The District of Columbia has more people than Wyoming, our emptiest state (over 500,000 each), so why shouldn't the former half a million have all the privileges of the latter? As a political scientist and concerned citizen, I can think of no good reason. As a Republican, I can think of a very good reason: D.C. would be solidly Democratic. I suppose that the first two perspectives have authority over the third.
The question is how to get those privileges for D.C. The Senate narrowly failed to close debate on a bill (57 yes to 42 no) that would have given D.C. a vote in the House in exchange for another seat for heavily Republican Utah. The Washington Post is miffed.
THE U.S. SENATE had a chance yesterday to make history. It chose instead to add another unconscionable chapter to that well-worn volume that could be titled "The Second-Class Status of the People of the District of Columbia." A few Republicans showed enough gumption to vote for principle and against party interest. Most Republicans, led by their leaders and egged on by President Bush -- who talks about democracy from Burma to Zimbabwe but not for his own neighbors -- did the reverse.
As for those Republicans who voted for "principle," well there is Orin Hatch, Senator from, you guessed it, Utah.
In remarks before the vote, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) made an impassioned plea to his colleagues to, at the very least, engage in a real debate. "My gosh," he said, "when has the United States Senate been afraid to debate a constitutional issue as important as this one?"
Well, gosh darn it, those Republicans who voted against the bill may have been voting party interest, but they also happened to be supporting the Constitution. Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they ain't out to get you, and just because you have a base motive doesn't mean you're wrong. Here is the Constitution itself, which might be allowed to have a say. From EPublius!, the work of your favorite political scientists, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
I hope you didn't miss the words "the people of the several states." The text of the Constitution is as unambiguous on this point as it is on the number of senate seats alloted to each state. Only the people of a state can chose a member of the House of Representatives. The bill was unconstitutional on its face, and the shame goes to those whose "principles" include contempt for the fundamental law.
If Congress wants D.C. to have a vote in the House, they should admit it to statehood. If the Republicans were really shrewd, they would push for that. Of course, the State of Columbia would give the Democrats two senators to go with their shiny new Congressperson, but it would also show the Republicans as the party that cares about the Constitution. That might not do them ill right now. It is perfectly clear that neither the Democrats nor the Washington Post give a rat's ass for the old piece of parchment.
Recent Comments