No, Valwinz is correct. It is specifically written in the Constitution that Washington D.C. is not and cannot be a separate state. Quoted from Time.com...
Source: https://time.com/4296175/washington-dc-statehood-history/
So, if I understand the article correctly, they made sure that the capital of the country was not in any specific state because that state would therefore have more authority than all of the others. D.C. being a separate state would also give the local state-level government the ability to attempt to interfere with federal government. It's not a perfect solution, as while D.C. does have representation in the Electoral College, it does not have representation in Congress as each member of Congress represents their home state.
But the lack of statehood for the capital is enshrined in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the document 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.”
James Madison outlined the reasoning behind this provision in Federalist 43, calling the arrangement an “indispensable necessity.” He wrote, “The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it… Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.”
In other words, 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.
Source: https://time.com/4296175/washington-dc-statehood-history/
So, if I understand the article correctly, they made sure that the capital of the country was not in any specific state because that state would therefore have more authority than all of the others. D.C. being a separate state would also give the local state-level government the ability to attempt to interfere with federal government. It's not a perfect solution, as while D.C. does have representation in the Electoral College, it does not have representation in Congress as each member of Congress represents their home state.
Last edited by Kurt91,