Congress no longer respects the Constitution
Published Wed, Feb 25 2009 2:20 PM
Technorati Tags: Liberals, Democrats, Politics, Constitution
People For the American Way Public Policy Department Legislative Representative Jen Herrick has posted a blog entry on The Hill Blog. Jen is excited that our Congress is about to enact a blatant violation of the Constitution.
Long lines at the polls on Election Day are a problem not to be ignored. But imagine if you had been standing in line to vote since 1801. That’s where you’ll find the nearly 600,000 Americans living in DC. Thankfully, their 200-year wait is nearly over.
Yesterday the Senate brought DC one step closer to the ballot box by clearing a procedural hurdle placed in the way of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 (S. 160). I was in the Capitol as 62 Senators cast votes in favor of moving this bill forward. By the end of the week, it may very well be in the hands of the House. Then it’s on to the President’s desk. President Obama is a strong supporter of DC voting rights and a former cosponsor of the bill, which would give DC a full Representative with the same voting power as other House members.
I have to ask, what about the approximately four million Americans living in Puerto Rico? Or the hundred seventy five thousand living in Guam? They're Americans too, and they too have no voting Representatives in Congress or the Senate.
As I joined my colleagues who had gathered for the vote, I couldn’t help but think about my own journey to get to this point. DC voting rights has had a place in my portfolio for some time, and an even longer history with People For the American Way, an organization that has worked for years in the field and on Capitol Hill alongside DC Vote and its coalition in support of DC’s voting voice in Congress.
Yesterday was a day of great celebration for all of us who belong to this movement, but the fight is not yet over. The right-wing has S. 160 (and its House companion, H.R. 157) in its sight and will try to derail its progress. Contact your Representative and Senators to make sure they are on the right side of history when it comes to the rights of DC residents. The most immediate need is in the Senate, where the message is simple: no poison pill amendments – pass a clean bill!
The fight will not be over even when DC can cast a House vote. It is high time the nation’s capital be given both House and Senate representation, with voting power in both chambers.
This is not the Constitutional way to address this issue. The Constitution is very explicit about the composition of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Section 2 of Article 1 of the Constitution begins…
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.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…
So a Representative must be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. I'm sorry, and I understand the desire of the people of Washington D.C. to have a voting representative, but the District of Columbia is not a State. Therefore, no-one is eligible to be a voting representative that is an inhabitant of Washington D.C. As for Jen's desire for Senate representation for Washington D.C., Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution begins…
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State,
Obviously then, not being a State, the District of Columbia can have no Senators either. These are not mere procedural hurdles blocking S 160 or H.R. 157. The Constitution is very clear on this issue. This has nothing to do with the “right-wing” having this “in its sight” with plans to “try to derail its progress,” the United States Constitution FORBIDS IT.
The argument is made that since Article 1, section 8 gives Congress 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,” that that includes the power to give the District of Columbia voting representation. This is pure sophistry and ignores the plain meaning of the rest of the Constitution.
The ONLY Constitutional means by which the District of Columbia can gain voting representation in the House of Representatives and the Senate is for the District of Columbia to become a State. Article 4, section 3 of the Constitution provides for a way that that can happen…
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State 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.
I think that if this were to happen though that the States of Maryland and Virginia must both consent as the District of Columbia was ceded to the federal government by them. I seriously doubt that Congress would take this route in the first place though, because in doing so the District of Columbia would no longer be “such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States,” but would instead be a full-fledged State. In that case, Congress would sacrifice their power to “exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,” over the District of Columbia.
So, I come to the conclusion that our Congress, at least 62 Senators anyway and a large number of members of the House of Representatives as well, has no respect for the Constitution. I also conclude that “People For the American Way” are in fact NOT “for the American way” at all.
But then, hasn't that been obvious all along?
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1318
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2009/2/25/1318.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
David responded with:
 | Oh, it's been at least 50 years since any serious respect for the Constitution has had any real influence in ANY part of the "feddle gummint"--apart from minor aberrant bobbles here and there... |
Stanford Matthews responded with:
 | I can only say that I object to this and voiced those objections to my elected reps. One of them was a co-sponsor of the bill so more than usual it was an exercise in futility.
Lately I have been wondering if recalls or bills sponsored by the public are avenues that would be possible to counter an unresponsive Congress and White House? |
Perri Nelson responded with: Recalls
 | It would be lovely were it so, but the Constitution provides no means for the people to recall an elected official or to sponsor a bill, at least at the federal level. It would require a Constitutional Amendment. And, of course, the only way that can happen is if a sufficient majority of Congress votes to bring one before the States, or a sufficient majority of States calls for a Constitutional Convention.
The first is unlikely. I simply cannot imagine Congress willingly giving up that kind of power to the people. The second, should it happen would essentially amount to a reset, because there would be no limitations on what a Constitutional Convention might do. |
Stanford Matthews responded with:
| As it stands today and has for some time 'the people' are severely limited in their options for redress of grievances. I believe that is why one is nearly forced to use political parties or PACs or some other existing vehicle that most closely agrees with their own position on issues to get anything done.
Occasionally their is a widespread opposition among members of the general public to actions in government that receives enough attention the office holders feel compelled to comply in some manner to save their jobs.
Outside of that I must admit I understand the lobbyists, money and special interest who influence the outcomes. Cuz what else is there? |
JMB responded with:
 | Wow, Now that’s going to be a State, you wouldn’t want to be caught dead messing around with! Knowing that it maintains both congresses, and that infamous Federal Supreme court, all at the same time! |
Perri Nelson responded with: Redress of Grievances
| There are few options left to the people indeed. We couldn't even sue to have this statutory "representative" removed and have the law overturned if it passes. The courts would simply deny that we had any standing as mere voters or taxpayers. It seems that the only time that Congress respects the Constitution is when it works in their favor. Otherwise, as they have for tens of decades, they ignore it. |