|
 |
 |
|
‘By the People of the Several States’
-
02/24/09 07:43 AM ET
Earlier today the U.S. Senate cleared a procedural vote that will allow a bill to reach the floor to allow voting representation for the District of Columbia in the United States House of Representatives. That we've reached this point, where the direct words of the Constitution are ignored regarding how composition of the House shall be formed, is nothing less than stunning.
Consider the following, from Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (I), a man I genuinely admire for his independence and strong support for the protection of Americans from terrorist attacks. During his remarks on the Senate floor this morning, Lieberman noted that citizens of our nation's capital are "the only residents of a democratically ruled national capital in the world who have no say" in how their nation is governed. "It's time to right this injustice," Lieberman said.
I have no problem with Lieberman's sentiment, except that, as articulated above, Article I of the Constitution plainly states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states."
Lest you accuse me of being inhumane or indifferent to the lack of voting status for those living in the District, Article I continues by noting that Congress has the ability to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District ... as may be, by cession of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States." Even the Constitution prescribes that the District of Columbia itself should be formed from land given to it from states. Ladies and gentlemen, the District of Columbia is not a state and the Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall be formed by people of the several states.
But here's where I differ with my Republican colleagues: I say, let the bills pass the House and Senate and be presented to President Obama for his signature. Immediately thereafter, a lawsuit would commence and the case would wind itself to the Supreme Court to serve as the ultimate arbiter of this issue.
For too long, Republicans have been castigated as being racist and insensitive and treating the District as the last plantation in America. Republican politicians would be wise to allow these political arguments to fall by the wayside by allowing the disposition of the District of Columbia to be decided by the High Court. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution — let us allow it to settle this issue once and for all.
Consider the following, from Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (I), a man I genuinely admire for his independence and strong support for the protection of Americans from terrorist attacks. During his remarks on the Senate floor this morning, Lieberman noted that citizens of our nation's capital are "the only residents of a democratically ruled national capital in the world who have no say" in how their nation is governed. "It's time to right this injustice," Lieberman said.
I have no problem with Lieberman's sentiment, except that, as articulated above, Article I of the Constitution plainly states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states."
Lest you accuse me of being inhumane or indifferent to the lack of voting status for those living in the District, Article I continues by noting that Congress has the ability to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District ... as may be, by cession of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States." Even the Constitution prescribes that the District of Columbia itself should be formed from land given to it from states. Ladies and gentlemen, the District of Columbia is not a state and the Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall be formed by people of the several states.
But here's where I differ with my Republican colleagues: I say, let the bills pass the House and Senate and be presented to President Obama for his signature. Immediately thereafter, a lawsuit would commence and the case would wind itself to the Supreme Court to serve as the ultimate arbiter of this issue.
For too long, Republicans have been castigated as being racist and insensitive and treating the District as the last plantation in America. Republican politicians would be wise to allow these political arguments to fall by the wayside by allowing the disposition of the District of Columbia to be decided by the High Court. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution — let us allow it to settle this issue once and for all.
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
Comments (27)
The expansion of powers that started under FDR, the involvement of the Federal government in housing, health, welfare, education, you name it is unconstitutiona l. The lack of protection of the borders of the United States is unconstitutiona l. The attempts to regulate free speech and firearms by the Federal government are unconstitutiona l. The Supreme Court has taken two positions: anybody but who they consider worthy "lacks standing" to address constitutional issues and in general "the will of the people" overrides the Constitution. Why are you surprised at this little shenanigan?BY Jerry on 02/24/2009 at 13:50
What's really head-spinning is that if the Republican Party wants to be popular it can just re-adopt and push through the Equal Rights Amendment, and add to that popularity by giving the District of Columbia representation in Congress. Sure, they'd lose a lot of their "base", but they'd gain a whole new base and one that is growing rather than shrinking. I can't for the life of me understand why Republicans don't want to be popular.BY Barry Schwartz on 02/24/2009 at 15:01
As a tax paying resident of teh District of Columbia, I must take issue with Ron and your interpetation of the vote. We in DC pay federal taxes, fight and die in our country's wars and have folks who don't pay taxes in DC trying to dictate what we can and cannot do with our own money. Given that most of you blowhards don't contribute to our city but take from it, I challenge you to get with your like minded friend and propose that DC resident never pay another dime of federal taxes. When that happens then I'll take your and Ron's post under consideration. Also, Ron after that interview on Hardball where you looked like a fool, your opinions should be kept to yourself.BY Mike Coleman on 02/24/2009 at 15:03
They never envisioned that the actual population of the capitol city would be completely superflous.
They naturally assumed the members of the political elite would actually live in the capitol city. They hadn't thought about "toney" suburbs.BY pghremodeler on 02/24/2009 at 19:51
The Constitution is a living document that has been revised numerous times. Denying American Citizen a representative in Congress is as bad as taxzation without representation.BY Mike Coleman on 02/25/2009 at 13:19
As for "lack of standing", exactly..we can't allow every wingnut to waste the SCOTUS' time with frivolous suits.BY Theard on 02/25/2009 at 15:22
I wonder if u were equally outraged then?BY Theard on 02/25/2009 at 16:22
Add Comment