because-I-say-so.”
I don’t have to prove you wrong, although you obviously are, based on the law and recent history.
Youmade the initial incorrect statements. It’s on you, bucko, to back up your position. But you can’t, because you’re wrong. Keep doubling down, but you’ll keep being wrong. It’s breathtaking to watch.
How are they incorrect? Prove them to be incorrect with evidence. I’m sure you can provide it if you already know why I’m wrong.
Dude, get a grip. You made the claim originally. You get to back it up (hard to do though, because you can’t). I don’t have to do your homework for you. Man up already, admit defeat, and slink back to the bowels of the internet.
“There is no emergency.”
To date this year in DC:
Some 112 homicides. That’s 14/month!
Some 188 car jackings. That’s about 24/month!
Please do let the victims and their loved ones know exactly when that crime wave becomes an “emergency.”
The only emergency is when their power is threatened.
You know who else doesn’t like homeless encampments? Gavin ‘Nuisance’ Newsom. After all, he ordered the clearing of homeless encampments (and their poop too) two years ago, just in time for the APEC summit meeting in San Francisco.
https://kmph.com/news/local/san-francisco-cleans-up-for-apec-summit-sparks-controversy-on-why-city-only-shines-for-world-leaders
Ironically, MSNPC’s Chris Matthews of all people, warned that if Democratic Party keep this up, choosing the side of criminals over law & order, might proof fodder for their Republican opponents in the upcoming midterm elections for their political ads. If that happens, the demwits could kiss their chances of regaining the House goodbye.
Nice column because it lays out the laws and the previous application of them. We all know that it has nothing to do with representation of the people. It has only to do with getting 2 senators and hopefully a lock on the Senate, forever. The House of Representatives is strictly an afterthought and besides they can’t gerrymander D.C. since it would only have one vote in the house. Once again it’s all about power and never giving it up. So democratic of them.
When Trump rings the bell, the democrats don’t just salivate, they actually react like slobbering mad dogs.
Meanwhile on other subjects we know now that Justice Boasberg was also on the FISA court and presided over the sentencing of Kevin Clinesmith who falsefied the warrants on Carter Page. He was sentenced to no fines, no time in jail and givn only community service.
FBI ex-head James Comey seems to be making a pitch for an insanity defense by worshipping at the alter of Taylor Swift and saying listening to her helps him fight Trump.
It’s a start but he is really going to need a lot of practice convincing a jury he has lost it.
Such a shame in a man that age.
And we should stop maligning truck drivers about Gigi. They truckers are hardworking people and they have no control over the debris that washes up at some truck stops.
But it’s early in the week.
So if retrocession actually occurred, and the District of Columbia was reduced to a small sliver of land, to include the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court, wouldn’t it still have three electoral votes in presidential elections, under the 21st amendment? Who would do the voting to determine which candidate gets those votes? The U.S. president and first lady would be the only possible residents who could vote, unless you want to include the live-in White House staff (if there are any).
“wouldn’t it still have three electoral votes in presidential elections, under the 21st amendment”
You buying the next round before you post?
“You buying the next round before you post?”
How is he wrong?
😄 Whoops! I mean, 23rd amendment. Here’s your drink: 🍺
Interesting point. Thanks for raising it.
You’re welcome. I’m thinking it could create an awkward situation within the First Family. Suppose the president was running for re-election and the vote came out tied, 1-1, for who wins DC’s 3 electoral votes. That would make for some silent times at the dinner table.
As a Marylander, NO FING WAY I want DC back.
“As a Marylander, NO FING WAY I want DC back.”
As a non-Marylander, I say tough luck 😬
I’m sorry, really, but if the alternative is DC statehood, giving us one more nutcase full house member and two more insane leftist senators, you in Maryland are going to have to bit the bullet for us on this one.
As a former long term Marylander, I agree. Why would Maryland want the crime, crumbling infrastructure, welfare bill, etc.
Congress controls Washinton D.C.’s funding and they make the rules. The question should be why isn’t Congress properly funding D.C. and it’s crumbling infrastructure besides just the natiuonal munuments and federal buildings?
You seem to assume the problem is lack of funding (by the way, DC spends more on its schools per capita than any state) and not crumbling civil order and personal responsibility,
*. Good point. Add that to the megagianthugemonolithic next Bill. Clean up DC Act.
Rowdy Yates
*. Not consuming drugs and alcohol, getting a job, church on Sundays is FREE might be an argument.
Because it would still be fully subsidized with federal money, all that money to grift. The US taxpayers, the grift that keeps on giving.
The desperation of the Democratic Party in DC is manifest in their dilemma: Return to Maryland and have representation from clowns like Raskin along with facing Baltimore in direct competition for the title ‘least desirable major city on the east coast’ (strong work Maryland) OR stay as DC and have an absolute stooge like Ankit Jain be your voice and ‘representation’.
This type of dilemma is not new. History is replete with peoples that were faced with staying under their monarch/central power and remaining on-the-dole or cutting the cord. The choice, the time and the method taken to make that choice says volumes for the people involved since the power of remaining on-the-dole can be overwhelming, right Democrats?
Your time is ripe, Democrats of DC! It is highly likely that the rest of the country would readily restore your full rights via the proven and sustainable path of retrocession. Do you have the courage to take it?
I see that we have some pretty ignorant foreign trolls stinking up the place today. I’m guessing from a parliamentary country, since both are unable to understand that the American system divides the executive and legislative branches, whereas the trolls are constantly conflating the two.
“Even, so, commentators declared a “coup” because the federal government reasserted its constitutional power over the federal district.”
Congress has constitutional power over the federal district. Not the executive branch. Trump declared an emergency when there was none and just decided to take over without any real consent from Congress. Republicans just roll over to whatever Trump demands.
“Congress has constitutional power over the federal district. Not the executive branch. Trump declared an emergency when there was none and just decided to take over without any real consent from Congress. Republicans just roll over to whatever Trump demands.”
What exactly do you think that the executive branch actually does? Since you’re so ignorant of the American system of government, I’ll let you know. The executive branch executes the law. Can you read anything about our system of government before you ignorantly mouth off again, please?
The executive branch enforces the law. The President is also the commander in Chief if the armed forces with the authority granted to him BY LAW to deploy the National Guard after declaring an emergency which he has done in D.C. The law specificallly allows him to deploy the troops for 30 days which then Congress must authrorize the deployment if the president wants to keep the Troops out longer than 30 days.
By law Congress has ultimate authority over the District of Columbia. They control funding to the district and they retain ultimate authority over rules and regulations in the district.
“The executive branch enforces the law. The President is also the commander in Chief if the armed forces with the authority granted to him BY LAW to deploy the National Guard after declaring an emergency which he has done in D.C. The law specificallly allows him to deploy the troops for 30 days which then Congress must authrorize the deployment if the president wants to keep the Troops out longer than 30 days.
By law Congress has ultimate authority over the District of Columbia. They control funding to the district and they retain ultimate authority over rules and regulations in the district.”
Wow, I see that you continue to persist in your bizarre misreading of how the district actually works. Since you weren’t taught this in your cram sessions, here’s a primer. Here in the United States, we have three branches in the federal government. They each control their own buildings. They have their own police forces. And no, they cannot just go into the housing of another branch, so-called emergency or not. Why are you having such trouble understanding this?
“They have their own police forces. And no, they cannot just go into the housing of another branch, so-called emergency or not.”
You don’t cite anthing that proves your assetion to be true.
Nothing stops a president from using emergency powers to protect or assist Congress if there is a threat. Jan 6 was just such an event and president Trump at the time did not have to wait for a request from Congress. It’s literally his constitutional duty to protect Congress from enemies foreign and domestic.
The District of Columbia is under the Authority of Congress. They control funding and make the rules. Not the executive branch which enforces the rules. Because Congress has authority over D.C. they can make rules and fund local police forces like the D.C. metro police, Capitol Police, and parks Police. They are all funded by Congress, not by the states surrounding it. The District of Columbia has it’s own National Guard which is controlled by Trump who is the commander in Chief and he is the one who can deploy them to assist the D.C. police if they get overwhelmed like they did on Jan 6. He does not need to wait for a request or permission from Congress to act if Congress is under threat.
President Trump did not need to wait or request Congress for permission to deploy the National Guard in D.C. because he declared an emergency that does not exist. The law only allows him to deploy troops for 30 days. If he wants to extend their deployment the law requires the president to ask congress to authorize a longer deployment.
On Jan 6. Trump waffled and waned on deploying troops because he wanted the rioting to continue until they either succeeded in stopping the counting of votes or they succeed taking over congress until the votes were changed in his favor. President Trump always had the authority to deploy National Guard troops that day in the absence of a Congressional request or a request by the speaker.
“On Jan 6. Trump waffled and waned on deploying troops because he wanted the rioting to continue until they either succeeded in stopping the counting of votes or they succeed taking over congress until the votes were changed in his favor. President Trump always had the authority to deploy National Guard troops that day in the absence of a Congressional request or a request by the speaker.”
Oh my god, I don’t know how many times you need to be told the same damn thing. You’re wrong. You have some grand conspiracy theory that you spun out of the fever swamps of wherever, but there was no “waffling” by Trump. He offered troops to the Congress. Pelosi, as head of the House, denied his request. End of story.
Please just stop typing. You’re wrong, and more paragraphs and paragraphs of junk doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong. Get over it, and move on. Maybe learn why you’re wrong and stop bothering everyone here with your being wrong.
“Offering” troops is weak excuse. He didn’t have to just offer troops. He had the authority to just deploy them. You have not proven that I’m wrong. Just saying I am is not proof. Cite the specific law saying Trump could not just deploy troops after declaring an emergency. He just proved he could by doing just that and deploying troops into the District.
Congress being under attack by rioters and it’s police force being overwhelmed was a legitimate reason to declare an emergency. President Trump deliberately slow walked the deployment by using the excuse of Pelosi refusing the troops Trump had every right to just deploy.
I’m not wrong because you have not shown or cited any law stating what I’m saying is wrong.
““Offering” troops is weak excuse. He didn’t have to just offer troops. He had the authority to just deploy them. You have not proven that I’m wrong. Just saying I am is not proof. Cite the specific law saying Trump could not just deploy troops after declaring an emergency. He just proved he could by doing just that and deploying troops into the District.
Congress being under attack by rioters and it’s police force being overwhelmed was a legitimate reason to declare an emergency. President Trump deliberately slow walked the deployment by using the excuse of Pelosi refusing the troops Trump had every right to just deploy.
I’m not wrong because you have not shown or cited any law stating what I’m saying is wrong.”
And you’re still wrong. Wow, you’re just going to keep doubling down on this, aren’t you? Pelosi denying Trump’s offer of troops isn’t some “excuse”, it’s the law. And that law is the Constitution. What exactly do you not understand about this?
*. Commander in chief you say anon? Sheesh, all this time I thought it said the salamander and chef.
Gosh big thanks!
“Not the executive branch.”
Hogwash.
Read the DC Home Rule Act.
Now now, we shouldn’t be so hard on our foreign trolls. It’s not like they learned any of this in their madrasas.
“The fact is, Trump has every right to deploy the National Guard in Washington and to take over the D.C. police. Those are entirely lawful and constitutional orders. Yet the New York Times appears to have changed its position on the danger of insurrection.”
Eh, President Trump can only deploy the National guard when theres a real emergency. He has been abusing emergency powers to exercise authority where he has none. Congress is the only entity that really controls the D.C.
Putting troops on the ground in D.C. as a show of force is only for his ego and assertion of authority because he needs the boost in ratings. The crime rates have been lowering for years in the D.C. area. But the president who doesn’t like numbers that contradict his personal view are labeled “fake” whenever he needs to prove he is not wrong about his personal views.
It is ironic that Trump can deploy the National Guared on short notices but he couldn’t on Jan 6.
Having Maryland take back the D.C. can only happen if Congress allows it. Congress has to approve of the change since it’s Congress who controls the district’s budgets and makes the majority of the rules.
Good grief—LEARN THE FACTS! He supplied the NG before J6 and Pelosi & DC Mayor turned him down! A fact, not disputed any longer. Turn off NPR.
