Democrats Still Hate the Rule of Law

The push to give the District of Columbia a vote in Congress is one more example in a long line, of antipathy for the rule of law.

The Constitution is clear that all members of the House of Representatives come from states. Three qualifications are listed for its members: that they are 25 years old, citizens of the U.S. for 7 years, and inhabitants of the state they represent in Congress. And it gives a method for apportionment of Representatives, and that it is per state.

It is absolutely and unequivocally unconstitutional for anyone who is not representing a state to be a member of the House. And yet, the Senate voted to give D.C. a seat in the House. Incredibly, most news outlets say things like "opponents say" it is unconstitutional, or at most, that it is "probably" unconstitutional. No: there is simply no possible way for it to be constitutional.

If you think D.C. should get a seat in the House, fine, but there's only one legal way to do it: amend the Constitution. That's what we did to give D.C. electoral college representation.

I am not against this. D.C. was never intended to be heavily populated, but it is, and so reconsidering the original purpose of it, especially in light of the representation of its inhabitants in the federal government, is reasonable. But it is absolutely illegal for D.C. to have a vote in the electoral college or House of Representatives without amending the Constitution.

Many people believe that the law should be followed. We believe that if the Constitution says to do something, you should do it. We believe that the law matters. If you don't like the law, change it, but don't ignore it. Ignoring the law is rule of men; following it is rule of law.

The problem with rule of men is that it is arbitrary, and therefore not a reliable protector of rights. Your rights as expressed in the Constitution are only as valuable as the inclination of your government officials to agree with them. That is not how a constitutional republic works. It is not how your rights are protected.

Democrats -- at least, their leadership -- almost universally follow the rule of man, and reject the rule of law. This is why you have Democrats decrying the Lilly Ledbetter decision, and their liberal justices opposing that decision -- despite the fact that it was correct according to the law -- because they believed the law should not be what it is.

That is why you have a liberal justice who writes a book explaining why he doesn't follow the Constitution.

This is why you have President Obama and his people opposing an individual right to keep and bear arms (despite his claims to the contrary: his actual positions, such as favoring the DC gun ban, speak more loudly than his dishonest rhetoric).

This is why you have Mayor Nickels trying to ban guns on city property, despite state law saying that's illegal.

This is why you have the Democrats throwing the 10th Amendment in the trash as they rapidly expand the power of the federal government with complete disregard for its constitutional limits.

And note too that this is heavily tied to the Western European and North American style of socialism, which believes that if we just get the smartest people together to come up with the best ideas, and give them the power to implement those ideas, that this is the best way to govern society.

But it's antithetical to liberty. Our system does not believe in blindly following the "best" ideas, because we know what's "best" is in the eye of the beholder. We believe in two things: protecting the rights of individuals, and after that, leaving the rest up to the will of the majority.

The Democrats don't believe that. If they did, they would not ignore the Constitution or federal law whenever they didn't like what it said.

(As this D.C. voting plan not only harms the rule of law which protects our rights, but also facially and illegally reduces the relative representation of all states (except Utah), I've added it to my list of liberties lost under Obama.)