« "Ridiculous" As I Might Appear | Main | Where Is Ken's Pogo Stick »

January 02, 2007

State's Rights...

Without being a state?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- After more than 200 years of paying taxes, fighting in the nation's wars and abiding by sometimes arbitrary acts of Congress, Washington residents are close to getting a full-fledged representative in the House.

The turning point in this long battle for enfranchisement may be an unlikely partnership with the people of Utah.

The new Democratic majority, in the first months of the new Congress, is expected to take up a bill that would increase the voting membership of the House from 435 to 437, giving new vote each to Utah, a Republican stronghold, and the District of Columbia, dominated by Democrats.

I just don't see (in the case of D.C.) how this is legal.

Some progress was made: The 23rd Amendment in 1961 gave D.C. residents the right to vote in presidential elections. In 1971 Congress allowed the district to send a nonvoting delegate to the House. Currently, along with delegates from American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton can cast votes at the committee level but not on the House floor.

Congress also gave the district limited home rule in the 1970s, and in 1978 approved a constitutional amendment extending voting rights. The amendment died when it was not ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Most -- but by no means all -- scholars say an amendment is unnecessary. The Constitution says that the House shall be composed of members chosen by "the people of the several states." But it also gives Congress the power "to exercise exclusive legislation" over the seat of the federal government, interpreted by some to mean that Congress can, if it wants, give D.C. voting rights.

How can an amendment not be necessary? Look, don't get me wrong, I think that all citizens should have all the rights of every other citizen, but the Constitution is to my reading very very clear:

Article 1

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

...but each state shall have at least one Representative;

You sensing a theme here? It doesn't say 'city'. It doesn't say 'territory'. It says quite clearly and solely "state". I don't see how you get around that. Here's the other passage the article references:

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, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

This passage clearly gives Congress the power to issue legislation governing D.C., but it seems a pretty creative read to say that it gives Congress the ability to give D.C. full voting representation in Congress.

If this goes through then how do you deny D.C. 2 Senators, as well?

If the citizens of D.C. desire congressional representation then they should petition Congress to be admitted as a state, or Congress should write an Amendment to the Constitution specifically granting D.C. a Representative but not two Senators and submit it to the states for ratification.

But this unconstitutional method should not be allowed.

Posted by Mr. Bingley at January 2, 2007 02:02 PM

Comments

But the people of the District are known for their impeccable intellect and clarity of all things political. How else do you explain the re-election of Mr. Marion "yeah,I inhaled but y'all entrapped me" Barry? Guess he'll be a Congressman now.

Posted by: major dad at January 2, 2007 02:52 PM

Want full voting enfranchisement?

Move out of DC.

Posted by: mojo at January 2, 2007 03:55 PM

My thoughts exactly, mojo. The Hippy Dippy Weatherman sprung to mind.

"If you don't like the weather...move."

Posted by: tree hugging sister at January 2, 2007 05:19 PM

The easiest way to give DC residents representation in both chambers of Congress would be to retrocede most of the District to Maryland, just as Alexandria was returned to Virginia. Of course, the problem with this is that Maryland doesn't WANT it.

Posted by: Dave J at January 2, 2007 08:58 PM

"...the problem with this is that Maryland doesn't WANT it."

So? Give it to the United Nations. It practically qualifies for a UN peace keeping force.

Posted by: The_Real_JeffS at January 2, 2007 09:08 PM

That's actually not fair, Jeff, because it's only true of about a third or so of the District.

Posted by: Dave J at January 2, 2007 09:25 PM

So be proportional, Dave. Give that 1/3 to the UN, and we reduce our contribution to their budget by 67%.

Posted by: The_Real_JeffS at January 3, 2007 12:06 AM

(" It practically qualifies for a UN peace keeping force." Hahahahaha, snort!! Truer words...)

Posted by: tree hugging sister at January 3, 2007 09:52 AM