“Turn off NPR.”
With federal funding pulled, NPR may turn itself off soon.
He didn’t supply anything. He suggested it while he had the power to just deploy them whenever he wanted. He didnt’ have to wait for Congress to act. He already proved it by declaring an emergency like he does with everything else.
You make it seem like Trump was powerless to bypass Congress. Clearly he’s not. President Trump demolished that old excuse with the current deployment.
“He didn’t supply anything. He suggested it while he had the power to just deploy them whenever he wanted. He didnt’ have to wait for Congress to act. He already proved it by declaring an emergency like he does with everything else.
You make it seem like Trump was powerless to bypass Congress. Clearly he’s not. President Trump demolished that old excuse with the current deployment.”
Moron, the executive branch has no authority to send troops into the legislative branch unilaterally. This is something that we in America call “separation of powers”. The president has explicit authority to use federal troops and law enforcement in the federal district otherwise. And every president has declared “emergencies” here’s a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States
Learn something before you mouth off, you’ll sound less foolish in the future.
“Moron, the executive branch has no authority to send troops into the legislative branch unilaterally.‘
Wrong. The executive branch has the authority to restore order. The. president commands the military and that includes the National Guard. He doesn’t have to wait until Congress requests it. He just proved it by deploying troops to clean up crime without Congressional request or approval.
Congress is in the federal district and CAN order Troops to restore order by dispersing the rioters. He did the same thing in LA. I wll repeat, president Trump does not need to wait for Congress to ask for assistance to control rioters attacking Congress. It’s literally his job to protect and defend Congress in such situations.
“Wrong. The executive branch has the authority to restore order. The. president commands the military and that includes the National Guard. He doesn’t have to wait until Congress requests it. He just proved it by deploying troops to clean up crime without Congressional request or approval.
Congress is in the federal district and CAN order Troops to restore order by dispersing the rioters. He did the same thing in LA. I wll repeat, president Trump does not need to wait for Congress to ask for assistance to control rioters attacking Congress. It’s literally his job to protect and defend Congress in such situations.”
You said absolutely nothing. No, the president cannot just order troops into Congress. There’s a word for that: coup. You can keep doubling down on being wrong here, but you’ll stay wrong, because you are simply wrong. There is a clear chain of command, and sorry, but your girl Pelosi was in charge of Congress, and your girl Pelosi denied troops, and that’s it. I know that you’re desperately trying to attack Trump here, but you have no argument legally.
“You said absolutely nothing. No, the president cannot just order troops into Congress.”
Yes he can. In an emergency which he can declare he is constitutionall obligated to defend Congress with or without their request. He’s the Commander in Chief. The military chain of command starts with him even with the National guard. They take orders directly from the president not Congress. Congress can request Trump for assistance which he in turn orders the troops. He does not need to wait for a request if things get out of hand like they did on Jan 6 and clearly he didn’t need to wait for their request to deploy troops in D.C. to clean up crime.
The president has to at a minimum ask Congress for permission before sending troops into their buildings. So long as there’s a working chain of civilian command in the Congress, they have final say. This is evidenced by the fact that Pelosi denied Trump’s offer of troops, and guess what, no troops were sent on January 6th.
Are you really proposing that the president be allowed to just deploy troops into the legislative and judicial branch buildings solely on his own accord, without even consulting the members of those other branches? I know that we got perilously close to banana republic status under President Autopen, but I don’t think we’re quite at that point yet.
“You make it seem like Trump was powerless to bypass Congress.”
Trump made it seem he was powerless to bypass Congress. He was “waiting” for Congress to make the request for troops when he had full authority to deploy them anytime. He wanted to let the rioters do their thing for as long as possible. The only reason why rioters stopped is when President Trump finally told them to leave. He could have done that much sooner. He clearly wanted the violence to continue.
“Trump made it seem he was powerless to bypass Congress. He was “waiting” for Congress to make the request for troops when he had full authority to deploy them anytime. He wanted to let the rioters do their thing for as long as possible. The only reason why rioters stopped is when President Trump finally told them to leave. He could have done that much sooner. He clearly wanted the violence to continue.”
