Monday
Bravely opposing oath breaking
It's unjust that the 588,292 people living in Washington, D.C. (2007 estimate) are governed by laws made in a legislature in which they have no voting representation. And it's particularly unjust because when it comes to the District, the Congress on which D.C. has no representation has the power to intervene, and frequently does intervene (as someone who doesn't follow the D.C. home rule debate that closely, the two examples I'm familiar with are school vouchers and gun laws), in what would be matters for purely local law in any other state or municipality. So I favor D.C. having representation. Plus, I'm slightly obsessed with the idea of expanding the House of Representatives, so I should really favor the bill to add two seats to the House and giving D.C. one of them.
Unfortunately, it's constitutionally prohibited. The House of Representatives is made up of “Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States” and the Member chosen shall “be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.” Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 1-2. D.C. is not a state, as recognized by Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17, linked above, and as reinforced by the 23rd Amendment, which gave D.C. its Presidential electors. The Constitutionally proper solution to the D.C. problem is either a constitutional amendment specifically giving them a rep., or, whether by amendment or simple statute, ceding all of D.C. which isn't office buildings back to one of Maryland and Virginia and giving that state another seat in the House, covering a voting district roughly shaped like the land ceded back to that state. That would simultaneously solve the problem of D.C. having no Senators either.
I've heard rumors that there are non-terrible arguments in favor of the constitutionality of such a law, but I don't know what they are what they are and I'm not looking them up right now. The argument the N.Y. Times editorial board gives in favor is terrible: “The better argument, as respected constitutional scholars argue, is that Article I’s ‘District Clause’ gives Congress sweeping authority over the District of Columbia. That authority includes the right to award it Congressional representation.” This is nonsense, a clause granting Congress power over D.C. can't be the source of Congress's power to give D.C. additional power.
|
Unfortunately, it's constitutionally prohibited. The House of Representatives is made up of “Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States” and the Member chosen shall “be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.” Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 1-2. D.C. is not a state, as recognized by Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17, linked above, and as reinforced by the 23rd Amendment, which gave D.C. its Presidential electors. The Constitutionally proper solution to the D.C. problem is either a constitutional amendment specifically giving them a rep., or, whether by amendment or simple statute, ceding all of D.C. which isn't office buildings back to one of Maryland and Virginia and giving that state another seat in the House, covering a voting district roughly shaped like the land ceded back to that state. That would simultaneously solve the problem of D.C. having no Senators either.
I've heard rumors that there are non-terrible arguments in favor of the constitutionality of such a law, but I don't know what they are what they are and I'm not looking them up right now. The argument the N.Y. Times editorial board gives in favor is terrible: “The better argument, as respected constitutional scholars argue, is that Article I’s ‘District Clause’ gives Congress sweeping authority over the District of Columbia. That authority includes the right to award it Congressional representation.” This is nonsense, a clause granting Congress power over D.C. can't be the source of Congress's power to give D.C. additional power.
