|
Friday, 27 February 2009
De-Districting
 Should the District of Columbia enjoy the full benefits of congressional membership? The Constitution says no. Congress is on the verge of granting the District of Columbia statehood on the cheap: This week, lawmakers in both chambers are debating a scheme to give the District a permanent seat in the House of Representatives. The bill in question violates the plain meaning of the Constitution and should go no further. For years, Democrats have dreamed of conferring statehood on the District of Columbia, if only because they know it will increase their partisan clout in the Capitol. As with so many large cities, Washington, D.C., is a one-party jurisdiction. Neither its mayor nor a single person on its 13-member city council is currently a Republican. If “New Columbia” were to become the 51st state, it would surely send a delegation of Democrats to the Hill. They would probably live on the left-wing fringes of their party, too. When the District created the position of “shadow senator” in 1990, voters responded by electing Jesse Jackson to this honorary office.Because efforts to make D.C. a full-fledged state have failed, the city’s political backers have resorted to incremental steps. Much like Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam, the District currently sends a delegate to Congress. The rules governing these posts have changed over the years, but in general delegates have been allowed to vote in committee but not on the floor of the House. That’s because the Constitution forbids non-states from enjoying this privilege. The senators and congressmen who think otherwise should take a refresher course on Article I, Section 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment: “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not ... be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.” Moreover: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States.” There was a time when D.C.’s political backers appreciated this prohibition. In 1977, Congress passed a constitutional amendment that would have granted representation to the District — the most direct way of lifting an obvious constitutional ban — but the states failed to ratify it. Years earlier it took the passage of the 23rd Amendment to give District residents the right to vote for president. Read more here Posted on 02/27/2009 6:23 AM by Bobbie Patray
|