Yeah, that whole pesky “follow the law” thing, it’s a real bummer that Trump didn’t just break the law and unilaterally deploy troops into the legislative branch’s building without permission. Again I ask you, can you please do the slightly bit of reading up on this topic before you post something else that is so obviously incorrect and stupid?
The law allows Trump to deploy troops to assist Congress in an emergency. He literally does not have to wait for Congress to ask.
He wouldn’t have broken the law if he uniltaterally sent the troops to help quell the rioting at the Capitol. He can do that and the law and the Constitution allow it. It’s literally part of his job as commander in chief.
“The law allows Trump to deploy troops to assist Congress in an emergency. He literally does not have to wait for Congress to ask.
He wouldn’t have broken the law if he uniltaterally sent the troops to help quell the rioting at the Capitol. He can do that and the law and the Constitution allow it. It’s literally part of his job as commander in chief.”
Oh my god. This again??? Nimrod, if Trump could have “just sent in troops” then (for the love of god why must I keep repeating this) WHY DID HE ASK FOR PERMISSION FROM THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE???? Pelosi even admitted later that she should have accepted the offer. Will you please just stop with this crap?
“President Trump demolished that old excuse with the current deployment.”
Someone does not know the difference between the requirements for deploying the NG in DC and at the Capitol Building.
Foreign troll. Doesn’t understand that we have separate executive and legislative branches. It’s screamingly obvious.
You’re f-ed up there anon.
“You’re f-ed up there anon.”
Thanks, I’ll take that as an admission that I’m right.
It’s irrelevant. Trump is tasked by law to protect congress from enemies foreign and domestic. It gives him the power to deploy the troops, the national guard, to restore order or protect Congress when the metropolitan police, park police, and Captiol police cannot maintain order or defend the Capitol. It’s literally his most important job. He does not need to wait for permission from Congress to act.
“He does not need to wait for permission from Congress to act.”
Okay, Generalissimo Anonymous 🫡
“It is ironic that Trump can deploy the National Guared on short notices but he couldn’t on Jan 6.”
Ask Pelosi about that one. She had control of Congress, not Trump. She denied Trump’s offer of protection. Talk about ego, sheesh. You’re really bad at this.
Trump didn’t need permission from Congress. He just proved that by deploying them without congressional imput.
Trump could have just declared an emergency and deployed the troops. The truth is he didn’t want to stop the rioting because it was beneficial to his plan to stop the counting of electoral votes. Trump who is the commander in chief and has the authority to federalize the National Guard could have acted more swiftly than Congress. President Trump didn’t want to stop the rioting until they succeeded. But his staff at the time were adamant he stop and he refused for hours.
“Trump didn’t need permission from Congress. He just proved that by deploying them without congressional imput.
Trump could have just declared an emergency and deployed the troops. The truth is he didn’t want to stop the rioting because it was beneficial to his plan to stop the counting of electoral votes. Trump who is the commander in chief and has the authority to federalize the National Guard could have acted more swiftly than Congress. President Trump didn’t want to stop the rioting until they succeeded. But his staff at the time were adamant he stop and he refused for hours.”
No he couldn’t, you absolute idiot. The executive cannot just send police or troops into the Congress, presidential declaration of emergency or not. Do you know anything about the American system of government? Can you please ask your handlers to give you a primer before you continue to make an ass out of yourself here?
“That left the triangle of territory from Maryland.”
Ummm…parallelogram?
I don’t know how to make these pictures show up, but they seem apropos: https://www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2025/08/1755222206520blob.png
https://www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2025/08/GyZRHAgXwAMe_4d.jpeg
How about a hybrid solution? Let DC residents get MD voting rights but leave administration of DC to the feds?
Shrink the district to just the federal buildings, and have no DC residents other than the President and immediate family in the White House. Give everything back to Maryland. Problem solved.
The left just wants two more senators and a full voting house member. Don’t let this happen.
Yes, an excellent article. As a former DC resident I knew all this for decades and can attest to the fact that whenever I mentioned “retrocession” at any cocktail party in DC, after some far-Leftie bloviated about the lack of voting rights in Congress, and when I pointed out that “retrocession” has worked just fine for people of Arlington and Alexandria VA, it would set off the usual string of insults that I was a “Nazi” and a “racist”.
One such Leftie did actually explain the real basis for Democrats continuing to strongly oppose retrocession to Maryland. Arlington and Alexandria (formerly the Virginia originated parts of DC) are “deep blue” and their joining Virginia has turned that otherwise very red state into a purple one. So Democrats benefit significantly from that retrocession. Maryland, on the other hand, is already deep blue, meaning that the Democrats would gain nothing, as a party, from Maryland annexing the rest of deep blue DC. Hence, the continuing rejection of retrocession and the continuing demand for DC statehood. Pure politics.
Professor Turley knows that there is no way to have a rational and respectful discussion with these folks. One reason I now live happily in Florida.
The question not being asked is if Republicans would be ok with retrocession? I don’t think Republicans would accept that at all. Since Congress is controlled by Republicans there is no way they would even allow Maryland or Virginia to take back their respective pieces of land from Congressional control.
“The question not being asked is if Republicans would be ok with retrocession? I don’t think Republicans would accept that at all. Since Congress is controlled by Republicans there is no way they would even allow Maryland or Virginia to take back their respective pieces of land from Congressional control”
Here we go again with you. Did you even read the article? Did you know anything about this subject? Congress already gave Virginia back their section of DC. And why would Republicans care if some Democrat voters when from being DC residents to MD residents? Maryland is already a deep blue state! It changes nothing politically. Can you PLEASE read anything about a topic before you mouth off?
Absolutely correct.
*. You say, a deep blue State. It is a deeply drugged with crack place with off the charts violent crime so yes, it’s deep blue.
The scotus, WH, congress buildings might be retired as national monuments. The Capitol can be relocated to another State with better weather and population. DC is deadly.
*. Hey, redraw the DC boundaries to INCLUDE the whole of Maryland excepting the sliver. Yes. Rename it Maryland DC ☺. Inclusivity.
Where there’s a will there’s a way.
If it keeps DC from getting a full house member and two senators, why would Republicans care if deep-blue Maryland is made an even deeper shade of blue? You make no sense, as usual.
Absolutely correct.
Outstanding lesson in history and political science! Every reader should circulate it.
state that excels education? Have you looked at Baltimore Benjamin Franklin High School at Masonville Cove?
Graduation rate 47%? Reading Proficiency 8%?
Time END Public Unions….who wish failure…to create more jobs and high pay for themselves!
If JFK can create public unions, Trump can END THEM!
“Graduation rate 47%? Reading Proficiency 8%?”
Yes, but the children will now be dependent on government for the rest of their lives, and therefore will always vote for the party of big goverment, i.e., the Democrats. Therefore, Democrats consider this to be a win. The collateral damage done to students and their communities is irrelevant to them. The Democrat elite never live there anyway, they don’t send their kids to these failed schools, they have their own private security instead of relying on the defunded police.
It’s still better than Oklahoma being dead last in academic achievement.
“It’s still better than Oklahoma being dead last in academic achievement.”
But they’re excelling in not butchering their children via “gender reassignment” so they have that going for them.
So you characterize a school district’s performance based on a single school’s performance.
Gee Wally, maybe because it’s a school in the district? If you think that it’s some outlier, show your own data.
Just like an academic. Retrocession? Turley really is a bomb throwing liberal.
Too bad he has no real experience.
“Just like an academic. Retrocession? Turley really is a bomb throwing liberal.
Too bad he has no real experience.”
Didn’t read the article at all, did you Gigi? This has been done before.
The loser claims. Talk about experience.
Please type away
How this is an academic exercise if what Turley proposes has been done already? Isn’t that the definition of not being purely academic? Do you ever get tired of own goaling?
Is this the best you can do? Thinly veiled mimicry and slogans? Tragic….but such is the life of a Democratic Party stooge, eh?
“Is this the best you can do?”
While Gigi here is a truly useless commenter during the day, the truckers have only great things to say about her night job behind the dumpsters.
Excellent article. Learned something today.
Nice. You’re doing much better than our trolls who persist in not understanding any of this topic. They have a lot of opinions, however. Oh boy do they have opinions.