I believe it was Joe Sobran who once said that the Constitution
poses no threat to our form of government. Certainly that
is true with the plan to grant the District of Columbia a real,
i.e., voting congressman.
Reports the Washington Times:
Buoyed by the election of President Obama and additional
Democratic gains in Congress, backers of a bill granting the
District full representation in the House perceive Senate
action this weekas the turning point in a decades-long quest.
"If it goes through the Senate, I think it will become law,"
said former Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, a moderate Republican who
served roughly 14 years in Congress and backed the city's
effort.
The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 is
expected to be debated Monday in the Senate, then come up for a
crucial preliminary vote Tuesday. A final Senate vote could
come before Friday.
The bill provides one full House vote for the heavily
Democratic District and an additional seat for
Republican-leaning Utah in an attempt at a bipartisan
compromise on the issue. In 2007, a similar bill fell three
votes shy of advancing in the Senate after passing the House on
a 241-177 vote.
Now, one can sympathize with people who have no voting
representatives in Congress (either House or Senate). But
the best answer would be to carve out a much smaller federal
government enclave and retrocede the rest of the District back to
Maryland, from whence it came more than two centuries ago.
Then residents could vote for both House and Senate members.
However, the plan before Congress is flatly
unconstitutional. Article I, Section 2 states: "The
House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen
every second Year by the People of the several States."
Note that the Constitution says "states." Not
"districts." Not "cities." Not "thingies." Not
"geographical designations which we want to treat like
states." But "states."
But then, as Joe Sobran noted, the Constitution really doesn't
have much to do with the operation of the U.S. government any
more.