The problem with this legislation, and of other, similar legislation over the years, is that the Constitution limits representation in Congress to the states. The District of Columbia is not a state; therefore, it cannot have a voting representative in the House, nor can it have two senators, as all states are allowed. And don't doubt that, if this bill passes, Senate representation will not be far behind. Previously, advocates have proposed statehood for the District of Columbia, but it is obvious that statehood for a city of a few square miles was never envisioned by the Constitution.
The Constitution, in Article I, clearly states that "the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen ... by the people of the several states" and members shall be "an inhabitant of the state in which he shall be chosen." The Constitution also refers to vacancies "in the representation from any state." "State ... state ... state" — it's abundantly clear that the Founding Fathers were establishing a legislature composed of representatives from the states.
In Section 8 of Article I, the Constitution gives Congress "exclusive" authority over a "district" that might be ceded by the states for a seat of government. This is an area ceded by the states but is not, by definition, a state. It's a district.
But what of the civil rights of residents of D.C.? Some proclaim that they are suffering "taxation without representation." That is only partially true. Since 1960, D.C. residents have counted in presidential elections, and they have had a non-voting representative in the U.S. House for decades. But their voting power is less than that of citizens of the states.
There's a simple solution for this slight, however. Congress can exercise its exclusive authority to shrink the size of the District of Columbia, to limit this seat of government to no more than the Capitol and its accessory structures, the Supreme Court building, the White House and executive offices, the National Mall and the national museums and monuments nearby, and the Executive Branch buildings and offices. The remainder of the district could be returned to Maryland, which ceded it to the federal government 200 years ago. Virginia had given a similar size parcel to the feds at the same time but took it (present-day Arlington) back when the government built the Capitol, White House and other structures on the Maryland side of the Potomac. As residents of Maryland, the former D.C. residents would have full voting rights, a voting representative in the House and two U.S. senators. Problem solved.
But this controversy is not really about civil rights, it's about political power. Adding a new reliably Democratic representative to the House (and eventually two new Democrats to the U.S. Senate) would give Democrats greater power on Capitol Hill. And let's not let the Constitution get in the way of a grab for political power.
Posts
4 comments:
...
...they are just trying to find a spot for Marion. You know Marion Barry. Forgot about Mr Barry? Here is a recap:
Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr. (born March 6, 1936), is an American politician who served as the second elected mayor of the District of Columbia from 1979 to 1991, and again as the fourth mayor from 1995 to 1999. He was the target of a high-profile 1990 arrest on drug charges, which precluded him from seeking reelection that year. After he was convicted of the charges, Barry served six months in prison, but was elected to the D.C. city council in 1992 and ultimately returned to the mayoralty in 1994, serving from 1995 to 1999
Follow the Constitution guys.
First of all, to assume the Democrats would automatically benefit is just that. An assumption.
Funny. When we tamper with the Constitution people claim foul. UNLESS of course it's to deny people equal rights. Then, and only then it's ok to amend. I think the word I am thinking of here is hypocrisy.
Fyi, DC is approx. 70 sq. miles. Not a "few". Although I would be more inclined to take population into consideration. DC has more people living in it then the entire state of Wyoming.
...
....similar to the one time quote Sen Jesse Helms mistakenly(they say) was referenced to saying about Chapel Hill....
....Washington DC needs a big razor-wire fence installed all around DC proper so the corrupted and the animals cannot get out. And the animals run from the halls of congress to the top city jobs to the street thugs.
We have enough problems in our world than to allow 'citizens' of DC any political power whatsoever. Hippoctitical or not. Our Forefathers had such keen insight.
de Bivar says it's an assumption to say that D.C. would elect Democrats to Congress. I think that's a pretty safe assumption. According to the D.C. Board of Elections, as of Feb. 28, 2009, 319,857 D.C. voters are registered Democratic and 30,131 are registered Republican. That's a 10-1 margin for the Democrats, who have 75 percent of the total electorate compared to 7 percent for the Republicans. It's true that D.C. has a slightly larger population than Wyoming, but it is still less than the population of the "standard" congressional district, which is 646,952, based on the 2000 census. At 68 square miles, D.C. would be less than one-20th of the next smallest state, Rhode Island, at 1,545 square miles.
To the anonymous commenters, I am entirely in favor of providing D.C. residents the vote; I just think it should follow the Constitution, and the simplest way to do that is to reassign those voters to Maryland.
Post a Comment