On the anniversary of the day that Marbury vs. Madison created the notion of "judicial review", I rise in support of the US Constitution and the Supreme Court's mandate to interpret it with respect to DC Voting Rights.
Article I, Section 8, US Constitution:
"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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"
Article I, Section 2, US Constitution:
"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."
Article I, Section 3, US Constitution:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."
Article V, US Constitution:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Our framers created the Federal district, and specified in its creation its nature distinct, separate and apart from "the several States". Our framers also created our bi-cameral federal legislature, comprised of a House of Representatives and a Senate, both of which specified a link to a "State". Our framers in Article V gave to us a two methods of altering the document they created, something done 27 times in the past 220 years.
Granting the District of Columbia full voting rights in the House and or Senate is blatantly unconstitutional, and the pre-ordained success of such a move in Congress must be met with a strong judicial challenge. I support the District obtaining full voting rights in both chambers; our founders never conceived of the federal district as a full time residence for half a million people. But I support the Constitution with far more loyalty, and in their wisdom, they gave us the means and methods to account for their lack of omniscience. We call it "amending the Constitution" and that's how DC should obtain congressional voting rights, irrespective of what the Washington Post says.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Yeah, but that's going to be really HARD! So can't we just take a Constitutional shortcut? C'mon CW, how else will those who repeatedly elect Marion Barry get their national representation? We can only hope that Crackhead, Tax Dodger, Repeat DUI Offender, Public Fund Embezzler and "Mayor for Life" Marion Barry will someday add US Senator or US Congressman to his list of accomplishments. But only if DC gets such voting rights as those who choose (that's right CHOOSE) to live in ANY OTHER PIECE OF LAND IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OUTSIDE THE 10 SQUARE MILES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. And I have to laugh every time I see the "Taxation without Representation" in a city where somewhere around 70 of the residents are recipients, not providers of tax dollars. Taxation without representation indeed. BTW, Orrin Hatch is complicit in the bill that Joe Lieberman puts forth every new session of the Senate. He wants another US Rep from Utah. Any effort to drive this back into a constitutional discussion ought to include correspondence with Sen Hatch.
That should be "...OUTSIDE THE 100 SQUARE MILES..."
Good George Will piece this past Sunday on this topic as well.
Maybe it is because humans are, on average, 60% water that many of us often seek the path of least resistance.
Post a Comment