Barbara wrote:
> > Why did the so-called
> > Founding Fathers set it up this way in the beginning?
> maybe michael can come to my rescue again? i'm sure >he's got this down
better than i do. this may be a real botch >job, but this is what i
remember from the last time i read >about it. initially, the city of DC had
different boundaries - >part of it was in virginia, part in maryland. the
"district" part >of it was all fed (there's definitely some stuff in the
>constitution about it, but i unfortunately don't remember that >part).
later, when the boundaries moved, i think we still >voted in the other
states. in the early 70s, "home rule" was >determined, as the surrounding
states weren't doing much >for us.
I asked a friend and all he could recall was that they wanted it to remain
"neutral" in the beginning. For some reason, that makes me think of a type
of Vatican state! I always thought it was a strange thing and wondered why
the adjoining states could not absorb parts of it. It's got to change and
I'm sure it will - the theory of keeping it somehow apart is too
anachronistic.
Kakki
