Idiots and a DC Vote
Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) is trying to pass a bill that would give a vote in Congress to the Representative from Washington, DC.
This could not be more clearly unconstitutional. Article I specifically denotes that Representatives are elected by the people of the different States. There is no question whatsoever about this.*
But for some reason, the Constitution is not a good enough to vote against the bill according to Davis, who said on NewsHour this week:
Um. Whatever the motives of people are for using the argument, the argument is completely sound. You are sponsoring an illegal law.
I wouldn't actually mind an exception carved out in the Constitution, in the form of an amendment, for the District. The District was not envisioned as a population center, so fine, let's fix the problem: but only by amending the Constitution. The District has been Constitutionally special since the beginning.
I don't know what form that exception should take, exactly. I don't like trying to "balance" it by giving an extra representative to Utah: each state should have its proper representation. I figure the most logical thing to do -- that would have a chance of passing, and would follow existing precedent -- would be to determine its representation in Congress the same way their electoral college representation is determined as per the 23rd Amendment, so they would get one.
*Sure, some lawyers disagree, and every one of them should be disbarred for being idiots, including Ken Starr. Starr had the gall to claim that the same people who wrote and passed the Constitution, and who established the District, somehow actually intended for the District to have voting representation ... but just never got around to it. And certainly the people of the U.S. don't think the Constitution should be interpreted that way, because at the time of the 23rd Amendment's passing in 1960, they could have rectified this situation by simply adding it to the proposed amendment.
This could not be more clearly unconstitutional. Article I specifically denotes that Representatives are elected by the people of the different States. There is no question whatsoever about this.*
But for some reason, the Constitution is not a good enough to vote against the bill according to Davis, who said on NewsHour this week:
You have a lot of members who are opposing this saying it's unconstitutional, we need a constitutional amendment. So when you go up and say, well, will you join me then in supporting a constitutional amendment to give the city a right to vote? They say "Oh, no. I won't do that." So it's kind of an excuse as you go.
Um. Whatever the motives of people are for using the argument, the argument is completely sound. You are sponsoring an illegal law.
I wouldn't actually mind an exception carved out in the Constitution, in the form of an amendment, for the District. The District was not envisioned as a population center, so fine, let's fix the problem: but only by amending the Constitution. The District has been Constitutionally special since the beginning.
I don't know what form that exception should take, exactly. I don't like trying to "balance" it by giving an extra representative to Utah: each state should have its proper representation. I figure the most logical thing to do -- that would have a chance of passing, and would follow existing precedent -- would be to determine its representation in Congress the same way their electoral college representation is determined as per the 23rd Amendment, so they would get one.
*Sure, some lawyers disagree, and every one of them should be disbarred for being idiots, including Ken Starr. Starr had the gall to claim that the same people who wrote and passed the Constitution, and who established the District, somehow actually intended for the District to have voting representation ... but just never got around to it. And certainly the people of the U.S. don't think the Constitution should be interpreted that way, because at the time of the 23rd Amendment's passing in 1960, they could have rectified this situation by simply adding it to the proposed amendment.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment