I mean, does anybody have one? What’s the legal justification for barring DC residents from having voting representatives in Congress? Is it that pesky Constitution again?
Where is Ashcroft with his big, muddy, Constitution-stomping shoes when we need him?
Fine, only residents of states can have Congressional representation. And DC gets rejected for statehood on the grounds that Congress is required to retain legislative authority over the land called The Federal Capital, not to mention that Congress would suddenly get a few more democratic seats.
I guess I can understand all of that. I don’t like it, but I understand it. But here is what I don’t understand. It’s the taxation without representation thing. How can it be insisted that taxation grants voting rights, but then deny voting rights to those so taxed? How can the two conditions exist without contradiction?
Congressional Quarterly reported that DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton went before the House Rules Committee last month to ask that limited floor voting rights be restored for delegates to the House of Representatives (The incoming Republican majority revoked these voting rights in January 1995).
She argued that DC residents should have a vote in Congress because they pay taxes. Unconvinced, Republican Rules Committee Vice-Chair Porter Goss (FL) responded: “There are all kinds of people who pay taxes and don’t have the right to vote.” When she asked him for an example, he provided two: felons and juveniles.
Is this the best they can do? :mad:
Whatever happened to equal protection under the law (wording?). Why is this an issue that can’t come to some kind of peaceful equilibrium? Either I get a voice in Congress, or quit taxing me. What’s so hard about that?
Well, Goss is right. Felons and juveniles do pay taxes and don’t have the right to vote. I guess a third group would be non-citizens. I guess the thing is, while “No taxation without representation” makes a good slogan, and was one of the slogans in the American Revolution, it’s not a constitutional provision, or enshrined in law. And, to some extent, residents of DC can vote. The city government is elected, DC has a delegate in the house (admittedly non-voting), and DC has three electoral votes for the presidency.
While I agree with you that DC probably should be a state or have the rights of a state, I don’t think the “no taxation w/o representation” argument really works.
I remember someone on the boards a while back coming up with a good solution: Reduce the Federal District to the White House, Capitol, SC building and a few other federal buildings and let Maryland re-annex the rest of the city (including most, if not all, of the residential area). You’ll then be represented as Marylanders.
The Constitution says what it says. It’s clear and unambiguous.
If three-fourths of the states want to change it, as they did when the 23rd Amendment was ratified, then it’ll say something new. For now, however, since “equal protection” and who votes for Congress are BOTH in the Constitution, they BOTH apply. And as Captain Amazing correctly observes, “No taxation without representation,” is not a constitutional principle.
By the way, before other territories were admitted to the Union as states, they were required to clean up their acts. Not electing Willie Wilson is a good start. Nice job.
The rationale I’ve sometimes heard is that since D.C.'s essential reason for existence is the federal government itself (and we don’t want the feds getting too powerful), we shouldn’t do something that would essentially amount to giving the federal government a vote in selecting its own members. Kind of silly, since enfranchisement is about citizens, not occupations, but there you have it.
Personally, I’d compromise. I believe it’s ridiculous to give two Senate seats to a single city–complete nonstarter, in my view. Of course, I don’t even think Wyoming should get two Senators, but that’s a different argument. Nevertheless, repesentation in the House is apportioned by population anyway, so I’d be happy to let D.C. move a couple reps into the House.
Given that Wyoming does have two Senators, why is it a “complete non-starter” to give two Senate seats to a “single city”, but not to give two Senate seats to assorted more-or-less randomly defined hunks of territory?
If you want to argue that the Senate is inherently unfair and should be done away with or radically reformed, fine, but if we have one, we should have one. Telling a bunch of American citizens “Well, the Senate was a bad idea anyway, so we’re just going to not let you have any voice in it, although of course we’re not going to do anything to remedy why we think the Senate wa a bad idea in the first place”–now that’s a non-starter.
This is what I’d like to get further (deeper?) into. Couldn’t the 14th amendment conceivably be seen by some Federal Judge as the ace of spades trump over the Article 1 excerpts in the OP, and order Congress to provide DC with the “equal protection under the laws”, including congressional voting members?
My point, MEB, is that I don’t like the system for apportionment of representatives in the Senate, and that I don’t want to make a bad thing worse by expanding it. I’d also point out that at least Wyoming has the possibility of growth that would justify two Senators. Can’t stuff too many more people inside the borders of the District of Columbia, however.
