The Seat Congress Can't Offer

The Washington Post ^ | Thursday, March 29, 2007 | George F. Will

[MinorityRepublican]

Lincoln supposedly said: If I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Five? No, calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg. Which brings us to the proposal to treat the District of Columbia as if it were a state.

Today's Democratic-controlled Congress wants to give the District, by legislation, a full voting member in the House of Representatives. Having failed to achieve ratification of a constitutional amendment, sent to the states in 1978, which would have conferred statehood on the District (only 16 states ratified it, 22 short of the required number), Democrats now say an amendment is unnecessary, and a statute will suffice to do essentially that.

Many clauses in the Constitution leave room for conflicting interpretations. What constitutes "commerce . . . among the several states," "establishment of religion," "cruel and unusual punishments"? Regarding the composition of the House of Representatives, however, the Constitution is unambiguous. Article I, Section 2 says the House shall be composed of members chosen "by the people of the several states."

Until the nation's flag has 51 stars -- at which point the District will have two senators -- the city should not have a full member of the House. (Today, the D.C. "delegate" votes in committees and on floor amendments -- as long as the vote does not change the outcome -- but not on final passage of legislation.) But those -- mostly Democrats -- who favor full House membership for the District cite Congress's constitutional power "to exercise exclusive legislation" over "the seat of the government." They say Congress can exercise its "exclusive legislation" power to nullify Article I, Section 2's requirement that House members be chosen by the people "of the several states."

[pawdoggie]

Take the part of D.C. that was carved from Virginia, and allow those in that area to vote in Virginia. Take the part of D.C. that was taken from Maryland...and so on. If the exact sections borrowed from the states weren't properly recorded, then set up a commission to apportion(more or less arbitrarily, but permanently)sections of D.C. to the surrounding states. It wouldn't be pretty, but it would beat the hell out of another assault on the Constitution.

[loboinok]

George Will also neglected to mention section 3.

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Take the part of D.C. that was carved from Virginia, and allow those in that area to vote in Virginia. Take the part of D.C. that was taken from Maryland...and so on. If the exact sections borrowed from the states weren't properly recorded, then set up a commission to apportion(more or less arbitrarily, but permanently)sections of D.C. to the surrounding states. It wouldn't be pretty, but it would beat the hell out of another assault on the Constitution.

Without endorsing your proposal (haven't really thought much on it), it would be a lot easier than you say -- because the 32 square miles ceded by Virginia to DC in 1790 were retroceded back to Virginia in 1847 (DC said they didn't need it, basically). So all 68 square miles of DC today is formerly Maryland territory.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Now that I think about it, though, if you simply conferred "Maryland citizenship" on all DC residents (on the grounds that they live in formerly Maryland territory), the effect would be tactically the same as the Democrat proposal -- you'd just be granting Maryland an "extra", more-or-less permanently Democrat, seat in Congress.

So, both tactically and Constitutionally, the right thing to do is stick with the original construction and strict interpretation of the Constitution for the last 217 years -- and tell the Democrats to shove it.

[screaming eagle2]

The ONLY way that D.C. gets to vote in Congress is IF it becomes a state.

[Grut]

Lincoln supposedly said: If I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Five? No, calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.

Obviously, Lincoln wasn't a Legal Positivist.

[webboy45]

I would give DC a representative to keep it from becoming a state, but it should be done by constitutional amendment.

[lowbridge]

bump

[lowbridge]

bump

[teeman8r]

i also believe a clause returns the land to maryland if statehood becomes imminent.... marylands senators would lose effectiveness if 2 more were added to the senate mix...

or something like that...

t

[pawdoggie]

Now that I think about it, though, if you simply conferred "Maryland citizenship" on all DC residents (on the grounds that they live in formerly Maryland territory), the effect would be tactically the same as the Democrat proposal -- you'd just be granting Maryland an "extra", more-or-less permanently Democrat, seat in Congress. So, both tactically and Constitutionally, the right thing to do is stick with the original construction and strict interpretation of the Constitution for the last 217 years -- and tell the Democrats to shove it.

In the immortal words of Dick Nixon, "let me make myself perfectly clear": if I had my druthers, the Nation's Capital would long ago have been moved to somewhere in the vicinity of Lincoln, Nebraska, or Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado. That would have been the most logical thing to do during the "Cold War", and even today it would be a great bulwark against a 9-11 style sneak attack. It would also represent recognition that this country's population moved West a long time ago, and it would have the the practical effect of driving the "elites" out of their comfortable hidey holes in the Boston-New York-D.C. corridor.

As unhappy as we might be to see additional congressional seat(s) and (perhaps) an electoral vote or two go to Maryland (or Virginia), we will be unhappier still to see the rise of a city-state (which might give NYC and LA ideas), because the Democrats just aren't going to let go of the image of a million "disenfranchised, mainly minority" US citizens in the District, even if many of the denizens thereof have the option of moving to a nearby state (which is what has polluted Virginia and Maryland politics already).

[goldstategop]

The Democrats are willing to subvert the Constitution for partisan advantage. What's galling is these are the same people that have accused the Bush Administration of violating the Constitution for political ends. But hey - its kosher if the Democrats do it.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus