District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

History

The passage of the Residence Act in 1790 created a new federal district that would become the capital of the United States. Formed from land donated by the states of Maryland and Virginia, the capital territory already included two large settlements at its creation: the port of Georgetown, Maryland and the town of Alexandria, Virginia. A new capital city named in honor of President George Washington was founded to the east of Georgetown in 1791.

Shortly after establishing operations in the new capital, Congress passed the Organic Act of 1801, which organized the federal territory. The territory within the federal district east of the Potomac formed the new County of Washington, which was governed by a levy court consisting of seven to eleven Justices of the Peace appointed by the President, and was governed by Maryland law as of 1801. The area west of the river became Alexandria County which was governed by Virginia law. In addition, Congress allowed the cities of Washington, Alexandria and Georgetown to each maintain their own municipal governments. In 1846 Alexandria County was returned by Congress to the state of Virginia.

The outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861 led to notable growth in the capital’s population due to the expansion of the federal government and a large influx of emancipated slaves.^[2] By 1870, the District’s population had grown 75% to nearly 132,000 residents.^[3] Growth was even more dramatic within the County of Washington, where the population more than doubled as people escaped the crowded city.^[4]

The individual local governments within the District were insufficient to handle the population growth. Living conditions were poor throughout the capital, which still had dirt roads and lacked basic sanitation. The situation was so bad that some lawmakers in Congress even suggested moving the capital out further west, but President Ulysses S. Grant refused to consider the proposals.^[5]

Effect

Instead, Congress passed the Organic Act of 1871, which revoked the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and combined them with Washington County to create a unified territorial government for the entire District of Columbia.^[6] The new government consisted of an appointed governor and 11-member council, a locally elected 22-member assembly, and a board of public works charged with modernizing the city.^[7] The Seal of the District of Columbia features the date 1871, recognizing the year the District’s government was incorporated.^[8]

The Act did not establish a new city or city government within the District. Regarding a city , it stated that “the District of Columbia be, and is hereby, declared to be the successor of said corporations (Washington and Georgetown)”. In the present day, the name “Washington” is commonly used to refer to the entire District, but there is no longer an official entity in the District by that name.^[9]

In 1873, President Grant appointed an influential member of the board of public works, Alexander Robey Shepherd, to the post of governor. Shepherd authorized large-scale municipal projects, which greatly modernized Washington. In doing so however, the governor spent three times the money that had been budgeted for capital improvements, bankrupting the city.^[10] In 1874, Congress replaced the District’s quasi-elected territorial government with an appointed three-member Board of Commissioners. Direct rule by Congress continued until the passage of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act in 1973.^[11]

---

District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801

Subsequent history

On May 3, 1802, the City of Washington was granted a municipal government consisting of a mayor appointed by the President of the United States. The portion of the District of Columbia ceded by Virginia was returned to that state in 1846-47.^[3] The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 replaced the municipal governments of the City of Washington, Georgetown, and Washington County with a single, unified government for the whole District.

District voting rights

Following the passage of this Act, residents of the District of Columbia were no longer considered to be residents of either Maryland or Virginia. This left District residents unable to vote for members of Congress. They have voted in Presidential elections since the adoption of the Twenty third Amendment in 1961 (which first applied in the election of 1964). District residents are represented in the House of Representatives by a non-voting delegate who can vote in committee and participate in debate, but cannot vote for final passage of a bill in the House. There have been several efforts to give the inhabitants of the District representation.^[4]

See also

• Residence Act, 1790 Act of Congress that set where along the Potomac River the permanent capital of the United States would be established
• United States v. More (1805)

Notes

 

• “Statutes at Large, 6th Congress, 2nd Session”. A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875. Library of Congress. Retrieved 2008-07-10.
• Organic Act, Section 3.
• ch. 35, 9 Stat. 35.

“Statement on the subject of The District of Columbia Fair and Equal Voting Rights Acts” (PDF). American Bar Association. 2006-09-14. Retrieved 2008-07-10.

060914testimony_dcvoting

---

The District of Columbia Home Rule Act is a United States federal law passed on December 24, 1973 which devolved certain congressional powers of the District of Columbia to local government, furthering District of Columbia home rule. In particular, it includes the District Charter (also called the Home Rule Charter), which provides for an elected mayor and the Council of the District of Columbia. The council is composed of a chairman elected at large and twelve members, four of whom are elected at large, and one from each of the District’s eight wards. Council members are elected to four-year terms.

Under the “Home Rule” government, Congress reviews all legislation passed by the council before it can become law and retains authority over the District’s budget. Also, the president appoints the District’s judges, and the District still has no voting representation in Congress. Because of these and other limitations on local government, many citizens of the District continue to lobby for the greater autonomy, such as full statehood.

The Home Rule Act specifically prohibits the Council from enacting certain laws that, among other restrictions, would:^[1]

• lend public credit for private projects;
• impose a tax on individuals who work in the District but live elsewhere;
• make any changes to the Heights of Buildings Act of 1910;
• pass any law changing the composition or jurisdiction of the local courts;
• enact a local budget that is not balanced; and
• gain any additional authority over the National Capital Planning Commission, Washington Aqueduct, or District of Columbia National Guard.

Laws blocked by Congress

The Home Rule Act gives Congress the authority to block any laws passed by the D.C. council. Since its enactment, Congress has exercised this power several times.^[2]

• In 1988, Congress voted to block D.C. from expending local funds to cover abortion services through Medicaid. This was repealed in 2009 but then reinstated in 2011.^[2]
• Passed by the D.C. Council in 1992, the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act, which allowed both gay and straight couples to register as domestic partners, allowing familial recognition for such things as hospital visits, and allows the partners of D.C. government employees to purchase private health insurance, was blocked by Congress. The act was finally allowed to go into effect in 2001.^[3]
• In 1996, the D.C. Council passed a clean needle exchange program law. However, in 1998, Congress voted to block the law.^[4][3][5] In 2007, Congress voted to lift the ban, thus allowing the law to go into effect.^[6]
• In 1998, Congress voted to block Initiative 59 – Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998 – via the Barr amendment. This also caused the result of the referendum to be withheld.^[7] When this was challenged in court, it was determined that withholding the result of the referendum violated the First Amendment. In response to this, another amendment was passed in 2000 that simply overturned Initiative 59.^[7] In 2009, Congress voted to overturn the ban on Initiative 59, allowing D.C.’s medical marijuana law to go into effect,^[8][9] with the first medical marijuana sale occurring in 2013.^[10]
• In 2014, Congress voted to block Initiative 71 – Legalization of Possession of Minimal Amounts of Marijuana for Personal Use Act of 2014 – by blocking funds from being used to enact laws, rules or regulations for reducing or legalizing any Schedule I drug.^[11] However, since this was passed after the results of Initiative 71 had already been announced, it did not prevent the legalization of marijuana, but had the effect of leaving marijuana legal, but without the authority to expend funds on enacting regulations or taxation.^[12][13][14]  

---

Law of the United States

The law of the United States comprises many levels^[1] of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the United States Constitution, which prescribes the foundation of the federal government of the United States, as well as various civil liberties. The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of Acts of Congress,^[2] treaties ratified by the Senate,^[3] regulations promulgated by the executive branch,^[4] and case law originating from the federal judiciary.^[5] The United States Code is the official compilation and codification of general and permanent federal statutory law.

Federal law and treaties, so long as they are in accordance with the Constitution, preempt conflicting state and territorial laws in the 50 U.S. states and in the territories.^[6] However, the scope of federal preemption is limited because the scope of federal power is not universal. In the dual-sovereign^[7] system of American federalism (actually tripartite^[8] because of the presence of Indian reservations), states are the plenary sovereigns, each with their own constitution, while the federal sovereign possesses only the limited supreme authority enumerated in the Constitution.^[9] Indeed, states may grant their citizens broader rights than the federal Constitution as long as they do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights.^[10][11] Thus, most U.S. law (especially the actual “living law” of contract, tort, property, criminal, and family law experienced by the majority of citizens on a day-to-day basis) consists primarily of state law, which can and does vary greatly from one state to the next.^[12][13]

At both the federal and state levels, with the exception of the state of Louisiana, the law of the United States is largely derived from the common law system of English law, which was in force at the time of the American Revolutionary War.^[14][15] However, American law has diverged greatly from its English ancestor both in terms of substance and procedure^[16] and has incorporated a number of civil law innovations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States