When two laws appear to conflict, they should be read in pari materia, together, to harmonize them and give effect to both. And when two laws cover the same subject, and one is general and one is specific, the specific “trumps” the general.
Why should judicial fiat create a change that the states are unwilling to ratify?
Well, Blalron, we’ve decided we don’t personally like wherever it is you live, so if you want to maintain your basic right as an American citizen to have a voice in how you are governed, you’ll have to sell your house, deal with real estate lawyers and banks, and move somewhere else.
Hey, if this works, maybe we can make you wear a funny hat if you want to exercise your right to free speech!
“[The Congress shall have the Power] 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”
… so it shouldn’t even be possible to grant Statehood to Washington D.C. without a Constitutional amendment.
The Constitution allows congress to exercise power, but it does not require it. Compare the District clause you quoted with other clauses in section 8 of article I. Congress has the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States” (clause 2), but no one has ever construed this to mean Congress is required by the Constitution to run a debt.
Congress has the power “to declare war” (clause 11), but no one has ever construed this to mean that the Constitution requires the country be in a constant state of war with some country.
The law is settled that, no matter how much power congress has, that power can be restrained if it violates the rights of the citizens. For well over a century, the courts have regularly struck down congressional enactments over the District which violate the rights of its citizens, so the power is clearly not unlimited.
Actually, Article I, Section 8, clause 17 shouldn’t prevent Congress from granting statehood to the people of Washington. The clause only gives an upper limit on the size of the district acting as the seat of the government of the United States. And it’s already established that the district can be reduced in size; D.C. was originally a perfect square, ten miles on a side (100 square miles), but what is now Arlington County and part of the City of Alexandria was ceded back to Virginia (where it had originally come from in the first place) before the Civil War. So, as in Zev Steinhardt’s post, Congress reduces the size of the Federal District to the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court building, the Library of Congress, the Congressional office buildings, and the Mall with the monuments and Smithsonian–a small area making up the ceremonial core of federal power, with zero inhabitants. The rest of the current district is admitted as the new State of New Columbia. (I don’t know where old Columbia is, but that seems to be the name favored by backers of D.C. statehood.)
The kicker isn’t going to be Article I, Section 8, Clause 17; the kicker is going to be Amendment XXIII:
If that weren’t repealed by a new Constitutional Amendment, then New Columbia would have electoral votes like any other state–in its case undoubtedly three–and the new mini-District constituting the seat of government of the United States would also have three electoral votes. I said the new Federal District would probably have zero inhabitants, but in fact at least one family would live there, so if the 23rd Amendment weren’t repealed as part of D.C. Statehood, you might have the rather bizarre situation where the President of the United States (and his family) would control three of the electoral votes needed to select the President.
Actually, D.C., which had a population of 572,059 in the 2000 Census, had a population of 802,178 in the 1950 Census, so clearly D.C. could grow by at least that much. And it’s not like some great Wyoming Rush is really all that likely.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s grossly unfair that DC residents don’t have representation, but I think that the Reptilians are very resistant to having more Democrats in Congress (that would be the result without a doubt). Also with the history of electoral irresponsibility the DC voters have shown (electing Barry AFTER the crack thing), the Democrats could potentially be embarrassed by whatever DC decided to put into office…of course, other states have some embarrassing people in office, too;)…
And Maryland won’t take in DC because it would be too much to bear…
Anyway, it’s a political hot potato that won’t likely be seriously considered by the powers that be anytime soon…
Why hasn’t it happened? Besides the District’s poor record of showing its ability to manage its own affairs (ref. the aforementioned Mayor Marion “Bitch set me up - I can’t believe it” Barry), you can add this: Any elected rep from DC would be a Democrat. No other reliably-Republican non-state is knocking on the door to provide balance that the Congressional GOP could comfortably vote for. Hawaii wouldn’t be a state without Alaska, too.
Well, except, as it is now, the President isn’t a citizen of D.C., but of the state he comes from. When 2004 rolls around, assuming he runs for reelection, Bush is going to vote for himself (I’d assume) in Texas, not in D.C.
And, right now, there are some Congressmen who live in their offices, so under the scenario above, if the President gets to vote for D.C. electors, would they?
You know, I’ve heard two people on this board already blaming Republicans for preventing DC from having (presumably Democratic, not unreasonably) statehood or state-like congressional representation.
Do either of you mind telling me why no move to do such a thing was made during the forty years that Democrats ran Congress? Clearly there’s more than party politics behind that matter.